Talk:British National Party

Talk Page Archives

References of Fascism

All those references that claim the party is Fascistic are outdated, the last being from 2000. Mr.Griffin has since denounced the Nazi ideology which the BNP once abided by.--AryeitskiySaldat 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Show evidence that Griffin has denounced facism Lurker (said · done) 09:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the party's constitution

look, this comes from the first page of the constitution on the left,

7) Every party member has the right to express criticism or dissent on matters internal to the party

While by definition Fascism is a totalitarian and authoritarian ideology.--AryeitskiySaldat 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just use the party's own statements in characterizing their ideology. Firstly, because it's possible for groups to lie about their political positions (I'm not saying the BNP are doing this, just pointing out a possibility). Second, because to make a conclusion about what their ideology is, on the basis of their policies, as you do, is original research. If you have a reference to a reliable source that shows a change in the BNP since the time when the sources currently in the article were written, that's a good reason to cease using those sources. But your own belief that the sources do no accurately characterize the BNP does not make the sources "outdated." VoluntarySlave 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken VoluntarySlave, this is not merely a statement but comes from their constitution, which are the principles that comprise the party. A group's memebers can lie about their political positions but the party's political position as presented is what they campaign on and what they promote, even if they may believe some different things off the record. Nick Griffin probably still has a negative outlook on Jews but his party is officially positioned against Islam and that makes his party's position anti-Islamic. The last reference comes from 2000 and the Constitution was revised in 2003, so I have provided a reference that the party is no longer Fascistic because it shows that the party now rejects authoritarianism.--AryeitskiySaldat 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But concluding from the party's constitution that it is not fascist is original research. An apparently democratic constitution may or may not be incompatible with fascism; but, as WP editors it is not our job to make that decision, but rather to reflect the balance of reliable sources. There's plenty of stuff in the constitution that I could quote to make a case that the BNP are fascist; but my personal interpretation of their constitution is not a reliable source.

As to your more specific claim that the change of the constitution in 2003 invalidates prior sources, the section you cite does not appear to have been changed in the party's history, so I still don't see any reason to suppose that the sources given are out of date. VoluntarySlave 07:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech, association, etc, but it was in practice totalitarian. All the constitution can support is claims made about what the BNP say, not what they are/do (i.e. it is a valid source on the constitution of the BNP). To dispute the matetr' we'd need a sourced quote from an official BNP spokesperson denying that they are fascist: but from WP:NPOV that would only lead to a section on whether or not the BNP are fascist, because so many commentators claim they are.--Red Deathy 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lenin himself said that the opposition belongs in prison, would you please give me a reference or something that shows the USSR had that in their constitution. A major reason why I don't think that the BNP can be classified as Fascist, although it shares the racial element of Fascism, is because their major argument against Islam is the fact they believe it is incompatible with a civilized society that values freedom and democracy.--AryeitskiySaldat 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Most organisations, political parties etc. would describe the BNP as fascist. To say they are not facist because they claim not to be is to give the BNP undue weight over other sources. Lurker (said · done) 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

1936 Soviet Constitution

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;

freedom of the press;

freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;

freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

--Red Deathy 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This all good and well but this Is all circumstantial what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?--Lucy-marie 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The main problem I have with those references is that they're books and cannot be verified online.--AryeitskiySaldat 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm.. well the first definition I find on Google (of Fascism) is "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html; comes up 1st with Google). Well, one might argue the toss over the dictator bit, but the BNP are sure described by the rest of that definition. So if the definition is good, then the BNP are fascist. By definition. Of course that is only one definition. And a very brief one at that. Perhaps someone can readily source a definition of Fascism which does not also define the BNP in large part? Would be interesting to see it if such exists. Marcus22 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucymarie asked "what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?" Well, the sources that have been deleted (and should be replaced until this debate ends) are perfectly reliable. I will list others below, but it is up to people to read them! Creation of the media? Come on, the British media across the political spectrun describes the BNP as fascist; not unpleasant, not nasty, not unnice, but fascist. Likewise, the mainstream political parties and their leaders describe the BNP as fascist (as quoted in article). Now, if its good enough for the Daily Mail and the Conservative Perty (neither of which align with ny general views), then it's good enough for me. AryeitskiySaldat has a problem that the references are books and cannot be verified online. Tough. Go to a bookshop and buy them or go to a library and borrow them. Wikipedia sources based on the Internet are generally less reliable than published works - if you cannot access the references then you are required to asume good faith - that's a basic Wiki principle. The fact that some books predate 2003 when the leopard apparently changed its spots does not mean it's not a leopard any more! Besides, most of these books have had later editions in any case.

