Talk:British National Party

Archive

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) archived the talk page (old comments are here). I also think a fresh start on the comments page is needed, so we can have a fresh start in examining how to improve the article.

For my part, I'd like to suggest moving most the detail on the election results from the lead section into the election performance section.

Also, the "Opposition" section has lots of information which is related to the "Claims of repression of free speech" section - perhaps it should be moved, or the "free speech" part made a subsection of "opposition"? I'm not sure how to best do that. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that a good place to start would be to wait for the independent Peer review to conclude and await for the recommendations. this way there would be an independent basis for discussion to start and would be focused solely on the content and structure of the article. It would also allow the discussion to be lead by policies and guidelines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the election performance - if it's moved, maybe have a sentence such as "the party has a seat on the London Assemby, and has consistantly been the fifth-largest party in other elections, though without holding any other representatives or power"? Free Speech as a subsection of Opposition is quite a good idea though. The main thing the article probably needs is more information about their general non-racial policies (especially the environment), and their responses to major events such as the credit crunch--MartinUK (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we also improve the policies section

This article is obsessed with immigration and racail stuff, why not add their actual policies from in full detail? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.0.182 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

To be a little pat - their policies are all to do with immigration. On a more serious note - feel free to add stuff on their other policies, but not to the point that the 'ethno-nationalism' is downplayed, per WP:Undue Weight. --NeoNerd 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can get the BNP's new manifesto from the website, it is under policies section. Hasve a look. It's a little brief compaired to the 2005 but at least it is "with the times" :)

Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark ? The racial policies are the defining policies- the rest is just bolt-on. I don't think anyone joins them for their opposition to docking of dogs' tails.--Streona (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about actually removing details of the race-related policies - only of adding the other stuff, which in some cases is interesting and at least gives some impression of what people are interested in. To extend your analogy, there might be virulent supporters of dog-tail-docking who are BNP members without being aware of a polict they strongly object to. We've already got a few non-racial policies, such as supporting capital/corporal punishment and supporting special schools, but there are more.--MartinUK (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree Martin, but what's with this "we" ? Is that "we" editors of wikipedia ?--Streona (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are over 9000 editors. This is just the lul before the storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I mean anyone who's edited this article.--MartinUK (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP is not a whites only party

Although it is primerly aimed at white people, it actually has a half Turkish man, sevrel Jewish councillors and an Ethnic Liassion Comittee. (this has sevreal sikh members)

I think the term "whites only" or "white nationalism" doesnt properly describe the parties belief's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.240.108 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP Constitution seems to imply that it is.--Streona (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a direct reference from the constitution to back up this claim.--Lucy-marie (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Constitution of the British National Party, SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP, subsections 1, 2 and 3. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does not use the word "white" anywhere in the section. (and its from 2004). Its only excluding people that are not part of the indigenous ethnic groups listed. Says nothing about mainland southern Europeans or eastern. This definition would exclude most of Europe unless they have some connection with these groups. Saying whites only and white nationalism is really a POV of opponents to the party. In contrast there are many organizations that state specifically "black" as an ethnic group excluding all people which are "white" this seems to work out that everyone no matter their region of origin is black as long as they are not indigenous European.

An example taken from the British National black police association's constitution. "The definition of "black" is one that emphasises the common experience and determination of people of African, African-Caribbean, Middle-Eastern, Asian or Asian sub-continent origin to..." This is clearly blacks only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by121.213.167.14 (talk)

The NBPA is pretty much anyone except whites. That quote is an umbrella way of covering all ethnic minorities without explicitly saying so. I'm not convinced that all those races/cultural groups have a 'common experience' in the UK anyway.--MartinUK (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't use the word "white" anywhere in the section, for the simple reason that the BNP would be prosecuted for discrimination if it did! Hence the careful, long, drawn-out phrasing, which can only be interpreted as meaning that membership is restricted to Britons (and their descendants) who are white. Incidentally, this section is concerned with whether or not the BNP is a whites only party and the Constitution says (in a roundabout way) that it is. To add in the separate issue of white nationalism is not appropriate, but seeing as it has been, let me say this. Being 'whites only' is far from making it a 'white nationalist' party and I, for one, would assert that it is not, though it definitely includes such people in its membership. (White nationalists would have to accept some measure of equality between Britons, French, Americans, Germans etc; hardly the view of the BRITISH National Party). However, to say that the BNP is 'white nationalist' as is stated in the infobox is not "POV of opponents to the party" but representative of the respectable sources cited in support of that statement.

