Talk:British National Party

NPOV

Uhhhh. This really irritates me. Why can't people just look at EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view. No, they are not "fascists". They are only "fascists" if they call themselves that. The American Republican party call the Democrats "communists" but I don't see that on Obama's page do I. We are not here to teach people NOT to vote BMP. They can vote whatever they want. That's why the UK is a democratic institution and should be treated as such. Personally, I find the BMP a dispicable bunch of people, but they still have a right to be treated neutrally.--81.151.248.191 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term fascist is reliably sourced, i agree this page is hardly neutral but its like trying to paint the Nazis in WW2 as the good guys. If you can make suggestions on how to improve the article to make it seem fairer, u should suggest it here and see if theres an agreement. There is only 1 possible thing i could think might be added as a good thing for the BNP and thats their support for allowing the Ghurkas to get British citizenship and stay in this country. Im sure Griffin has said he supports that, but i cant find their actual policy committment on it, otherwise i would of added it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term fascist is, as BritishWatcher says, reliably sourced. But we need to get away from any suggestion that you can only be fascist if you say you are fascist. What next? You can only be a war criminal if you say you're a war criminal? You can only be racist if you say you're racist? You can only be tall if you say you're tall? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Things are described as they are, not as the subjects would wish them to be seen! Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is completely stupid. A war criminal is a war criminal because of what they did; someone who is tall is "tall" because that is what we call that size. Someone is a "fascist" because we choose to use a historical reference - and often do so because it elicits a certain, programmed response that is attributable not to the BNP or anything the party has done, but to the things from the past which were conjured up. And how do they apply to the present? Does the BNP want to disband the parliamentary system, and appoint their leader as Führer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire BNP article by wikipedia is and example of falsely categorizing an organization by using selective extreme examples without any balance,  for instance the BNP has currently 63 candidates for the European Parliament.  Did wilkipedia or the rather the leftist who write for it and who have established its rules  do a comprehensive interviews on those 63 before and gain a spectrum of their views , attempt  to catogorize those views and address the party as say " currently amongst the    BNP political candidates for the European Parlaiment x percentage have the view of thus and y percentage feel this way and z percentage express this view", NO they cherry pick the worst examples of extremism they can find, over a twenty year period including non BNP members and those who were removed for extremism  and present it in the worst light.Then they use the term far right??   A political party that is going to nationalize the banks and the public transport system and Improve funding for the National Heath system and stop development on green belts  can be called several things, but one of them is NOT "far right".  They also want to re establish the right of free speech in the UK.. You could label them Nationalist   In the US they would be called socialist or left center   but far right is unfair.Then you try to smear the leadership by presenting something Griffin said eleven years ago all the while insinuating dark motives behind the statement and refusing to use more current material to give balance.  I will give you an example they represent Nick Griffin view as published in the Rune in 98 as an example of how he feels now but fail to print ANY of the many subsequent articles in which Mr Griffin has explained his views then and now  Also his 98 conviction for publishing material likely to incite racial violence is a monument not to Griffins venality but to communist style censorship of free speech and the laws that made that conviction possible in the UK over something as trivial as an uncaptioned cartoon are widely condemned by civil libertarians all over the globe.  I will note you did not mention any of that in your so called unbiased article. I dare you to present that ENTIRE case complete for public scrutiny now.  You won't because people would see what a bunch of anti free speech facsists You people at wikipedia are!!  The whole WIKIpedia publication IS AS ONE SIDED AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT AND ESCAPE ACTION FOR LIABLE.    You are a bunch of socialist Globalists masquerading as objective writers while publishing propoganda. and unlike you I am not afraid to sign my name  John Bambey  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.255.137 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)<!

The problem here is that "fascist" is a potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory term, so it can be used to push agendas (in this case, the liberal one), breaking the NPOV. For a true fascist party, see National Front. They accept they are fascist. The BNP itself denies they are fascist, I read it somewhere in the official web site, I will put a link when a find it.Eros of Fire (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just about any word you use is "potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory", but so what? If I say that William the Conqueror was a bastard, I am not being insulting. If I say that Margaret Thatcher was a fascist bastard, I'm wrong on both counts. I repeat, this is an encyclopaedia; we are grown-up enough to use words accurately and precisely with their real meaning, and backed up from reliable academic sources. Incidentally, I don't think you'll find that the NF accepts (publicly) that it's fascist. And there's no need to link the BNP's denial; it's already mentioned in the article. Emeraude (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia's own article "Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race." The BNP is pro-democracy, and Griffin has never talked about making himself dictator of the U.K., and it's next to impossible any member of the BNP would go for it. "Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of social Darwinist and militarist views that violence between these groups is natural and a part of evolution and a perpetual conflict." The BNP is the only party in the U.K. that is against it's involvement in Iraq. They also do not support violence against other races (I'll try to find a link later, but I remember reading about how racial conflict actually dropped in certain areas where the BNP got elected... pretty sure it was Stoke on Trent, but I'll need to double check), their main policy regarding non-ethnic European immigrants being voluntary reparation. In other words, according to Wikipedia itself, the BNP is not fascist. The supposed sources of the BNP being fascist are either blatantly false or laughably biased to the point of absurdity (I'm looking at you, UAF). I looked through the footnotes and couldn't find a single link to any reputable (see: non-biased third party sources) that made a convincing well researched/documented argument that the BNP was fascist. I'm new to Wikipedia, so if anyone wants to tell me about references that aren't in the footnotes I'd be happy to look at those as well. Until then, the fascism label needs to be removed - immediately (I'd do it myself but I'm not auto-confirmed yet). --LeGooberman007 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