Now for a reading list of journal articles, with some quotes. Each of these puts forward a view that the BNP is fascist and in direct tradition of the fascist groups whicg proceeded it and from which it grew.

• • "By 1999, the BNP was publicly identified as extremist, far Right or 'Nazi', with many journalists using the latter term." D Renton, "Examining the success of the British National Party", 1993-2003" in Race & Class 45(2) p 73
  • "At far-Right gatherings, Griffin has insisted that his party is still 'National Socialist'; it just puts its message across differently." ibid
  • "The threat of neo-fascist political groups such as the British National Party (BNP) or the National Front (NF) marching into Bradford sparked fury amongst the city’s Pakistani population." Y Hussain and P Bagguley "Citizenship, etnicity and identity" in Sociology 2005; 39; p413
  • "Within cross-national studies of the far right, Britain has generally been viewed as an anomaly, a place where the far right are unlikely to succeed. The reason given to explain this has usually been that the predominant extreme right movement in Britain, the BNP, has failed to modernize and instead has maintained overt links to the old fascist tradition" J Rhodes: "The 'Local' Politics of the British National Party" in SAGE Race Relations Abstracts 31(4) p 8
  • "The problem with this in the case of Britain is that while the BNP have been unable to shake off the tag of fascists, and it could be argued they have done little to suggest otherwise, they have been able to make sporadic breakthroughs." ibid p 14
  • "The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." D Renton " ‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party" in Patterns of Prejudice, vol 39, No 1, 2005 p2
  • And finally, a title that says it all: D Reilly "Contemporary British Fascism: the British National Party and the quest for legitimacy" in Race & Class, 2006: 48; p104 Emeraude 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..,those quotes don't seem particularly reliable and i'll give a few reasons. First of all, since when is a journalist a reliable reference. It is highly possible that the media that published many of these things did so out of 2 motivations. First, to associate a negative connotation to the party and 2 to attract attention and make subsequent sales. Another reason I have a problem with them is the fact that several claims, like the one that said Griffin said his party is still National Socialist is stated without making any reference to which getherings they were or when they took place. Emeraude claims that just because the leopard changed his spots doesn't mean he's still a leopard is a nice metaphor but this is a political party and not a biological entity. The stance of a party can change as its members and the political climate around do, but a leopard is an animal and I think that is just a cliche Emeraude used to try and keep something he wants to believe in the text. It is possible that they still have different feelings from what they preach but until a good reference is given then it is only speculation and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.--AryeitskiySaldat 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just discount sources because you disagree with them. Race and Class and Sociology are serious scholarly journals; they're clearly reliable sources. In combination with the fact that you've given us no reason to doubt the continuing relevance of the earlier cited sources, there's clearly a significant branch of scholarly opinion that considers the BNP fascist (check the talk archives for even more references). What reliable secondary sources do you have with which to contest this? VoluntarySlave 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're claim is incorrect, I have given reasons. One, by their constitution the BNP is anti-authoritarian or pro-demnocratic and those sources are outdated and deal with the party before Nick Griffin reformed the BNP. This dialogue isn't yet finished and you aren't supposed to re-insert it until this is cleared up. Emeraude claims the party could still be secretly Fascist but that is only hypothetical and I rememner reading an interview between Griffin and Nick Ryan in the book -Into a world of hate, a journey amongst the extreme right- where Griffin was obviously rather critical of Nazism. The whole party's case against Islam for instance is the fact they believe it is a religion that is incompatible with a civilized society which values freedom and democracy.--AryeitskiySaldat 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But this is all original research. Your interpretation of the constitution, your interpretation of the BNP "reforms". We can't base an article on these (because, as I said above, other people can have different interpretations); we need secondary sources; if a journal article says "the BNP are fascists" or "the BNP are not fascists," we can all agree on what the secondary source means, even if we don't agree with what it says. If you want to question the sources that claim that the BNP are fascist, you need to provide unambiguous sources, not your own interpretations of sources. You don't seem to be responding to the substance of people's objections - that you are removing sourced information on the basis of original research (in the form of interpretations of primary sources), rather than on the basis of reliable secondary sources. If you won't engage with these criticisms, I have a hard time seeing how we are going to resolve this disagreement. VoluntarySlave 04:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• On one point "This dialogue isn't yet finished and you aren't supposed to re-insert it until this is cleared up", I'm afraid it doesnt work like that. References to fascism have been added over time by numerous editors. The consensus is that the BNP is a fascist party. If you want to have such sources removed you need to get a consensus that agrees with you. Until you establish that consensus, those sources remain - as does the view that the BNP are fascist - an integral part of this article. (As I'm sure you will understand, it's not the other way around for the simple reason that anyone could dispute anything and have it removed from any article and drag a debate on (and on)..). Hope that clears that up. regards Marcus22 16:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in the party's constitution that every member has a right to criticise the party's strategy and policies. That is not a statement which can be debated as to what is infers. This statement also shows that the party favors a democratic system where freedom of speech is guaranteed. I realize the party has alot in common with Fascism but calling them Fascist infers that they're authoritarian which is incorrect. I subsequently propose that we insert DEMOCRATIC Fascism rather than just Fascism.--AryeitskiySaldat 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I've never heard of "democratic fascism". Does it exist? Isn't that a bit like Military Intelligence? A contradiction in terms. Marcus22 22:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then the party cannot be considered fascist because they're pro-democratic. Either being neo-democratic and Fascist are possible or the classification of the BNP as a Fascist party is incorrect.

