Talk:British National Party

not far right

the BNP is not at all far right (which means deregulated financial markets)

it is a national socialist or fascist party (mussolini, nazi party)

these parties support the redistribution of wealth, big government, and can in no way be considered "right wing".

it is an authoritarian centrist party (ie fascism), or given its position on big government and wealth redistribution a leftist or socialist party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we have multiple sources that identify it as a "far right" group. We have to go with the sources, not with our own analysis.   Will Beback  talk  10:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your political compass is broken – or maybe it's just a model that is not approved for international use. See Right-wing politics. Hans Adler 11:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They are a far right party, they just also have some far left economic policies. But the main policy areas people vote for them on are deemed right wing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

At then end of the day they are called far right by most (maybe all) of the RS we will find. They may not be, but we can only say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "far right" is generally used to describe these groups. In fact when such groups formed a European party, called the Technical Group of the European Right, they were seated on the far right, just as the Nazis were in their time. Also, studies of political parties showed that the parliamentarians belonging to these parties were generally more pro-free market than members from other parties. TFD (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Socialists aren´t pro-free market. A50000 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article on the Far Right to which these debate properly belongs. According to that article the BNP are far-right.- Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.198.5 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Given their stance on nationalisation, republicanism, protectionism and so on and forth there is overwhelming evidence that the British National Party is by any standard a National Socialist, far-left organisation. I can gain some honest sources which attest to this if wished for? Of course, there is more (incorrectly) stating "far-right", which is simply because the term has become a buzz-term in the UK for "bad guys" on the ever-running crusade against libertarian right-wing politics, but that's a different discussion all together. Should it not be the case that perhaps both Far-Left and Far-Right be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.217.153 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would sugest you provide the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"by any standard a National Socialist, far-left organisation" ??? Some confusion there, what? Emeraude (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your confusion Emeraude; the political compass of left and right has lost all real meaning in the mainstream media nowadays; "far rigt" is now simply a by-word for "bad guys" - but the truth is not something the mainstream media seem to care much of when it comes to this. National Socialism, as in the case of Communism, is a far-Left ideology: protectionism, statism, nationalization, state-legislated censorship, these are all key factors in defining what is "Far-Left" and no doubt the BNP, just like National Socialism and just like Communism, ticks all these boxes. But again, "far-Right" is a buzz-term used by the elite class and socialists to demonize right-wing politics of libertarianism and anything which promotes smaller government and more people-power essentially. The BNP are by the very deinition of the term a far-Left, racist, protectionist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.160.36 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Total and utter nonsense. There is no confusion in my mind nor of any other political scientist/philosopher. National Socialism is about as far left as Hitler's right thumb! And, for the record, the Nazis were not in favour of nationalisation, protectionism is more likely with rightist government (the far left tends towards internationalism). If, as you say, "the BNP are by the very deinition of the term a far-Left" party, then I expect you to provide a massive list of references to support this view from the relevant academic journals and texts. But I'm not holding my breath.... Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And, also for the record, "far-Right" is NOT "a buzz-term used by the elite class and socialists to demonize" anything which you seem to support. It has clear meaning and is used as such in political science. But, even if some people do misuse the term, encyclopaedists are capable of using it accurately and precisely. Emeraude (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see reliable sources. The descriptions are based on scholarly consensus. TFD (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system -. Plus please show me this scholorly consensus! It seems PREPOSTEROUS, that such words as fascism should be on Wikipedia to describe a highly debated topic such as the BNP. To call them "Fascist" as part of their ideology, is completely ignoring their own views, and the views of millions of citizens who I might add, simply want to see proper reporting, and not such immature biases as this! SORT IT OUT ! This quite clear dismissal of NPOV has really angered me. I treasure this site, don't let us down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 November 2010

Find one RS that says they are not facist. I have found one ow two but not many, it certainly looks like its a consensus amoung political commentators that they are factist. My own views on this matter are irrelevant we can only repeat what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if this is the case, then why Jobbik hasn't been assigned the tag "fascist" in their article, when it's clearer that they are much more militant and extreme in their actions. Whilst they most likely share the same beliefs as the BNP, they're more like the UAF in how they deal with things they don't agree with. Any chance we can get some continuity amongst the articles on Extreme right wing parties. It's clear that parties like the FN, and Partij voor de Vreigheid aren't intrinsically fascist, but I would argue that other Slavic and eastern European parties like Jobbik are iff the BNP has been assigned this term. Also, would it be possible to remove a couple of the sources in the "ideologies box" and just keep one or two of the most important ones, 7 seems unnecessary and spoils the layout. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Shortcomings of one article can't be used to criticise another. Take it up on the discussion page for Jobbik. As to why there are so many citations for "fascist" in the BNP article, I would suggest you look back through the archives of this discussion page. To any political scientist or informed observer the question is self-evident, and a single citation ought therefore to suffice. But, over months and years, apologists for the BNP have complained variously that there was only one reference, or they are biased, or wrong, or can only be read at some expense, or aren't on the Internet (and one person said he wasn't even going to read the sources!). That's why there are so many - what no one has done, despite being challenged, is come up with a single reliable source that says that the BNP is NOT fascist. Sad it may be, but without that number of citations the argument goes on and on and on and on..... Emeraude (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

British National Party 1992 Manifesto

I have here the 1992 General election manifesto although I am unable to add into the External links:

• Fight Back! 1992 Manifesto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

not sure exatly what value tis has now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not allow that I edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.15.1 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Under the external links which have the links of manifestos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained what value this has to the article, as it’s over 10 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

With the article covering the history of the party as well as its present state, surely manifestos from the past are going to be of interest to some readers, as they show the extent to which policies have changed or remained constant. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as we can prove that this is the BNP manifesto (although I'm not too sure even then). I don't see what the evolution of the party has to do with anything. We note what they belive today, what they belived 10 years ago is no more relevant then what the Tories beleived 10 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Their past beliefs may or may not be relevant to their current beliefs, but they are still of historical interest. By the logic of your argument we would have to dump the whole History section on the grounds that the events described are not current. Barnabypage (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a all, the history section tells us the history of the party how it evolved and changed over the years. But what we do not need to know is what platforms they stood for in elections that are a decade or more old. If they have (for example) had a major shift in eccomomic policy it might be valuable to know this (though I'm not sure that changes this old are relevant), but such materail should be in the artciel already. Thats my problom, if this were only a few yeasrs old it might help demonstrate the changes the party has undergone but this old it frankly talks about things (Thathcer for example) that really have no bearing on todays politics and are very much issues of the late 80's early 90's. If its going to be major issue put it in, but I really don't see any value to it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The past is as relevant as the present. The aim of the article is to inform the reader about the subject of the British National Party in its entirety and that includes its history - which in the case of any political party is inseparable from its major policies. I agree, if there have been major shifts of policy the main text of the article needs to make that clear too, as they would be an important part of the history. If your concern is that the reader is going to look at a 1992 manifesto and believe that that represents the current position of the BNP - well, I don't think we can tailor everything to the dumbest potential reader; nearly everyone will realise that things can change dramatically over two decades. Barnabypage (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about the constitution I might agree, but we are not we are talking about an election manifesto, which does not reflect what the party believes but what it needs to say to get elected (the cynic in me tells me). Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is that. :) Let's see if anyone else has any views on this, anyway - even if the consensus turns out to be in favour of inclusion, it's obviously not a hugely pressing matter. Barnabypage (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1992 Manifesto is very important as the BNP was very small in the days of 1992 and it received a lot of bad publicity such as "anti-Semitic" or "Nazi" but if you read the manifesto, it will explain that it is no anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi either. It also shows how the party's manifestos has differed in the past. Most of everything it has written in the 1992 Manifesto is still relevant today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(Deindent) Definitely relevant and some of the policies in it should be quoted in the article. For a party that claims not to be fascist some of the stuff was simply mind boggling, the bits about having an elected dictator and a single national trade union for example. Think I've heard that before somewhere! Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And its not been answerd yet whether or not this is the BNP manifesto. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It did not mentiond about having an elected dictator, it mentioned having an elected prime minister. A National Trade Union works better because it ends the class war that far-left Trade Unions like to incite.

NOW WILL SOMEONE PLEASE UNLOCK THE EXTERNAL LINKS IN ORDER TO ADD THE MANIFESTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not shout, we know what you have asked. But a key question has still not been answerd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why is Wikipedia not allowing anyone to edit this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Past vandalism by IP accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no one has yet demonstrated that this site, is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC) OK it seems it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave out media bias please?

I am by no stretch of the imagination a BNP supporter, but can we stick to the facts with this article and stop falling into immature media bias? The BNP are not ideologically "fascist" (a term I take some exception to nowadays since it's been rendered meaningless by the media).

The BNP policies of nationalism and republicanism and protectionism are all very much of the far-Left, not the far-Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.71.141 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"The BNP policies of nationalism and republicanism and protectionism are all very much of the far-Left, not the far-Right" That is biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard!! 1) No, the BNP is not a republican party, it is deeply pro-monarchist and nowhere has it ever intended to abolish the monarchy. 2) Protectionism is not what the far-Left advocate, the far-Left is internationalist like the centre-"Right"; protectionism was originally the policy of the Conservatives with their imperial preference policy. My my, this is just right-wing libertarian mumbo-jumbo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see reliable sources. The descriptions are based on scholarly consensus. TFD (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system -. Plus please show me this scholorly consensus! It seems PREPOSTEROUS, that such words as fascism should be on Wikipedia to describe a highly debated topic such as the BNP. To call them "Fascist" as part of their ideology, is completely ignoring their own views, and the views of millions of citizens who I might add, simply want to see proper reporting, and not such immature biases as this! SORT IT OUT ! This quite clear dismissal of NPOV has really angered me. I treasure this site, don't let us down! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JackPlatts, 13 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

JackPlatts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What is your edit request?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideologies of the Party in main box description

Have removed two definitions of the party's "Ideology" as the sources were biased or in the case of one completely unsourced. If you wish to make a case for the BNP being "Fascist" then outline an argument in a relevant section of the article. Please take note of the French Version of this article for definition of impartiality. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The case is made in this section. Rodhullandemu 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascist? Really?

It seems wikipedia editors almost universally throw NPOV right out the window when it comes to these nativist european political parties. This is embarrassing, sort it out. The term "far-right" is also a slur used by the mainstream media in an attempt to demonize any person or organization that advocates even the most modest of controls on immigration.--24.179.209.239 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)