References 7-14 are used for the Fascist tag - those are all peer-reviewed journals/books by established academics who printing in mainstream academic journals of note. Can you please outline what is wrong *specifically* with each of those references? In terms of sourcing for wikipedia, peer reviewed mainstream academic journals are considered the highest level of sourcing. Can you outline why you don't consider those sources to be reputable?--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Reference 7 - Unable to view, even after signing up on the site. A quick look at the abstract seems to say it has to do with the BNP's vote share in the 2004 elections, not whether or not the BNP is fascist. Links for references 11 and 13 are broken and 14 has nothing to do with the BNP supposedly being fascist(indeed, 14 actually seems to show that the current government of the U.K. is fascist, rather than the BNP). The rest either don't have links or come with hefty price tags just to view them. I may be wrong about this, but aren't references supposed to be easily viewable? --LeGooberman007 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry I meant 7-13. As for your other question, They have to be accessible by *someone* - while it would be nice that academic journals were open access it doesn't look like it's going to happen soon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the broken links - something odd with the wikicode on this page, no matter how many times I correct the links, random characters are being inserted at the end of the links. Anyone know what's causing it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So we're just supposed to take it on faith that the person who sourced them isn't posting completely biased non-objective crap passed off as "academic research?" Especially if they know the rest of us don't have access to said articles. Seems a bit stupid to me, even if it's in a "mainstream" academic journal that doesn't mean it's without fault, especially when it comes to politics. It's quite easy to show how the BNP isn't fascist, but I have yet to see one iota of proof that it is. About the only thing that would lean towards fascism is Griffin's decision to enhance the position of party chairman (solidifying his position), and even that can be said to be purely to avoid fractures and splits within the BNP given that it's a relatively fledgling party (in its current state) that's only reached the mainstream recently due to Griffin's reforms. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you can ask people who do have access to check or your can ask the person who added them to cite the material. I actually became involved with this article (I have no particular interest in the BNP) for that very reason, because someone asked me to check the academic journals that were being used to cite the fascist claim. I checked them and in the course of doing so, adding 3 or 4 others that I came across while doing that research. If you can provide mainstream sources that dispute that the BNP is not seen as a fascist organisation, please provide them. I didn't come across any such references while looking into this matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I find out who added them? And what happens if/when they are either unavailable or will not cite it? You can't find any "reputable" sources that say they aren't fascist, while I can't seem to find any that do. Once again, I suggest that the fascist label is removed until there is definite proof that the BNP are fascist (the burden of proof being on the people making the claim, not the ones opposing it). Personally, I think the actions of the BNP under Griffin prove they're not fascist, as I can't seem to find a single example of their supposed 'fascist' behavior anywhere. Standing candidates in democratic elections? Peacefully disagreeing with how members of their perfectly legit and legal party are fascistly banned from holding certain jobs (which is illegal and should be challenged, mind you), and trying to get the bans revoked through legal non-violent channels? How... fascist of them. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you are getting into original research. Wikipedia is about verification *not* truth - so all we do is report what source X said about entity Y. In this situation, there are multiple reliable sources (in this case peer reviewed academic articles) that describe the BNP as fascist. So that's what we do, we report what those reliable sources have said. Our *own* analysis of what we think BNP action X,Y or Z means for the party means nothing here and cannot be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but once again - how can I get a hold of these articles. I'm not sure how to find out who added them, and even then, if the arguments \in these articles describing the BNP as fascist are faulty (or the authors are proven to be biased), does that even matter? Or is it merely the fact that the BNP is being called fascist by people in mainstream academic journals enough for them to be labeled fascist on Wikipedia? It seems like what you're saying is that if enough "reliable" (who defines reliable?) people say something is true, then Wikipedia will go along with them, regardless of whether or not they're right. Which, quite frankly, would be downright stupid. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a project here that assists with access, I'll try and dig it up for you. As for the Or is it merely the fact that the BNP is being called fascist by people in mainstream academic journals enough for them to be labeled fascist on Wikipedia? - pretty much, yes. If it was a single academic source, then we could argue the toss about it, but once you get into eight or nine. When I went looking, I found with no trouble many more articles that did the same (I didn't see the point of adding them as there were already 7 references to that fact). It seems like what you're saying is that if enough "reliable" (who defines reliable?) people say something is true, then Wikipedia will go along with them, regardless of whether or not they're right. that's is entirely it - which is why I said we deal with verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Amongst us Anglo Saxon history types we only ever refer to William as 'William the Bastard'. He was never known as the Conqueror in his lifetime -either "the Great" by his supporters or to his face and "the Bastard" by everyone else.--Streona (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To get back on topic... Streona, are you one of the people who can edit this article (seeing that it is locked)? Your open hostility to this group suggests to the observer that perhaps you should restrain yourself and leave this article to more neutral editors. Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.181 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The major problem we have here is that to most neutral commentators, the BNP are seen as somewhat extreme, and this article will doubtless attract both opponents and supporters whose attitudes are proportionate to a perceived disparity of opinion. My experience here is that there is little new in this. This encyclopedia is littered with sorry histories of politically-based edit-wars, of which Liancourt Rocks is perhaps the most pointless in generating drama way beyond its actual importance - except to those with an axe to grind, perhaps. There comes a time when enough is enough, and edit-warring has to be "kicked upstairs" for wider review. For this article, I don't think that time is nigh; compared with some, it is relatively well-behaved. Robust debate is healthy, but pig-headedness isn't, in my view. As for "more neutral" editors, only those who are interested will edit the article, and it seems to me to be almost a given that a neutral point of view, at least among British editors, would be unlikely. So what matters at the end of this, is whether what is said here about the BNP is reliably sourced, and whether its inclusion is encyclopedic. I don't think, for the record, that personal attacks, however neutrally couched, are of much help. NPOV in this case requires give and take on both sides. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can edit the article, however I tend to over compensate by being too favourable to the BNP. Also, given the contriversy it has to be immaculately sourced.--Streona (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I find it totally bizarre that a party whose most recent election manifesto was titled "Rebuilding British Democracy" is being described as fascist in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.102.236 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Bizarre? Not at all. You need to read their manifesto, not the title (which could have been called anything at all - it's the contents that count) AND also the sources that support the fascist description of the BNP. You can tell nothing from a manifesto title (for example, whose policies were described in Let Us Face the Future:, It's time to get Britain working again and Ambitions for Britain? Emeraude (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the emphasis maybe on "Rebuilding" (as in Demolishing)here, rather then "Democracy".--Streona (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article to me, actually looks too kind to the party. In attempting to be neutral, the editors seem to have disproportionately represented the positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Being brutal to the header