The fact that it's from 2004 (presented by the anonymous contributor above as a criticsm) is totally irrelevant. It is the latest and up-to-date constitution of the party. Sorry, but they haven't issued another one since! Emeraude (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No emeraude literally everything you said is wrong and entirely your POV. Yes by default the party's constitution by saying only indigenous British would incidentally be white BUT (and a big but you have to actually be able to comprehend this) because the party is excluding other "white" ethnicities that are not indigenous the blanket term white can not be used. It is entirely in keeping with an Indigenous rights party of which there are many. For instance there are identical Australian Aboriginal groups with similar definitions. These do not attract any critcism for this. It would start to make ordinary people think the BNP is simpy being criticised just for its foundation being on indigenous rights which is most definitely racist. So you see it can be interpreted in another way that is NPOV.

If it really is persecutable offense to use the word white I personally pity your country (people) you have had your human rights stripped from you. To not be able to identify with a common global ethnic group. To think you have organisations that would use a blanket term "black" to create what seems to be a international "get whitey" movement makes it more serious.

The fact that it's from 2004 was not a direct critcism (did i say anything critical) its just its old its 2008 now you'd naturally assume new releases in that time.. If they really haven't released a new edition then well thats that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude in the Armed forces membership discussion. You have said because the words "fascist" and "communist" aren't in the source you have removed the section. So how can you justify "white" and "white nationalism" when neither word are used in the BNP constitution section you referred Lucy-marie to.

The reason why the BNP have a petting zoo for "ethnics" like Mr. Rustem, is made clear here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/01/uk.race.

"Griffin met senior members of the BNP to discuss ways of quashing the threat of legal action. The issue first materialised late last year when an Asian man threatened to sue the BNP after being barred from joining the party. The BNP's constitution stipulates that all its members must be of 'British or closely kindred native European stock.' The BNP's head of legal affairs, Lee Barnes, has warned legal action would be a 'potentially fatal attack' on the party, providing its opponents with 'the means to bleed us to death with compensation law suits'. "

and it is, as Emeraude, says framed (by legal eagle Lee Barnes -lol) in such a way as to prevent their being sued if the word "white" were to be included. I understand that the BNP Security Department is headed up by two former South African policemen. South Africa is a long way from Britain, but they are of white ancestry. As for membership of the Black Police Officers Association, the BNP on their website ask if the BNP are racist. It then compares itself with the BPOA implying that the BPOA is racially exclusive. Presumably this means the BNP do not deny being racist "as well". This is of course irrelevent because this article is not about the BPOA or Australian Aborigines but about the BNP. --Streona (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking about the Black Police Association is largely rhetorical. In fact, one of the linked articles on their main webpage[1] lists 32 organisations which are explicitly only for a particular ethnic or cultural minority (selected from only a handful of towns) and states that "In reality, none of these organisations are “racist” — each and every community has the inalienable right to look after its own interests", and that this is what they are doing for 'indigenous British folk". At the same time, this page notes that they are criticised for having an 'all-white' membership.--MartinUK (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that they may not be racist, only white nationalist then? which is kind of where this discussion came in...--Streona (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on your definition of a white person, which can be an ambiguous point. The central core of the BNP's policy is about preserving British/European Christian values against a perceived influx of hostile cultures. Non-practising Jewish people are apparently white enough, as are some Middle Easterners who have explicitly chosen Western ways above Islamic or similar.--MartinUK (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If as you say it is so difficult to define precisely who is white and who isn't (assuming that it is important to want to), then does the comcept of "white nationalism" exist, except wholly subjectively, as it does in the minds of the KKK. In which case we seem to be in the position of bald men fighting over a comb. "British/Christian values" are even more difficult to obtain a consensus for. Looking at British values in the long-term I would suggest binge drinking and prowess at hand to hand combat.--Streona (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about a gradual breakdown in decency, ethics and social cohesion, which left- and right-wingers would generally differ on the causes of. Anyway, that's off-topic. The indigeous British race is undoubtedly a fusion of several different European strands (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Roman, Norse/Viking, French/Heugenot and Irish). Over the centuries, something called British Culture evolved, with differences and similarities to the rest of Europe, but more differences than similarities from the rest of the world. Those European races are much more similar in DNA, culture and heritage than those who have arrived en masse in the last 60 or so years. Is British culture worth preserving, or is it being enhanced by additions from further afield? That's the BNP's question--MartinUK (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The question for the rest of us; is British culture (decency, ethics, social cohesion, tolerance, democracy etc) enhanced by the BNP ? And is it a whites only party ? - which was the original question (remember we have to keep to the proper discussion or LucyMarie will come and sort us out!- no offence Lucy)

