Talk:British National Party

Edit request from 92.239.71.235, 1 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Considering the BNP is against Fascism, it would be more fair to call them 'Anti-Fascist' rather than 'Fascist', as it is listed under their ideologies.

Read the definition of Fascism, and the BNP's stance on the political violence used by its opponents.

92.239.71.235 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Fascism label is well sourced and therefore will not be removed. This is explained in the FAQ template at the top of this talk page.

Q Is the BNP a far-right party? Is the BNP a fascist party?

A In almost all academic literature, including that leading up to the present day, the BNP's policies are classified as far-right, and its ideologies as fascist or neo-fascist. The BNP do deny aspects of both of these labels – they consider themselves opposed to right-wing capitalism as well as left-wing socialism, and they point to their rejection of certain tenets of fascism such as the single-party state. These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article, but appropriate weight should be assigned to the fact that many academics find these to be the most suitable labels to use even when taking the BNP's response to them into account.

So it has to remain sorry, there has been long debates on this before in the archives if you wish to take a look. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As stated by BritsihWatcher this has already been discussed a lot - for example large chunks of the most recent archive discuss this. Dpmuk (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Historians in the Guardian

Under the political tendencies section, this is one part:

In an interview with the Guardian, historian Richard Overy said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." Historian David Stevenson said that "the BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s," adding that though they do not wear uniforms they still count "bully boys" among their membership.[179]

I however, in an edit somewhat expanded the section, to:

In an interview with the Guardian, historian Michael Burleigh noted, concerning the BNP, that "The left has a vested interest in playing up the threat of fascism. It uses it to reoxygenate itself: Margaret Hodge has been doing this for years, and Labour was doing it again before this election.", also that "I don't like all these stupid historical analogies - this is not a re-run of the 1930s". Historian Richard Overy also said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." Historian David Stevenson said that "the BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s," adding that though they do not wear uniforms they still count "bully boys" among their membership. He suggested the success of the BNP to be more of a parallel to the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France in the 1980s rather than the rise of fascism in the 1930s.[179]

This edit was twice reverted by user Verbal, on the claim that I should "discuss on talk". So, I cannot believe that my edit should not be legit, but I was anyway forced to place it here on talk. My edit as one can see, puts in more rather vital, and relevant info. -TheG (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it improves the the article and how it is relevant to that section, which is discussing fascism. Verbal chat 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, bear in mind that these are statements by highly respected historians. That is not the case with much of the rest of the section, which is mostly a collection of random quotes by tabloids and politicians. There should never be any doubt on Wikipedia that the statements by historians should be less weighted than those of tabloids and politicans. Anyway, the statements of these historians in my edit are clearly relevant, seeing that they discuss from the outside both the contemporary political game (first edit), as well as comparative political history (second edit) - both in regards of the BNP/fascism-issue. As I see it, it is not merely relevant to the article, but actually vital. -TheG (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the BNP and the simple fact that they are fascist. Its not about reasons why other groups might oppose them or about changes in fascism since the 1930s. Also we need to be careful here. Burleigh has a political agenda, Stevenson specialises in WW1 which is a pre-fascist period, Overy's reputation is WWII and its origins, their commentary is obviously relevant to something, but not to this section. Overy is interesting, but a position that fascism is no longer a political phenomena is controversial to say the least, and that material would belong elsewhere. There may be a case for some words around differences between the 1930s and now, but that seems to relate to uniform not to the point that they are fascist. --Snowded ^TALK 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of material by eight historians in that article. Why have two quotes been cherry-picked and taken out of context so as to suggest that historians do something other than overwhelmingly draw a direct line between groups like the BNP and historical fascism? Just curious. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Becasue they were asked about the BNP and fascism, and the section is about teh accusation that the BNP are fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good excuse for cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of context, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

They cwew used to demonstrate that not all historians agree that the BNP are facicst in the context of historical fasicsm, they were not used (and the text does not claim) that this represents a rejection that most historians view the BNP as fasicst just that some do not wholey agree with that). Now if they have been cheery puicked (and I disagree on tha tscore, no more then any other quote i this arti9cel) thenj provide the context by expandin it (which oddly seems to have been rejhected).Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit did look like it cherry-picked some quotes to put the BNP in a positive light. However, I think due consideration should also be given to whether the quotes that are already in the article are equally cherry-picked in the opposite direction. Rather than quoting individual things, is there some overall summary that could be used or can something be written to give the gist of what was said. Quoting short passages from lengthy discussions on complicated topics is always bad practice in my view. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, ignoring any of these particular historians writing in the guardian article on the personal view that their ideas are controversial is gross OR and POV-pushing. (for similar reasons, complaints that the guardian or indy are leftist should be ignored as well). If the viewpoints are that controversial, another source giving the counterpoint should be found and if enough sources are found which show the alleged controversial idea is not widely accepted then it can be removed as a fringe idea, not otherwise. GDallimore (Talk) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point that the Guardian article was reporting on multiple opinions rather than a considered article by any of those historians. However the main issue here is the relevance of the motivations of those who oppose the BNP to a section about the BNP and fascism where there is no question that the literature clearly establishes their nature.--Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite astonishing actually, how one is in the first place demanded to find good sources if something is to be added/changed in this article – and when the sources are found – or in this case it has even been in the article all along(!) – the row of endless excuses and jibberish talking around the issue starts. Although I have earlier been able to see some sort of point in your claims, it is now starting to look as nothing more than a plain parody of your alleged openness to change. -TheG (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 1968rt, 13 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that it says existed prior to 1948" to "overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948". There can be no doubt that the revised version is a statement of fact, but the current wording suggests that this may not be true.

1968rt (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is a paraphrase of the BNP's manifesto which does accurately reflect what it says. TFD (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Right-Wing Populism

Could somebody please add Category:Right-wing populism? --红卫兵 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Current Crisis

The BNP is currently in crisis. Butler's bid to oust Griffin has failed. The use of a Marmite pot in the broadcast cost them £170K, Michaela McKenzie sued for wrongful dismissal which they can't pay. Griffin is threatened with imprisonment by the HRC. Barnbrook has resigned the whip. Darby has resigned as deputy leader. 12 staff have been laid off & are considering if there is any money worth suing for. Even Lee Barnes has jacked it in & is attacking Griffin. Edmonds is suspended, but none of this is reflected in the article. I can do it myself if I get references other than anti-fascist sources, but I might be crying into my beer...--Streona (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the membership figures of 14,000, although a recernt figure, may have to be radically altered downwards as well. Griffin has suspended large numbers who had supported Eddy Butler's challenge, many members are not renewing and the legal freeze on new members is not replacing them. --Streona (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure it should be in the articel yet as its not resolved. It might be best to wait and see how it pans out.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All reliable sources are anti-fascist, with the exception that the BNP may be a reliable source under some circumstances for itself. TFD (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a reliable source here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/debts-lawsuits-and-internal-feuding-cast-doubt-on-future-of-bnp-2064009.html Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)