Currently reads:

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]

The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.

According to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."[17] The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[18]

The BNP has focused on criticism of Islam, and has said that it does not consider the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions to have a significantly detrimental or threatening effect, although it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[19] The party does however have members with Jewish ancestry. The BNP has been known to work with extremist Hindu and Sikh groups opposing Islam,[20] and has actively tried to win Jewish votes.[21]

The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]

Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

This is too long, although all true. How about this?

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and is currently opposing Islam and trying to recruit Jewish members. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]

The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.

The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]

Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

Can we get it shorter? Roger Pearse (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be justification for shortening it, but the popular vote must remain in the opening paragraph as must the fact they are a far right party and if its a white only party that information is needed although im still slightly unsure about that claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy to source to multiple reliable sources and I will do so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if we say that it only gets 0.7% of the vote; but remember we have only a few lines, before we violate the whole idea of a summary. I felt this was probably covered by saying that it has no MP's and a few councillors. Do we need more? And... won't any statistic we give just change anyway?

Re "multiple reliable sources" -- can we be careful here. This article is drowning in references to frankly low-grade sources, often from the BNP's enemies. That isn't a "reliable source." One unbiased source is worth a million others. We have too many statements with clusters of reference notes on them; can't these be combined into one reference, with multiple links? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The BNP's "enemies"? What information and what sources are you specifically talking about? Rather than a meaningless vague statement, be specific. I can provide references from virtually every British newspaper describing them as "far right", are they "opponents" or "enemies"? Is there a media conspiracy to paint the BNP in a bad light? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The popular vote is from the 2005 election so will only change every 4 years. As for sources i think for the white only bit we should add this as well http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ It basically says they have a white only policy but it doesnt make them racist. That source ok to be added cameron? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful about those sorts of sources but it should be ok here - in a subject about the article and because it's only making a claim about them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Roger but that suggested introduction is simply too one sided. Whilst the current introduction is long, it is more balanced than that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In what respect is it one-sided? By all means offer suggestions. The current one seems dreadfully biased against the BNP. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If the BNP's coverage in reliable sources is generally negative, then it logically follows that the article will be too. That's the whole point of neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like Roger's shorter version. I think it is balanced, and is about the right length - the previous one certainly has far too much trivial detail.

I would like to suggest a couple of changes. The "periodically achieved success in local council elections" is a bit vague - perhaps it could be replaced with "has [NUMBER] of local councillors"?

Also the "Currently the BNP is making electoral progress," is time-dependent (meaning the page may go out of date). It's also about something very recent: a slightly longer view of the last few years may be more statistically significant.

