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)

Even though you know perfectly well that the links were live when posted...... You will have checked them out at the time, surely, or you would have been most vehement in demanding their removal then. The task, and it's a difficult one, is to find alternate sources for the information that has been removed from the BNP's website. I have tracked down a few in the past and another editor whose name escapes me has done this for several references using a web archive service. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of this process could take this on. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 1 October 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)

Political compass is NOT a reliable tool. This has been discussed here before (sorry, but I can't be bothered to search through pages of archives for a reference) and it was felt that political compass is flawed and thus useless. I write as a graduate and postgraduate student of political science - the concept is simplistic and unhelpful. Emeraude (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

here --h2g2bob (talk) 20:58, 4 October 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)

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 references were debated ad nauseam when first posted. They are all acceptable under Wiki guidelines. If you're not familiar with them the answer is to assume good faith (Wiki policy) or, better still, read them. (They are available in libraries though probably easier to find in academic libraries than the local one; the journal articles are available online, though you may need a subscription through an academic institution to get them in full.) Note for people new to this topic: Lucy-Marie has consistently opposed any mention of the term fascist in connection with the BNP. She and other demanded citations to back up the description. When they were given, she and others then argued (and lost) against the use of these references! This is an old and dead debate.Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 October 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)

No, we're not. But Streona's comment was about the Standards Board for England which you have clearly never heard of. Find out about it, and the relevance of the Streona's remark will be obvious. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my statement above; please admit your mistake. Please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Emeraude (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not the BBC either, but we still use them as a source.The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party. Case no. SBE10144.05 --Streona (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The source no matter how relevant anyone thinks it is cannot be used because it requires original research and interpretation. It says it "could" not "must" or "should" so that is ambiguous.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Streona said "could", not the source. Also, Streona has not suggested that it should be used as a reference in this article. But, since the reference (SBE10144.05) given by Streona is a misprint, how could you possibly comment on what it says? Have you tracked down the correct reference and read it? Emeraude (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly streona said it this is a pov statement. The board has not ruled that they can be called a nazi party. this is definately falls into WP:OR (ie putting A and B together to get a conclusion )If its not going to be used. Why are you bringing it up? The information is on the previous archive Emeraude.here

Please prove the source yourself, surley an online version must be avaliable of at least one of them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but wouldn't findings by this board be unpublished material. Also on streona discussion page he appears to be compiling information on the BNP and adding it to the article this would be original research, synthesis WP:SYN of sources is against wikipedia policy. Does anyone concur? (humbleAnon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Voluntaryslave asks for reasons why the sources would be inappropriate. Well citation 7, 8 and 9 are all prior 2005 the party is regarded as having changed direction at that time (due to the change in leadership earlier Im assuming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you say more about why you think 2005 is a key date (preferably with some sources that talk about a change of direction at that time). I would have thought the most significant date (and the last BNP change of leadership AFAIK) would be Griffin replacing Tyndall in 1999. However, given that we have a source (10) which explicitly argues for a continuity before and after Griffin became leader, I think it's reasonable to keep the pre-1999 sources in, unless there are other sources which explicitly say that the BNP stopped being a fascist party after 1999.

Certainly read source 10. You pretty much answered your own question. Source 10 atleast covers the party changes in ideology during this time the other sources don't because they are out of date. The party has enjoyed success since then so obviously something changed. This is the most up to date source on their ideology out of the 4 citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume by source 10, you mean Copsey, N."Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006", Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82. This article does not say that the BNP has changed ideology at all. Copsey makes the point that the BNP has altered some policies and attempted to soften its image. He answers the question in the title: they have changed clothes and not ideology. So, his opinion is that the earlier sources are also still valid. Incidentally, to claim that 'the party has enjoyed success since then' is rather exaggerating things. A handful of local councillors, no councils controlled or even close, no MPs, no MEPs. And fewer councillors than before I believe. But, even if they had made electoral progress it would not necessarily follow that this was down to some supposed change in ideology. Didn't the Nazis achieve massive electoral success just a short period after being a minor fringe group? Is anyone suggesting it was because they gave up fascism?! Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I say it anything was wrong with 10 (It does say there is a change in ideology Copsey calls it "recalibration" its right there in the abstract. You seem to think i'm arguing for a POV.) I said 7, 8 and 9 are out of date. It has been asked are there any issues with the sources. As this is for the political Ideology section of the infobox, these three sources are out of date with the parties current ideology which should be sourced from the party anyway like it is with other parties. Why not a allegations of fascism section in the article? Why does the BNP party need to be told what it is and can't be believed from its own policy page. This is blatant POV, Look at the UK labour article ONE citation and its from themselves. Where are the 20 communism citations.(It pretty obvious they are communists too, Livingstone with chavez.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't say there was anything wrong with 10 and neither did I say that you did. I was asking if you were using it as evidence that the BNP had not only changed but had changed so far that the earlier sources were out of date. (And clarifying that we were talking about the same ref. 10 - there have been changes over the last few days.) To take up your points, firstly, you should be reading the article itself, not the abstract (the article is the source), but to stick with the abstract for a moment, it nowhere suggests that Copsey has changed his view that the BNP is a fascist party. For the benefit of those who can't access journals, here is what it actually says:

"Copsey questions whether the BNP has really transformed itself into a party of the national-populist right. At the outset, he offers some conceptual clarifications regarding fascism, national-populism and neo-fascism before discussing the nature of Griffin's 'modernization' project and the circumstances behind his decision to revamp the party's ideology. He then moves on to a critical examination of the party's new ideological position as revealed in its 2005 general election manifesto Rebuilding British Democracy. He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." (My emphasis)

Now, whichever way you read it, he's saying the BNP is still fascist! If anyone wants the abstract, it's here.Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are simply HEARING WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. Your Anti-fascist POV pushing is shining through brighter then the sun. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE FASCIST TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF 10 I SAID 7, 8 ,9 ARE OUT OF DATE. YOU ARE JUST REPEATING WHAT I SAY AND SEEM TO THINK IM ARGUING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TAG I'M NOT.. I'll repeat It was asked is there anything wrong with the sourcs given YES THEY ARE OUT OF DATE. There has been a change FACT wether this is a change from fascism to fascism whatever. There was still change in the partys direction, methods etc. This change is not covered in the old citations. They are in the past.

My "Anti-fascist POV pushing"? I refrain from complaining that I am not an anti-fascist POV pusher since quite clearly you are incapable of any reasonable discussion with anyone who says the BNP is fascist. No, read what I wrote and re-read what you wrote. 7,8 and 9 are not out of date - they are backed up by 10. If the BNP has changed, as you put it, "from

fascism to fascism" then it is fascist! Change "in the partys direction, methods etc." does not stop it being fascist. If there has been a signifcant change in its direction, methods etc. the place to mention this is in a suitable part of the article itself, NOT in the part of the infobox dealing with ideology, which, as you say, may have changed from fascist to fascist. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Emaurade you still don't get it (im starting to think there is something wrong) You are debating something that I'm not questioning. You are clearly incapable of being objective. A question was asked by voluntaryslave is there anything wrong with the citations yes i'll repeat it again 7 8 9 are out of date with the BNPs current political ideology which is relevent to the politcal ideology section in the infobox, 10 isn't. Please don't continue with this arguement its embarrasing just admit you have gone off on a tangent and give it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you are not getting it. Voluntaryslave, as you say, asked what if anything was wrong with refs 7-10. It was replied that they were out of date. It was further said that the most recent, 10, said that things had changed. It doesn't say that; indeed it says the exact opposite as regards ideology though it does say there have been changes in presentation of policy and attempts to project a softer image. Therefore, in terms of ideology, according to 10, the earlier refs, including the same author's other cited reference, are still valid. It is not disputed that the BNP has attempted to change its image - in fact, that is the thrust of Copsey's argument in 10 - but image is not ideology. Emeraude (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Heres hoping you understood that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Standards Board case can be found here, under the heading "case 2"

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Standards%20Committee/20050720/Agenda/Item05.pdf

It is not on the SBE website but Buckinghamshire County Council are presumably trustworthy. As for my talk page- I use it to sandbox lengthy contributions before posting an edit. I realise that many of the most vocal editors on this talk page make little substantive contributions to wikipedia, but I do. My recent efforts regarding the BNP have been in order to find something positive to say about them, such as the case of Simone Clarke, being the latest. Is there a problem?--Streona (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid going over old ground again and again and again (see Archives ad nauseam): 1 The references in the infobox to the BNP being fascist are fully acceptable to Wikipedia. 2 If anyone wants to claim that the BNP somehow changed in 2004 or 2005 or whenever and is no longer fascist, they are guilty of POV or OR unless 3 they provide acceptable third party sources to the standard of the existing sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies. These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed - and the result has been zero. I read a number of academic political studies journals and have seen nothing of the sort. I don't read them all, so it's just possible I've missed something, but I doubt it. So there's the challenge: supply a reliable, independent, academic, third party, accessible source that says the BNP is not fascist. Until you do, there is no justification for removing 'fascism' from the infobox. Emeraude (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic. You yourself just showed your own biass with "BNP apologists". I can point to sevreal that I posted links to, but they were ignored.