This is all convoluted and no consensus is ever going to be gained as the BNP have never won any power either by running a local council or a whole parish council so what they would actually do in government is unknown so fascism which is characerised as a "style of government" cannot be used as they have never been any form of government.--84.66.110.223 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No but it's form of leadership shows that the party tolerates dissenting views. Therefore categorization of Fascist is incorrect.--AryeitskiySaldat 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the sources are outdated and that the concept that the BNP is Fascist has been discredited by AR, many of you are still clinging on technicalities to keep your POV against the BNP in this article. Here is a reference which is from 2004 that shows the BNP is no longer Fascist and any claim that they are still secretly fascist is only hypothetical.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm

8th Place

AryeitskiySaldat asked why do I remove this reference? Well because it is misleading and pretty meaningless. In the first place; the BNP did not "finish 8th". There is no 2nd place in a British election. The winner wins and the others lose. So you may as well say they 'lost' the election. Should we put that in? That the BNP lost the election? Secondly; the SNP polled more votes than the BNP. Does that mean the SNP "finished higher"? Nope. The BNP stood nationally. The SNP only stood in Scotland. Thus there is no valid comparison between the results of the SNP and the results of the BNP. (And likewise PC in Wales and the UUP in NI). Thirdly; it's a misleading thing to say. It tries to imply that the BNP are even in the same ballpark as Labour etc... But they are not. They only got 0.7% of the vote. Peanuts. Like it or not, at least in the 2005 Election, they were a minority party with very little support. It's better to just say they got 0.7% of the vote and leave it at that. However, I won't revert this point again until I hear your view. Marcus22 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is implying they're in the same ball park as the Labour party, the fact they finished 8th shows this. Everbody knows the BNP has a relatively small support, atleast for now. But it is relevant to show approximately where this party stands in British politics and it shows that they're not irrelevant like Communists and Nazis are.In sporting events everybody loses except the winner but it is still noted who finished where. In sports like Tennis they have a rating system to show people where which atheletes stand and it makes a difference if one is rated 8th and another is rated 40th.--AryeitskiySaldat 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverts & Fascism sources etc..

User AryeitskiySaldat is continually removing the consensus viewpoint (ie that the BNP are a fascist party) from this article. Can he/she please refrain from doing so until he/she has either provided reliable sources to indicate otherwise or has established a new consensus. Thankyou. Marcus22 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

AryeitskiySaldat should read WP:3RR Lurker (said · done) 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a legitimate reason for the removal there is no consensus for incision and no firm evidence in the above discussion has been provided to replace the outdated sources,--84.66.110.223 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• (Note: above comment is possibly a sock puppet. Marcus22 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Aside from the fact that the sources are outdated and that the concept that the BNP is Fascist has been discredited by AR, many of you are still clinging on technicalities to keep your POV against the BNP in this article. Here is a reference which is from 2004 that shows the BNP is no longer Fascist and any claim that they are still secretly fascist is only hypothetical.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm

• But this is not an acceptable source. It is the BNP leader making a political statement. Though it may have relevance elsewhere in the BNP article ("Griffin has said that...."), it cannot be cited as evidence that the BNP is not fascist. Besides, the Party's constitution is totally irrelevant to this issue, which concerns the BNP's political ideology, not its internal organisation. And let's remember that the Nazis achieved power through the ballot, with some later power struggles. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the BNP, a fascist party, is going to appeal to British voters to let them come to power through a coup?!?! Get real. Mussolini didn't, Hitler didn't. They started as electioneering parties and subverted the national constitution when they had sufficient power given to them. Their internal organisation did not make them fascist - their ideology did. Emeraude 22:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is hypothetical, there is no proof that the BNP would do the same thing Hitler did and that was caused by the stupidity of others who handed that power over to him. The link is admissible because it shows the platform and philosophy the BNP is campaigning under and arguing that they're concealing something is hypothetical. You have shown that you're only pushing your own agenda and opinions and Wikipedia is not a place for this.

The link is valid for a "what the BNP say about themselves" type sentence, however, it doesn't explicitly disavow fascism, and one of the elements of fascism is populism, so a vague commitment to referendums (tyhe device of demagogue and dictators)is not really a devastating counter-point, you need a solid, perferably reputable third party reference stating that it is no longer reasonable top call the BNP fascist. It's not a tall order for you, I'm sure if you seek you will find, until then the weight of referenced evidence is for fascism and your claim based on the constitution comes under WP:OR--Red Deathy 08:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

the weight of reference can only be found in the constitution because the sources are outdated.

Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.--84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Facebook advertising controversy?

Earlier this month around 10 British companies pulled their advertisments from facebook because of their sanctioning of BNP related pages. Surely this deserves a mention? 81.154.133.162 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Londium 21:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Just because POV-pushers who want the Fascism bit in the article outnumber those that don't doesn't mean there's a consensus regarding it. If this is truly an encyclopedia it should be based on who makes the best argument and it is a fact that Fascism is Totalitarian and that the BNP doesn't fit into that categorization because it tolerates dissent in its party. Nobody has provided a concrete argument to this. Emeraude has only provided some childish metaphors and highly hypothtical, POV-pushing opinions regarding what would happen if the BNP is elected.

WP:RFC: BNP, Fascism, and consensus

Template:RFCpol A few users (AryeitskiySaldat (talk · contribs), 84.66.110.223 (talk · contribs), 24.203.217.224 (talk · contribs), and perhaps others) have been removing content describing the BNP as fascist, claiming that the BNP has since renounced Nazism. However, the only source produced was from the BNP itself and its reliability has been doubted by other users (notably Marcus22 (talk · contribs), lurker (talk · contribs), and Emeraude (talk · contribs)). This has disrupted the previous consensus -- that the BNP is indeed fascist -- and the conflict has become a messy edit war. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 02:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the BNP is presently campaigning on the basis of its constitution which clearly has elements which are incompatible with Fascism. You may be skeptical of this but an encyclopedia is not a place for speculation but of fact. ^{<unsigned comment>}

• I may be wrong but as far as I can tell it is just two users: but it is only the one (blocked) user and his many sock puppets who is disrupting the consensus with continual reverts. Again I may be wrong, but it also appears the same user has done the same thing on several fascist/far-right pages in other guises and that he has, possibly, been blocked permanently in other guises from editing Wikipedia. Marcus22 09:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what it's appeared to me as well, but I want to be neutral and avoid escalating this into something messier. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How can we be both sock-puppets if you check our IP adresses we don't even live on the same continents. Funny how when you have no etort you answer with an accusation like that. ^{<unsigned comment>}

[WP:RS]]; claims of this nature cannot be supported solely by evidence from the entity in question. If the editors have third party sources making the same claim, then it'd be a different story. But currently I don't see how they have a case for inclusion of the material under WP:RS. -71.136.245.240 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The third party sources are outdated because they pre-date the party's endeavor to reform itself. If you want to find a third party source fine but then find one that isn't archaic. ^{<unsigned comment>}