On the popular vote issue: I'm not too worried about it being 4 years out of date - it's a small price to pay for an unbiased source, which can be used to compare the size of the BNP with the other small uk political parties. Besides, it can be updated within about a year anyway :) --h2g2bob (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like some aspects of it. However it leaves out their whites only membership policy, and attempts to portray them as a right wing party unjustly smeared as "far right" by opponents. That is not neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be if it said that, I agree. I didn't intend that, and didn't think I said it. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"The party is described as far-right by its opponents" may be semi-ambiguous, but the way most people would read it is that they aren't far-right, but their opponents say they are. Their most vociferous opponents describe them as (neo-)Nazi and racist, not far right. I offered you quotes from virtually every mainstream newspaper earlier describing the BNP as "far right", are they all "opponents" of the BNP? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to take your last point first, according to the **Wikipedia article**, yes, they ARE all opponents of the BNP!!!! Everyone is, pretty much; all the politicians, and all the journalists, as far as I can tell.  :-) That's why we need to take special care not to just repeat newspaper slander. But I see your point about phrasing. Um. We do NOT want to say that they are not far-right (we don't want to express any opinion). But since the phrase is a demonisation phrase -- can you think of a context in which it is used as a term of praise? I can't --, it would be better avoided as a statement of fact. Perhaps there is nothing for it than to use it, tho (can't think of alternative wording that avoids both problems). But it is a bad way to introduce the party, because they don't think of themselves like that (unlike Nazis, Mussolini, etc). Roger Pearse (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but no. That's the BNP conspiracy theory version, there's a media conspiracy to only portray the BNP in a negative light, I'm honestly surprised they don't claim it's all ZOG's fault!! There is no way a neutral encyclopedia could possibly assert that every newspaper in the UK is an "opponent" of the BNP. I do not see "far-right" as negative, otherwise "centre-right" and "centre-left" and so forth would also have to seen as negative. I see "far-right" as an accurate statement of the party's politicial position, based on their own policies and actions, as I am sure the multitude of sources using the term do as well. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I missed the whites-only going missing. That's a pretty important bit that really must be re-added. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with shorting the lead but that's too important to lose. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bob for your thoughts. If people feel really strong that whites-only is important, put it in. But I never heard of it on the TV, so it's probably not important enough for the header; surely it's sort of implicit in their policies, tho? That is why I chopped it from the leader anyway; stuff that can be considered duplicate has to go. You will have seen today's speech by Peter Hain about how the BNP is making progress (there have been several labour announcements of this sort lately), which was in my mind when I wrote those words about progress. If people will keep the stats up to date, then let's have them. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger the BNPs TV broadcasts only say what they want them to say not things which would disturb alot of people. It says they only have white members on their website there for its a very important bit of information and has to be included in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I never watch BNP TV broadcasts. I was thinking of BBC reporting. I just didn't see that something no-one has ever heard of is an item that someone coming new to the subject needs to hear in the first couple of sentences. Obviously others feel differently. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to shorten the lead, this is the paragraph to amend:

It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’". The BNP also accepts white immigrants that are assimilated into one of those ethnicities.

Everything after "legislation" is just a re-hash of "whites only", and would be better in the main article covering their whites only membership policy in detail". Put the half-sentence remaining at the end of the previous paragraph, assuming it can be sourced? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's all good *data* but not for the leader. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Would someone mind making the change please? I suggest the wording added to the end of the previous paragraph is "It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, including the Race Relations Act sourced by this book and the BNP's manifesto (the second one gives the explicit pledge to repeal the RRA). 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please make the change to Roger's version, it reads better.--Imminent Fall of Western Civilisation (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rogers version is unacceptable because it misses out too many points which can not be glossed over or hidden alltogether. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that their stated ambition for an all-white (or at least virtually all-white) Britain should be mentioned. How about:

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom, described as far-right by its opponents. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and has a stated ambition of "stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration" to the UK and to making the country "overwhelmingly white" again. In the late 2000s it has opposed Islam especially strongly, and actively recruited Jewish members. [14][15][16] The party has no members of parliament, achieving 0.7% of the popular vote in the 2005 UK General Election, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections. The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27] Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]" (Still shorter than before, but doesn't miss anything vital. If anything else can go from the intro to the main article, I'd suggest the 'bank account' sentence. Note that the references might need moving around)--MartinUK (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The two big problems I have here are a) the qualifier "described by it's opponents" - we aren't relying on their political opponents or the media, we are using multiple peer reviewed sources for that identification - to say those academics are their opponents represents original research and synthesis and is a weasel phrase to boot. b) The other problem is that once again, you are removing the fact, that that they have a colour bar on membership - making then unique in mainstream. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The second point is definitely fair enough - how about "The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party in the United Kingdom, of which only white people can be full members". While I think of it, how about a change to "In the late 2000s it has opposed Islam and the wave of Eastern European immigration especially strongly, and actively recruited Jewish members." as this emphasises that they aren't purely whites V everybody else.--MartinUK (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But why do we want to use "which only white people can be full members" when "white only" is more concise and to the point? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Because they have an Ethnic Liasion Committee (or something similar) and people such as Lawrence Rustem and Sharif Gawad have stood for them. The defintion of 'white' has evolved throughout their history - the anti-Semitism is gone, and I'm sure those of Irish descent were less accepted in the past than now. Still, 'white only' isn't so bad if the anti-Eastern-European-immigration aspect is also in the intro.

The BNP's position is that Sharif Gawad is white. Not sure if/how they rationalise Rustem's ethnicity.FrFintonStack (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Caution on using the BNP as a source

The BNP are known for publishing misleading articles to suit their own position. Take Whites Are the Majority of Racial Crime Victims, Research Shows which states a report by "well known researcher" Tony Shell provides various facts and figures. What that does not tell you is that the contents of the report do not exist apart from on the BNP site and blogs and forums reporting it, similarly Tony Shell and the name of the report, or that Tony Shell is actually the BNP's Plymouth organiser. Other than undisputed statements of fact or direct quotes, anything should be sourced from someone other than the BNP. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should be careful about using the BNP as a source but in http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ they admit they only have white membership. Sure they try to defend that position with their usual crap but the fact their own website says they only have white members seems like a very strong source for the white only bit which till i saw that page id always doubted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard it either. It's one reason why I'm nervous about the prominence the article gives to it.