I feel that many British Commonwealth immigrants DO share certain things in common we do not share with other Europeans- such as the English language, service in the British Army fighting against our fellow Europeans at El Alamein, Monte Cassino etc. (except for the Poles)--Streona (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not 1948 anymore. How many of today's immigrants come from the Commonwealth countries? And when were we last at war against a European country? Also, most Europeans speak perfectly functional (albeit often Americanised) English nowadays. Having fought for Britain doesn't seem to be a big deal - we're fussy about letting Gurkhas in but don't seem able to keep Islamic extremism out. Sorry for going off-topic again, but it needed saying--MartinUK (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was mostly black people you didn't like ? (I think you know my opinion of the Notting Hill Carnival !) I -along with many Muslims I know, or am related you- share your antipathy to Islamo-fascists. However the BNP are just the other side of the fascist coin and depend on these extremist muppets to build their support.--Streona (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all getting off-topic. In the article, "whites-only" is supported by 3 recent sources - 2 of the more respectable national newspapers, and a news item from the BNP itself. These sources do appear to support "whites-only" unambiguously.

The BNP's constitution was mentioned above, you can read it here (PDF, 0.2 MiB). It says it limits membership by "ethnic origin". Primary sources like the constitution are open to interpretation (as can be seen by the discussion above), so Wikipedia generally suggests using secondary sources, like the 3 sources currently in use. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

A peer review has been undertaken of this article, I think the points raised are valid and need careful discussion and implementation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Employment Difficulties

Perhaps we could have a section on BNP members being sacked as a result of their political activities. Some have been sacked simply for membership- in one case for being a councillor- while others such as a teacher face being struck off for specific activities, such as posting on stormfront during work hours.--Streona (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good way to scare potential members away from the party, especially in tough economic times. We've already identified several jobs BNP members are barred from, isn't that enough?--MartinUK (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I had not really seen it like that- I was trying to be conciliatory, but why not? Or should we keep it shtum and get them sacked once they join? Is that kind? Why not just be NPOV ? --Streona (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the news item was the teacher was simply viewing the BNP website during work hours. Sounds like his political (human) rights being violated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7627055.stm

So I see steonas point this section could detail incidences of BNP members human rights being infringed.

Yes. There are several aspects here.

1. Right to join a trade union, or the right of the union to expel BNP members.

2. BNP members sacked for their party membership.

3. BNP members being sacked for specific actions.

4. Services from which the bnp are specifically banned.

I will look into this and sand box it. Whether or not we support "BNP human rights" or not, we can keep it factual and NPOV--Streona (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not a case of supporting them this is irrelevant. Your points except maybe 3. which is ambiguous, are all human rights violations. It would be a POV to ommit "human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are human rights issues. The courts have not necessarily agreed that there have been violations. I will try to look out some facts and leave the reader judge.--Streona (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

This section transcribed directly from the peer review for discussion.

British National Party

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD the lead is too long - it should be no more than four paragraphs but is currently six
• Be consistent about numbers - spell out numbers 10 or less so giving them the eighth largest share of the vote (however they only contested English seats, and came 5th [fifth] in these
• I think that controversial claims about a living person need a cite, even in the lead, so Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic; ...
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way

References

• There are quite a few dead links, see here Not sure if these can be found on the Internet Archive or not.
• Avoid direct external links in the article, use inline citations instead (so fix for example the long quotation starting In a speech to local party activists in Burnley in March 2006, he said: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. ..." which has only an EL and no refs as such.
• Article needs more references, for one example of many, see the Racial policies section As the party now states on its website: "The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ..." is a long direct quote without a cite. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Refs should be in numerical order, so fix The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right[13][14][15][12] ...
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair[25],[26][27] ...
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Refs for books and journals are formatted inconsistently too - they should all follow WP:CITE
• There are several citation needed tags which need to be fixed.

General and MOS points

• There are three dab links - see here
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower (Nick Griffin picture). Any chance for more images?
• Why is the British National Party (1960) not mentioned or linked in this article?