The BNP have been portraying themselves as "reformed" since well before those sources were published; indeed, some of the sources discuss this change in the way the BNP present themselves. Even if you don't like the sources in the article, Emeraude presented four sources from 2005 and 2006 above. There are clearly reliable third-party sources that argue that the BNP are fascist. Where are the reliable third-party sources that question this? VoluntarySlave 07:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now added a note in the infobox that the description of the BNP as fascist is contentious, and denied by the BNP. Although this is ugly, it applies the NPOV policy to this controversy, which looks to me to be the only way to resolve this issue. -- The Anome 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll not revert, but is tehre any actual reference to the BNP denying they are fascists? The point about the constitution is presently OR, and hugely contestable.--Red Deathy 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got one -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/3533941.stm, a BBC report from 2004. Quote from the cited article: "The BNP has denied it is a fascist party and has accused opposition parties of wanting to stifle free speech." -- The Anome 09:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, first off, there's clearly not much debating with someone who may be a banned user with numerous sock puppets. Someone who does not have the common courtesy to even sign their comments. So may I suggest that other, more responsible editors, refrain from continuing to engage this user in any "debate"? Second, I'm also happy to go with The Anome's solution - even though the contested sources have been contested only by suspected aforementioned sock-puppet. Thanks for the input Anome. It might be OK to just replace the small-font which you have added with a simple <disputed> also in small font? But I'll leave that call up to you. However, the sources which refer to 'fascism' must surely stay? Then a reader can read those and make their own mind up as to whether or not the BNP are a fascist(ic) party or not. regards Marcus22 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears that unless credible sources which prove the BNP are fascist today and not in the past and an accurate definition of fascism then there can be no grounds for the inclusion of the label fascist. It is not disprove to remove but prove to include, which must remain the principle focus.--Lucy-marie 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reliable third party sources claimj teh BNP is fascist, without another third party source reliably claiming the opposite it remains the verifiable content. the membership hasn't changed significantly, Griffin was around when the sources reliably said it was fascist.--Red Deathy 07:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• • BNP apologists may not like it, but there are two pertinent facts here: 1. Reliable third party sources say the BNP is a fascist/ic party - and some of these sources are included in this article 2. No third party sources (reliable or otherwise) have been provided which state that the BNP is not a fascist/ic party. Until those sources have been provided, that's an end to the matter. Marcus22 09:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.--84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• No. Look up both things yourself and/or stop being a pest. Marcus22 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration on each side, and this is a contentious issue. However, I am a bit uncomfortable simply dismissing these users. Though you allege them to be sockpuppets -- which may or may not be true, that's not my point -- they did raise a reasonable objection. In addition, Lucy-marie, who has made nothing but valuable contributions to this article, has made a point which nobody has refuted. While I believe that the BNP is fascist/ic, we must have an up-to-date, reliable, third-party source. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, but the issue of socks or not v regular editors is important here. Countless regular editors - not just those involved now - have created this article and they have provided sources for the fascism claim. (There are many more sources which could be used to make the same point). So now.. along comes a possibly dubious user who, time and again, removes those aforementioned sources and reverts on the basis of what exactly? On the basis that the BNP claim they are not fascist. Now that's OK once or twice. Sock or not. We can all make a point. But that user then continues to make these reverts in the face of i: the aformentioned and clearly still established consensus and ii: the existence of third party sources in the article which refer to the BNP as fascist. Not content with that, they then fail to provide any third party source to support their claim. In short, without any third party source, one anonymous user (thus far) is doing multiple reverts and running counter to the will, sources and work of every other editor. Surely they must desist? I see only anarchy for Wikipedia if this type of editing and reverting - on such grounds - is allowed to continue. Marcus22 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  I see your point, and I agree -- I was the one of the editors who reverted the repeated removal of the fascism label. In addition, I don't think we ought to remove it unless it's clear that the BNP is, indeed, no longer fascistic. This cannot be established by just citing the BNP declaring itself so. Nevertheless, I haven't seen anyone address the issues that this user (or these users) raised. Let's say, hypothetically, that the BNP isn't fascist any longer. If all the sources we pull up are from before its declaration, then it's rather clear that these sources are out of date. While Red Deathy has a point, we can't just assume that the BNP is still fascist because the membership hasn't changed significantly. We need to keep WP:V and WP:OR in mind, so let's find a reliable, up-to-date, third-party source. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine by me. So the conclusion to this debate would be; the references to fascism stay for now (otherwise we open the gates to anarchy in Wiki world) but we have the (fairly common) qualifying <disputed> tag placed next to the word fascism. New 3rd party references are then sought which might support either one viewpoint or the other. If such sources are found to support one side but not the other - then we go with that. If such sources are found and they support both views, the <disputed> tag remains as would all new sources. Perhaps the other user(s) can agree this to? No more need to revert. The discussion seems to be over. Marcus22 21:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is reasonable. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have an interesting point what if no sources are found?--Lucy-marie 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• If no new sources are found, then it should be left as <disputed>. (Because that would be the truth). Marcus22 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. Looks like another sock/meat puppet. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the same sock/user in one guise or another has been attacking this page now - on the spurious BNP claim that they are no longer fascist - for some months. It is perhaps time that the article was permanently protected from edits by all except registered users? Otherwise this is going to run and run... Marcus22 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Unfortunately, I have not been able to access Wikipedia as much as I would like recently and won't be for several weeks, so I find this whole argument rather frustrating. Let me make one thing absolutely clear - the statement that the BNP is fascist appears in the infobox, and like all infoboxes, is intended as a brief and clear summary. The article itself is the place to say that the BNP denies it is fascist (which I beleive it currently does) and that this is disputed (again, the article does this). It is not good enough to put <disputed> in the infobox simply because the BNP disputes it; there are no reliable independent source that dispute it. Whatever, the references to the BNP being a fascist party are sound and I (and others) have provided plenty of other sources, all equaly reliable. May I repeat what I said some time ago: the internal organisation of the party is completely irrelevant here - we are debating the party's ideology - so any constitutional changes to the internal organisation a few years ago do not invalidate references that predate it. Besides, as any half competent political scientist will tell you, the constitution of a party has absolutely no relation to its philospophy, ideology or policies. (You might want to argue that any party that does not elect its leader is undemocratic. You will then find that the Conservatives were not a democratic force until very, very recently!) 213.36.152.189 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Apologies. Connection keeps logging me off so this appeared unsigned. Emeraude 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Emeraude's position.--Red Deathy 08:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So what is the actual conclusion to the discussion here it seems that there are a lot of conflicting points which were being harmonised and now the debate has ceased so what is the outcome?--Lucy-marie 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current article now reflects the consensus on this Talk page, pending any new references. --Duncan 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Coming from RFC, If the source used is from the party itself and it clearly states that it has renounced fascism or Nazism then that is definitely a reliable resource. An alternative example would be if George W. Bush claimed that he was a "Methodist" and it was referenced a s a source that he was a methodist. Who would call it unreliable? If he says he's a methodist then who are we to dispute it? If the BNP says that they aren't fascists or Nazi's then who are we to say that they definitely are? What we CAN DO is mention that specific people (sourced) say that it has fascist or Nazi tendencies, though we can't label it a fascist party if itself says it isn't one. That would be POV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wholly agree it is what I have been trying to say from the start I just haven't been able to be as succinct. The label is a POV push in my opinion and belongs in the opposition section only.--Lucy-marie 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, as this gives undue weight to the BNP. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective- if the balance of opinion among reliable sources is that the BNP is facist, it should be described as such. If not, it should not be described as such. What the BNP's PR people say is irrelevant- this is not an advertising site. Lurker (said · done) 10:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Lurker - if George Bush said he was a methodist, and then witnesses reliably claimed he had never set foot in a methodist chapel, regularly attended Mormon chapels, had been raised a Mormon and all his friends, family and acquaintances were Mormons, we'd list him as a Mormon, and note his curious claim...--Red Deathy 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also concur. If I say, "I'm 700 years old", would that therefore be true? Marcus22 15:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Until reliable sources start referring to the BNP as an "ex-fascist" or "post-fascist" party (or start saying that the party is not fascist) then there's no reason for a change in the article. Reginald Perrin 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OR & Constitution

Just a quick thought, but those making the case that a clause allowing freedom fo dissent in the BNP means it isn't fascist seem to be missing the other factor that the role of the leader is still the dominant one - as the article currently makes clear, all decisions on policy are made by the chairman - the kind of arbitrary personal rule associaed with fascistic practice. So OR cuts both ways, an original research reading of the constitution could be used to reference a claim the BNP is fascist. or maybe we could wait for the reliable third party sources...--Red Deathy 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The BNP are implementing the Voting Membership where the activists and candidates vote on party policy, this means that the party chairman no longer makes the party policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.204.208 (talk) 17:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)