Just a thought, guys... are we quite sure that people who hate and loathe the BNP as much as some people here seem to do should be editing this article at all? Is it quite ethical for haters to write the articles on the object hated? Is it going to produce NPOV articles? You see, I don't quite see how we can avoid distilling that feeling into our edits. It seems a funny old thing to do. (The same would apply to a BNP-er, of course). Roger Pearse (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is possible for people with strong views to get balanced articles, the trouble is those that come here and say its biased do not make suggestions to see if we can reach agreement. If you can highlight the sentences which you have problems with we can discuss them. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not hate or loathe the BNP. I do however understand that the NPOV policy does not compel us to write about the BNP in a sympathetic light. While the article may have its faults in regard to excessive coverage of some aspects of the BNP's activities, I do not believe that attempting to change the most indisputable facts is a worthwhile use of anyone's time. However, your comments are largely irrelevant to the point I was making, which was the unreliability of the BNP as a source for many things. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should write with sympathy. The problem at the moment is those who can only write with antipathy. This is producing a crap article. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources you want to discuss or challenge? attempts to poison the well by making this about editors rather than content is not really the way to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC

So the BNP's articles are not 'reliable', yet the Times, the Independent and the Guardian are. What a joke.--Imminent Fall of Western Civilisation (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

They are more trusted sources than the BNP themseles when talking about the BNP yes. Although the BBC or other media organisations would be better than newspapers in my opinion. lol @ your name by the way, very imaginative. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well those sources meet our reliable sources policies on a number of points, including (but not limited to): 1) independent of the subject 2) have a history of reliability and fact-checking 3) Have editoral oversight 4) have clearly named authors for articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

culturally or ethnically British

"... it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British." The link provided does not mention Jews. How do we know the BNP does not accept Jews as British in some way? Boris B (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BNP sources

I've added tags to a number of potentially contentious claims, presented as fact, regarding the BNP that are referenced only to BNP material and thus lacking third-party verification. Also, reworded a couple of claims to reflect what was actually in source, and added a tag to a claim entirely unsupported by the web address provided as a source.FrFintonStack (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Black members

Apparently, if the urban legend is true, some of the people in the BNP list were black?? No way? Anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been the BNPs contention in employment cases taht they have been discriminated against due to being an all white organisation in comparison to all black pressure groups such as the Black Police Officers Association. If they are not all white then this is in effect perjury and anyone who suggests otherwise would be accusing them of perjury, which would be defamatory. Rustem is in the "Ethnic Liaison Committee" & not the BNP proper. In fact he appears to be its only member. Sharif Gawad is white- he just has an unusual name. It is difficult to see why a non white BNP supporter would not seek to further the party's aims by leaving the country immediately and not coming back, assuming anywhere else would have them.--Streona (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Far Right?

Hi,

I'm not sure this is the right description of the party. First they do not advocate violence, which is a common trait amongst extremist organisations, and secondly, if one looks at the people who vote for them, it appears they are making greatest headway in the left wing areas, especially those old decaying industrial towns up north, e.g. Stoke on Trent and places like that with a high percentage of working class people. These areas are traditional Labour safe seats and Labour describe themselves as socialist. On the other hand, the areas that have been traditionally associated with Tory voters, such as the southeast do not attract a large BNP vote. They seem to be much more associated with the left than the right, and this is why Labour are more worried than the Conservatives in Britain. To introduce the party as far right is highly misleading and needs altering. 90.240.68.70 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you might want to take a look at the very lengthy discussions further up this page to see how this issue has been covered. Just to respond quickly to a couple of your points...

(a) While it's true of course that many far-right organisations have advocated and/or practised violence, that doesn't mean it's a necessary precondition of being far right. (Since political groups of almost every persuasion have been inclined to violence at one time or another, we could use that argument to disagree with the classification of almost any non-violent political group - for example by saying the Republican Party is not right-wing - which would clearly be absurd.)

True, but the discussion here is of branding the BNP as "far right", not "right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCaleyJag (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(b) Your second point is an interesting one but not conclusive - it could be that existing right-wing minorities in these areas are swinging toward the BNP, or that non-voters are coming on board, or any one of several other explanations. We'd need to cite a reliable source before making this point rather than indulging in original research. Barnabypage (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the election in Millwall Ward in Tower Hamlets the first BNP councillor Derek Beackon was elected on a low turn out with a 3 way voting split in 1992 in a bye-election. When he was defeated in another election shortly after the votes of the Asian community and others were mobilised and he was defeated. However his votes actually increased slightly. It was evident that many voters were voting for the first time. It is probably the case that many BNP votes are not necessarily from other parties but from people who had not prviously voted. In national Front elections of the late 70s it became evident that the presence of a Liberal candidate reduced the number of NF vote, as these are often looking to the same pool of "protest" votes. The BNP seek the votes of the disaffected white working-class - or under class- voters and these are not necessarily the sole domain of the Left or of the Labour Party. When I was involved in the Millwall Campaign the BNP did use violence. Richard Edmonds their deputy leader was convicted of a racial assault outside a pub in Bethnal Green and myself and a group of anti-fascist canvassers were showered with bottles at the City Arms pub forecourt from a nearby bottle bank, after the BNP had thought better of an intended attack upon the premises at rather closer quarters.--Streona (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Polish

What is the BNP's stance on the Poles working in Britain as guest workers? Are these workers welcome to assimilate and stay, as the BNP constitution claims Caucasians are? The Polish-speaking peoples are from the Indo-European branch of languages, yet I found this bit in The Register | 1 which is quite priggish about the irony it claims to have unearthed, that a BNP advertisment used an image of a Spitfire that was manned by a Polish airman in WW2, and the BNP wants to send all Polish workers back. Is this news article an example of disinformation and ignorance...or sharp reporting? --Npovshark (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simon Derby of the BNP is quoted in the same article as saying that they do not want Polish workers here and that they also knew it was a Polish Spitfire. Clearly the BNP poster represents the Spitfire in question as being viewed through the gunsight of a Nazi Messerschmitt, which indicates on whose side the BNP are really on if we are to make any sense of this somewhat bizarre image. Perhaps a subtitle would help, such as "Gott in Himmel! Achtung Schpitfuer! Surrender now to ze BNP, Englischer-schwienhund!"--Streona (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Fascism