NPOV

• My biggest concern with the article is POV, as it seems fairly anti-BNP. It should not be pro- or anti-, just neutral. Please compare it to such Good Articles on political parties as Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Democratic Action Party, Green Party of Canada, Portuguese Communist Party, and United Malays National Organisation. I do not see any FAs on parties for comparison. I can go into more detail if needed.
• Many of the other issues raised have a bearing on POV too - the lead seems too detailed and POV
• The broken refs are mostly to BNP sites, so the claims cannot be backed up AND this indicates that the policies cited have changed since the broken links. Is this article about the current BNP or the BNP of a few years ago?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, a few good points are raised here. I'll work on a new lead (probably in the sandbox first) when I get some time, if nobody else does it first. The 'The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ...' section is included on every article on their website, as a sort of general mantra and philosophy, so that's easy to source. John Tyndall isn't living now, but a POV claim like that still needs a cite.--MartinUK (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref. rewriting intro. See previous discussions and attempts which can be found via Talk:British National Party/Archive 9#Postive proposals Emeraude (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote "The broken refs are mostly to BNP sites, .... AND this indicates that the policies cited have changed since the broken links." Not at all. The fact is that the BNP's webmaster left or was expelled and the whole site was later remade. It cannot and should not be taken to say that the things referred to have changed at all. It just does not follow. User:Emeraude (User talk:Emeraude) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In that live links are needed to be provided, to allow for verification having the links there which are dead is tottaly pointless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Armed forces membership

According to this section, members of fascist and communist organisations are banned from membership of the British armed forces. The source given was THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY (here) but a detailed search in this document for 'fascist', 'communist' and similar words draws a complete blank. The regs do state that service personnel may not engage in overt political activity for any party (indeed, a serving soldier etc may not be an MP). Perhaps someone can find the exact reference and cite it properly. Meanwhile, I have removed the section. Emeraude (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall when I was in the Navy being told this, but this would be OR--Streona (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comfirmation of Far-Right, as opposed to just Authoritarian.

Looking at this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright is it really right to say the BNP are far-right/extreme right? I don't know if this has already been debated. TJ, 1926 GMT 29/09/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.166.248 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting website, but there are a large number of good-quality references asserting the party is far-right, listed in the first sentence of the introduction. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Article keeps getting longer and longer

NPA please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Despite some editors attempt to have balanced discussion on cleaning up the article. It appears to be growing by the minute. If the biased POV pushers such as streona emaurade think that they are keeping the pressure on the BNP and somehow winning a battle against them, they are mistaken. They are actually helping them along this article is the joke of wiki. It has so many citations especialy for the info box contents. When compared with other parties whose political stance is unsourced or taken directly from the parties themselves. Why is the BNP the only party not allowed to say what it is with out 20 BBC citations to back it up. Its as if people in their effort to hammer the BNP are just unaware of how the article looks. If you don't get what I'm saying and stubbornly refuse to write a balanced article you are giving the BNP more publicity then you believe. Do you honestly think anyone but brainwashed saps would not see that lack of neutrality and obvious agenda by people who hate and fear this party. Might I suggest this article as another referance point for neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord notice it dosen't have 20 thousand citations calling it fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I have added two extra sections in an attempt to make the article more empathetic to the BNP (Councillors Achievements and BNP Difficulties with Employment). Your point seems to be that the article is pro-BNP now, which should please the anon contributors to this talk page, whose only contributions are personal abuse. Most people in Britain (and most of the anon IP numbers do not appear to be from Britain) have the impression that the BNP are a vicious, racist party and would be surprised to find an article that does not reflect this. Who was it said- "You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig"? People reading the article will find a great deal of factual information and may make of it what they will. The discussion of attempts to "clean up" seem to be based on the idea of deletion rather than progress, but even so they, like the last unsigned contribution are lacking in specific details, apart from complaining that it is TOO well sourced. My understanding of the Lega Nord is that it IS fascist, but I'll put down my Searchlight and check the article.--Streona (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Interesting, but the idea of opening fire on immigrants disturbs me somewhat.--Streona (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) The reason for all the citations, per WP:V is that in the past the article and elements of it have been highly contentious, with POV disputants challenging certain facts If you wish to make changes, go ahead, or even, go to the sandboxed version and produce a re-write...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia 58.168.3.132! And what is the weather like in Sydney? You would be the same 58.168.3.132 who thinks that I should leave my country because I approve of mixed-race marriages (see Talk:Nick Griffin‎). You would not have a POV agenda of explicit hardline racism and some atavistic nostalgia for the days of transportation by any chance then? Do you really expect the rest of us to as well? So the article does not suit your POV? Well, tough.--Streona (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC) That's your second personal attack in 48 hours Streona. No article should 'suit' anyone's POV, it should be neutral. The huge amount of references (mostly from anti-BNP sources) is off-putting to anyone reading this article, noticing the negative tone which has been identified by a peer review and comparing the article to those of other UK parties or other nationalist parties. If you have read the number of personal attacks against me, you will realise this is nothing. I am attacking hardline racism. If you take that as personal, then perhaps you might need to consider your own views. As 58.168.3.132 has not been signed on as a user for 48 hours,how could I have attacked her or him in that period? If you would sign your posts I would be able to tell if you are the same person who expects me to leave my country becfause I am not a racist. Now that, is a personal attack, which is incredibly offensive. I am not saying the article is or should be POV - I am saying that the article is not supportive of racism, which seems to annoy a lot of people who are. No doubt a properly referenced article which backs up facts with more than mere assertions is off-putting to some people unused to a level of debate transcending that of a fist-fight.Welcome to wikipedia- keep it clean.--Streona (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Wow did you actually read what I wrote. I object to being called a hardline racist, I have no problem with mixed relationships but apparently you have an issue with homogenous relationships. Its in my belief its a person choice of freedom to pick a partner. However I don't agree with being forced(bombarded with propaganda) to mix or being labeled a racist if I object to it. In Australia we had an issue with the stolen generation and the belief the aborigines could be completely assimilated(to the aborigines benefit) in a matter of generations. This concept of forced assimilation is abhorrent. I feel a similar event is being forced on whites globally as their have been numerous multicultural displays advocating this. One example I can remember maybe a decade ago was a display in melbourne showing a line up of three faces that had been generated by morphing asian, black, caucasian faces etc to get picture. With the messages "This is the future face of Australia" and " A brown future" etc. The faces themselves could be best described as stock photos of maybe brazilian models with overall brown eyes brown hair brown skin and all identical. This struck me as something the germans would of done during the 1930-40s displaying the ideal "ayran" or somesuch. Only this display was displaying the ideal "multicultural citizen" and there was no diversity. If you have an issue with this maybe you should leave my ancestral homeland of Britian and move to a non-democratic country like Cuba where you can advocate Heterosis to your hearts content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Lucy-marie took out "Fascism" and "Islamophobia" from the "Political Ideology" section of the infobox. There's no references for islamophobia, and that's not really an ideology anyway; but there are references for fascism. Could someone check those references and add it back if needed? --h2g2bob (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the Project_Fascism guidelines to determine if a party should be labeled fascist when it has not come to power. It has to meet 6 of the 7 criteria. It already fails 7.declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement. Does it pass the other points?