Just put and leave it at, "Fascism (denied by bnp). Or is there a horrific chance that people might think the BNP are not fascist as a result? Your life and Sterona's would be over if that happended eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.131 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You do your argument no good by impugning my contributions and ascribing to me motives that I do not have. Your serious point though is an old one that has been more than adequately dealt with in the past. The infobox is a place for giving the briefest of details about the subject of an article. If there is some dispute, the place for that is in the article itself (which is the case). If there was dispute among reliable third party sources, then perhaps an infobox mention might be appropriate, but that it is disputed by the BNP does not fit into that category. Are you suggesting that, for example, in the infobox for a killer we should put "Murderer (denied by Fred Smith)" because he pleaded not guily? (Apologies to any Fred Smiths.) Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be getting a bit academic for some, but hey that's what its all about. Welcome to Wikipedia 79.71.218.131, First time caller? Of course we could just put down "dregs & scum". I'd be happy with that, but let's stick with it, shall we ?--Streona (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes anon its true if the BNP get any positive exposure streona will burst into flames. I can't wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly comment. Please stick to the issue, which is whether or not the BNP is fascist. If you have a reliable souirce to say it is not, then post it. Otherwise, your personal comments are merely a sidetrack.Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude there is an entire section above where you have argued over something which I did not dispute. Freudian sliping all over the place. Your hard to take seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All this knockabout stuff is great up to a point, but its all a bit one-sided. People like Emeraude make serious points and substantive contributions to the actual article, moderated by some serious editors like LucyMarie and then there are anonymous people who become offensive and take the mick and these are all the pro-BNP POV editors. Why is this? I think some people can actually do better than this and raise the standard of debate here a bit. If you want to mix it with the banter and repartee, then I think you should also contribute in a serious way as well. --Streona (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, yeah- and the spelling--Streona (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead-linked references - a project

One problem with using websites as references is that they change or disappear over time. This is not a problem with printed resources - books, newspapers and journals are always available in libraries and archives. The problem is compounded in this article because the BNP completely revamped its website earlier this year following internal squabbles which resulted in the webmaster of the BNP's site leaving (or being expelled - depending on who says). Unfortunately, a large number of references in this article have now fallen foul of time, the vast majority of them from the BNP. Although all were live and perfectly correctly used at the time they were added, it may be that they now need to be updated. There are several ways this can be done I would suggest:

1 Find alternative sources for the points referenced (preferably paper resources).

2 Search web archive services to re-link the sources. This has been done by editors for some links already.

3 Delete whatever the referenced point is. (This is extremely drastic and a last resort only, especially as this could mean deleting things sympathetic to the BNP and leading to accusations of NPOV.)

I have gone through all the references and listed below those that appear to be dead. I will start to search for alternatives and invite other editors to do the same. Please strikethrough those you manage to sort out. I would suggest that in a few weeks' time we review the list and assess progress.Emeraude (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

THE LIST

NOTE: Edits may cause these to be renumbered, so the reference numbers here refer to the version of the article dated 10:49, 2 October 2008, numbered version 242468527

54, 73, 77, 82, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 111, 138, 143, 149, 151, 163, 177, 181, 198, 204, 210, 211, 215, 216, 220 Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Opposition section

Paragraph 2 in the section "Opposition" reads as follows:

"Following pressure from Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, ¹⁹⁸ the major parties stand candidates in seats that they are unlikely to win. This is designed to enhance the choice available to voters in the expectation that this will reduce the BNP vote. ¹⁹⁹ '"

Some observations. Firstly, the reference 198 is a dead link to the CRE website (the CRE as such no longer existing), to a press release entitled "CRE Chair calls on Conservatives to see off the BNP", apparently at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, 2003. I have searched the CRE database of press statements and failed to find this. However this suggests that this press release does/did exist, but the link from there is to another item altogether (a PR for a speech to the CBI in Birmingham).