Fascism: is someone who stands for educating people in line with tradition rather than educating them in line with liberalism and new-age thought a fascist? In other words, is a party that at least seems to want democracy but thinks its people should not promote multiculturalism, claims multikulti creates double standards, does not want its youth to be educated about the wonders and joys of destroying bloodlines and bemoans progression away from national solidarity to be equated with totalitarian, absolutist states of yesteryear? Is fascism a credible word to describe the BNP's democracy-for-our-tribe-and-nation political philosophy, or is "fascism" just a slander word used to conjure up images of past states and personalities which are discrediting?

Who is using this label "fascism" - and why? There is something that rubs me the wrong way when I realize I could defend state institutions for a living, as some scholars do, and come here on wiki to find that everyone fell into line when I gave my two cents about who should be called what and what I thought about the world, as per my latest book or scholastic essay. That is the biggest problem - the issue here isn't "facts" coming from a source and whether that source is reliable enough to give those facts straight - the issue is that an opinion, supported by the system, is being presented as a fact because Wikipedia is considering that source to be reliable.

Which is more important here, sticking to the facts or sticking to the sources, regardless of opinion or fact?--Npovshark (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verification not truth - so we report what reliable (mainstream) sources tell us - in terms of our articles they are the facts. If you don't like that, then I suspect wikipedia is not for you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me back up for a second. While I won't erase what I wrote above, I see now that my concern over the mainstream's use of the term "fascist" is not our concern - and I understand why. As you said, verifying whether the mainstream's opinions are valid or not is not Wikipedia's job, its job is to report what reputable people are saying.

On the other hand, calling the BNP "fascist" is an opinion. We need to remember that. If someone tells me Griffin kills those who challenge his rule, wants to tax at a rate of 50% and watches illegal cable, then I will expect a good source. But, if the source is reliable and says Griffin is a tyrannt, his taxes are nuts and his tv should be shut off, these are opinions, not facts. Opinions need to be cited as opinions.

Even then, the sources given are not good sources. They are politically-motivated sources withe government ties, ties to anti-right organizations and initiatives, and socialist workers propaganda literature. The others were unretrievable. Please see the conversation under "Reposted". I'm calling your bluff.--Npovshark (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave up about half-way it seemed to be a mixture of incoherent rant and delusional paranoid thought. The problem is, you are trying to butt heads with the fundamental principles of wikipedia - wikipedia says that we report what reliable sources say - and that's the start and end of it. Multiple reliable sources (according to wikipedia guidelines) say that the BNP is a fascist organisation so that we include that in the article. If you want to change wikipedia's stance on reliable sources and how we use them, then you need to do it over at the policy pages, it cannot be done here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You failed to address all of my points and only pointed out your incompetence. You failed to address how an opinion becomes a fact, just as you failed to illustrate just what it was that made these sources reliable. I feel you are snaking out of this by trying to call me delusional and I am not at all impressed.--Npovshark (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the point is this - all we say is "Source X says Y" - that's it. In this situation, multiple peer reviewed academic sources say it's a fascist organisation. If you can find multiple reliable sources that indicate that it's not, then we have something to discuss. I actually became involved with this article because someone raised the very question you raised over at the reliable sources board - we looked and concluded that the sources were good. You can head over there yourself and try again but you are going to get the same response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but we are not doing that. I don't see "Source X says Y" in the text, or "according to...".

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Taking into consideration the definition of fascist...

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution.[9] In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.[10][11][12][13]

...and its complete irrelevance to any behaviors of the BNP as they have thus far been documented, I believe it is all the more neccessary for the "statements of opinions" regulation to be followed. This is exactly what I was alluding to with my Griffin and his illegal cable (!) example. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. That X has opinion y, however, a fact.--Npovshark (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to repost what I wrote in "NPOV" anyway. I tried to edit it down a bit, be a little more concise. It is a bit curious that four or five of the sources are not accessible..

Reposted:

Ideology of the BNP:

White nationalism[1][2][3] British nationalism Right-wing populism[4][5][6] Third Position Fascism[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

So I did a little research into the "reliable" sources calling the BNP fascist.

Source number 7 was published by Taylor and Francis in a journal called "patterns of prejudice. T&J also publish these multi-issue journals:

   * Labor History (since 1959)
   * Patterns of Prejudice
   * Philosophical Magazine 
   * Rethinking Marxism (since 2003)

So a marxist rag is being used as a source warranting that the BNP be called "fascist"?

Source 8: I will have to read the book. It appears the author, Richard C. Thurlow, uses the epiphet "fascist" to describe the BUF, NF and BNP. Unfortunately, the direct passage, quote or chapter section which is cited for the "fascist" reference is not referenced - or accessible.