The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism#Scope are to decide which articles fall into the WikiProject's scope, rather than article content, but it's certainly good as a rule of thumb. I'd be happy to leave it out the infobox. There's lots of mentions of opposition by anti-fascist campaigns throughout the article, so some mention of the party at least being accused of fascism is required somewhere (possibly the lead, otherwise the history?). --h2g2bob (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia ! You can sign your edits with four tildes ~ although I prefer to click on the signing icon on the task bar above. --Streona (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:

1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. 2. stressing loyalty to a single leader. 3. advocating propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. 4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation. 5. advocating syndicalist corporatism. 6. advocating totalitarian systems. 7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement.

1.The BNP does exalt the nation, race and culture. It is not too keen on state apparatus it does not yet control, but would be if it could. 2.The chairman has final say on policy and can expel any member of less than two years standing, without recourse to disciplinary procedures. 3.The BNP stridently advocates free speech for itself, but would I suggest silence its opponents, such as Muslims and has in the recent past physically attacked its political opponents 4.Social regulation is implicit in the advocacy of capital and corporal punishment and repression (in both senses) of homosexuality. Economic regulation would be very tight if a protectionist agenda is pursued. 5.The "Solidarity" Union website advocates "One Big Union" which is central to syndicalism. 6.I suggest that the necessity to forcibly racially categorise all the population by ethnic origin implies a degree of intrusion that is totalitarian. 7. The BNP vehemnetly denies being fascist.

Can we discuss this, before unilaterally hitting the delete button again ?--Streona (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that the BNP would dominate state apparatus if it controlled it, or that it oppresses the free speech right of Muslims or its other opponents? Categorising people racially is not 'totalitarian' (forcing people to treat each other as identical regardless of their perceptions of racial distinctions might be)--MartinUK (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dosen't Brazil have hundreds of racial catagories for citizens. Its not regarded as "totalitarian" actually its regarded as multicultural.

Perhaps it's a mistake to concentrate on those guidelines, as we could debate those forever :) The guidelines are really for the scope of the Wikiproject - we really need to find someone saying that either the bnp is or isn't fascist who should know. This could be the case with the references already given, but I'm not familiar enough with them. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Standards Board for England found that it was permissible to call the BNP "Nazi" and actions for libel in this manner have failed.--Streona (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So what we ae not the Sandards Board for English.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)