Secondly, regardless that the original PR is apparently unavailable, the assertion made here in Wikipedia is silly. The major parties have always stood candidates in seats they are unlikely to win - it's what elections are for!

Thirdly, the second sentence is almost as silly, but in any case is not backed up the reference given (an article by Trevor Phillips in the Observer).

My suggestion is to simply delete this paragraph. It really adds nothing to the assertion that the mainstream media and parties oppose the BNP. However, it might be an idea to move the final paragraph of the introduction to this section, which seems a more logical place for it. Comments?Emeraude (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian/Observer reference is worded quite weakly, and doesn't really support much - in the key paragraph says "early assessment" and only mentions the Conservative party (not all major parties). The other reference is very dead. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Redfearn v. Serco

In the Employment Tribunal Redfearn was represented by Lee Barnes LLB Hons (or "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" as Adrian Davies refers to him ) the BNP legal officer. Barnes contended that Redfearn was being racially discriminated against for his membership of the BNP as it was a whites-only racist organisation. Presumably if one were to assert otherwise one would be accusing Barnes of perjury (although not actually on oath) which would be potentially libellous. I found the case on Cloisters website, but you have to click on a further link to go to the case http://www.cloisters.com/info_case_profile.php?caseID=177&returl=search.php%3F%26amp%3Bkeywords%3Dserco - --Streona (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS that's "Streona LLB (Hons)"--Streona (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)LLB (Hons)

The above cannot be implemented as it is POV, due to use of the words Racist and the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister." It is also OR as Streona is stating that they are a law graduate, this may also consitute a COI.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I must be missing the point here. Is Streona asking for anything to be implemented? Or merely making a comment. Comments in talk are entittled to be POV and COI. Note that the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" is not Streona's, but a direct quote. The use of 'racist' is in no way POV - used correctly and accurately it is entirely neutral, but, in any case, Streona is simply reporting, not giving an opinion. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not just my opinion, but it was central to the argument advanced by Barnes according to the judgement. Redfearn claimed that he was a member of a whites only racist organisation and was sacked, but that had he been a member of a blacks-only allegedly racist organisation he would not have been and that therefore he was racially discrminated against. Thus the conclusion that the BNP are a whites-only racist organisation is the opinion of the BNPs own legal officer (or "Director of the BNP Legal Department" whatever that is)and he argued that in court. Thus if anyone says on this talk page that they are NOT a whites-only racist party they are accusing Lee Barnes and Arthur Redfearn of lying to the Employment Tribunal, which would be defamatory and potentially libellous which would never do. I have stated that I am a law graduate in order to take the mick out of Lee Barnes who is apt to style himself as LLB(Hons) and takes on cases which he often loses leaving the likes of the unfortunate Sharon Ebanks to pick up the tab. Its nothing to do with OR or COI; I am not a practising lawyer. I could append it to the article, as a direct quote from the judgement (who are presumably not POV), but I thought I would put in talk first in order to resolve the colourful - and often personally abusive- debate we have so enjoyed here. I would not suggest putting in the "Bonkers Bagel" reference here but it is on the Adrian Davies article and variously appears on Stormfront etc. --Streona (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)LLB(Hons)

How influential is an employment tribunal? For example, would this set a legal precedent? It could be useful to have secondary sources to give more context. As the tribunal hasn't come up with an answer yet, it's probably premature to add it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This post by streona doesn't make sense the BNP dosen't refer to itself as a racist party or hold itself out to be ( and when does any group want to refer to itself as racist to a court in this day and age ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It seems that the BNP's legal expert has argued before a tribunal that the party is a whites only party and that his client has suffered racial discrimination because he is a member of a whites only organisation. Seems like a potential case of shooting oneself in the foot. Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the racist part. Which is obviously a abit of POV thats been bolted on somewhere inbetween the original statement and streonas comment. Which I think lucy-marie was referring to. One thing needs to be made clear did he use that exact phrase? I can't see how it can be a libellous anyway they're have been plenty of cases when ethnic-only groups comprised of different ethnicities have claimed racial discrimination or have come to the aid of one of their own claiming racial discrimination. For instance recently your black police association has had individuals who wouldn't be classified as black claiming members have been discriminated.