Source 9: A book by Dr. Nigel Copsley. Copsley wrote two books about fascism. The second, not the one sourced, has this cover | 1 A picture of Griffin photographed next to the Union Jack flag...but the Union jack flag is cropped so it looks like a swastika. So the BNP is the NSDAP? Is that the suggestion? Pretty weak. The BNP does not stand for undoing the Treaty of Versailles, creating an all-German Reich without any Jews in it, and so on. Academic dishonesty and pov-pushing, anyone? Just like a cropped photo of Obama and the hammer and sickle on the front cover of a book...used as a source to talk about Obama? Somehow, I doubt that would fly. Anyway...the Copsley book which is used as a reference, "The Failure of British Fascism", was published in 1996. That is ELEVEN YEARS ago, one year after Griffin joined the party in 1995. According the the BNP article, Griffin became leader in 1999, when, as the article says, he reformed the party. So...is the 1996 source qualified to say that the 2009 BNP is "fascist"? Is "fascist" a static descriptor that never changes?

I wanted to know more about the publisher of Nigel's book, considering what I learned after investigating source number 7. The following shows evidence of political editorialism, anti-nationalist political activity and government funding tied to this source - a source which in spite of also being outdated, is supposed to be a trustworthy source for commentary on the nationalist party:

Here is what Wikipedia tells us:

"Macmillan Publishers Ltd...is a privately-held international publishing company owned by Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group...Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a Stuttgart-based publishing holding company which owns publishing companies worldwide....Newspapers owned by this group include:

"Der Tagesspiegel: a classical liberal German daily newspaper...in 2007 and 2008 Der Tagesspiegel's Washington D.C. correspondent, Christoph von Marschall, was noted in both Germany and the United States for his coverage of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. He wrote a book entitled Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy. The literal translation of its German title is "Barack Obama. The Black Kennedy".[1] His book was a best seller in Germany, where other commentators had also compared the two Americans.[2]"

"Die Zeit (see below for my quick, German-to-English translation): Zielgruppe sind traditionell vor allem Akademiker bzw. Bildungsbürger. Ihre politische Haltung gilt als liberal...Am 5. Mai 2008 startete Zeit-Online mit Partnern wie dem Deutschen Fußballbund, dem Deutschen Feuerwehrverband und den drei Internet-Portalen SchülerVZ, StudiVZ und meinVZ, dem ZDF und dem Deutschen Olympischen Sportbund das Internetportal Netz gegen Nazis. Das Portal erfuhr neben dieser Unterstützung jedoch auch Kritik von publizistischer Seite.[7] Am 1. Januar 2009 zog sich Die Zeit deshalb aus dem Projekt zurück und überließ die Trägerschaft der Amadeu Antonio Stiftung.[8]"

Die Zeit is a newspaper for academics and scholars, its political direction is liberal...On 5 May 2008 the newspaper partnered with the German football club, firefighting organization and ...three Facebook copy-cats...as well as ZDF (German, government-funded public broadcaster), and the olympics organization to form Netz gegen Nazis [www.netz-gegen-nazis.de]. (translation: the web against Nazis). It led this organization until it gave main authority to Amadeu Antonio Stiftun, which die Zeit still funds and helps from the Second-in-Command position at "Netz Gegen Nazis". Amadeu Antonio Stiftun, is an organization that is responsible for "Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt" (translation: courage against right-wing control/might) and several other anti-right/pro-multiculti organizations (ex: | 1 but there are many others, including Enstation Rechts, another anti-right organization).

On "Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt", "Netz Gegen Nazis" and "Endstation Rechts":All three spy on nationalists, report on nationalist activities, distribute literature to get people to embrace Multiculturalism/not embrace the conservative right-wing. Their goal is to get people not vote for right parties, which are all "neo-nazi"; ironically, if these nationalist parties were truly nazi, they would be illegal under the German constitution and disbanded. In court, Germany's leading "Establishment Parties" (as well as die Linke, the "SED-leftovers" Party) tried to show that one party, the NPD, was Neo-Nazi, but then it was revealed that half the NPD was controlled by agents at the time. The prosecution refused to identify who the government agents were and thegovernmentwas unable to distinguish actually party policy from agent-initiated, lets-try-to-make-the-party-look-like-a-nazi-organization policy. The case was thrown out.)

Source 10: Same story as Source 7. Note also, that Source 10 is written by the same person in Source 9.

Source 11: "British National Party's representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition". Unfortunately, this is not readible online. But, judging from the title, this seems like a source that sees "homogeneity" as fascist instead of seeing "homogeneity" as homogeneity.

Source 12: Would I pay 40 dollars to see if Hino Ario uses the colloquialism "fascist" in her book about the Failure of the Far Right? No. Pass.

Source 13: Another text non-existent or requiring a fee before reading. Honestly, more of this? Am I that desperate to see if Yasmin Hussein thinks neutrally enough about the BNP not to use the label "fascist"? (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See - this is why I can't be bothered to answer most of your points - You think that the first source shouldn't be used because " So a marxist rag is being used as a source warranting that the BNP be called "fascist"? you seem to think that because the publisher (Taylor and Francis - an A grade academic publisher of mainstream widely accepted journals) *also* produced a magazine that *discusses* Marxism (note an academic journal discussing Marxism doesn't make the magazine a Marxist propaganda piece), that it means it's a Marxist publishing house. I really don't know where to start where the misunderstanding of the material and the context is so profound. Please I beg you, head over to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask that Taylor and Francis and also MacMillan Publishing are disallowed as producers of reliable sources, it would be comedy gold. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I suggest you get someone to adopt you as a mentor, I think you will be constantly banging your head against a metaphorical brickwall without some guidance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I only assumed the publications were Marxist propaganda and I admit that I did not check to see what the focus and purpose of these publications were, but that is because I knew better than to waste my time and double check, I've seen so much crap that I know what to expect. You call it "delusional paranoid thought", and you are entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that I was right afterall:

"Rethinking Marxism, Aim and Scope" Taylor and Francis:

We are interested in promoting Marxian approaches to social theory because we believe that they can and should play an important role in developing strategies for radical social change-in particular, for an end to class exploitation and the various forms of political, cultural, and psychological oppression (including oppression on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation). We especially welcome research that explores these and related issues from Marxian perspectives.1

Although at this moment I cannot vouch for all the articles published by Taylor and Francis, I am willing to bet that a magazine with the title "Patterns of Prejudice" makes no effect to define fascism and is just as biased in its objectives as "Rethinking Marxism" admits to being. Likewise, the fact remains that Macmillan Publishers Ltd. is the international mother company of two publications which are "liberal", one of which wrote about how Obama should be likened to JFK, while the other is funded by the government and has organized "Endstation Rechts", Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt" and many other similar organizations. As for these all-encompassing "history of the right" texts, I'm also assuming these sources know they are using the term "fascist" innappropriately, but they're "far right experts" who are paid by the shitstem to lie, just like they lied to infiltrate groups like the BNP so they could do their research in the first place. Still, I realize now that these points do not matter; Wikipedia makes it clear what sources can be used, that they can give their opinions regardless of political objectivity. HOWEVER; the important point is the format of this article is in violation of how Wiki says these sources need to be treated. You said it yourself - "all we can say is 'source x says y'" - well, that is not what was done. --Npovshark (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Whites only

"Whites-only" is a complete breech of the NPOV rule and an obvious attempt to manipulate the way people think about a party that restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’, with allusions to Jim Crow, the Apartheid and so on, by using similar language similar to Jim Crow and the Apartheid in the article.

First off, the Times is a newspaper, not a label generator. It should not be passed off as an academic source that refines the way we should view and categorize the world. Lastly, I am failing to see the neutrality in taking a phrase in a sentence that appears in the last paragraph of a newpaper article and using it as the primary descriptor in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article.

The BNP has been accused of racism because of its whites-only membership policy. is different from "the BNP is whites only". In fact, even the Times' article is less POV than Wikipedia. I cannot think of a more POV way of addressing what the article already does address, in the third line. In other words, the same point is repeated twice.

This is from the BNP website.. http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/

"Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people."

"If the BNP is racist for holding this position, then, we would suggest, all of the following organisations - some of them state funded - are also “racist” because they too address themselves exclusively to the issues and concerns of their respective communities"

In this statement they admit and do not hide the fact they are a white only party that cares about white people. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Still, they fail to use the phrase "whites only" in that article, they put it another way, saying exactly what the Times article says: the party has all-white membership. I think there is a difference, and I know it isn't good faith (sorry), but I'm willing to bet the person who wrote "whites only" in this article here on Wikipedia was well aware of the differences, given the historical context. Also, I remind you: [a party] that restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ means the exact same thing as the other two phrases, and is already in the article's intro (3rd para.).

By the way:

Googling "British National Party" - 685000 hits.

Googling "far right BNP" turned up 9390 hits.

Googling "whites only BNP" resulted in 69 hits.

Other queries: "fascist bnp" - 6730

Googling "far right British national party" turned up 13300 hits.

Googling "whites only British national party" resulted in 1050 hits.

"fascist british national party" - 3270

Browsing through the results pages, I'm seeing a lot of Indymedia, newspaper and anti-right organizations use these titles, as expected. I tried also very pro bnp phrases, like "pro-white bnp" and "nationalist bnp"...hardly contenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i wouldnt object to "whites only" being changed to "with only white members" but it would have to remain in the intro because its a very important matter. However no matter which way you word it, this is clearly not a breech of Wikipedia policies as you claimed. The two things are the same. Just because they dont have a sign outside their office saying no blacks doesnt mean it isnt a whites only party. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You should've checked all the sources for that sentence -- the whites-only British National Party, the BNP should remain an all-white party, we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members. I've asked for that third paragraph to be partially removed here and here, if some registered editor could make the change please? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of a headache but will take care of it in the morning... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, anon. So we plow over the more articulate explanation and leave the Jim Crow/Apartheid-esque "WHITES ONLY" or its near equivalent, three-word expression in place?

How many "blacks-only" colleges, scholarships, organizations, funds, contests, caucuses and so on are, or refer to themselves as, BLACKS ONLY? Searching Google, I'm seeing most hits for "Blacks Only" are pro-white/racist/? websites complaining about "blacks only" colleges, scholarships, organizations, etc...

"blacks only" - 77.200 hits

"all-black" - 10.100.000 hits

Why can't the BNP article be like the Sinn Féin article? Should there not be uniformity? In spite of its nationalism and own primary and distinctive features, Sinn Fein is introduced as just "a political party in Ireland". Why not the same with the BNP then? Three paragraphs down, we can add the part about all white membership, followed by a brief explanation as to what that means in non-cro-magnon-terminology.--Npovshark (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'Why can't the BNP be like the Sinn Féin article?' How about because they aren't a bunch of neo-fascist racist thugs with a gas chamber fetish, if my knowledge of Irish political parties is correct? It is people like you coming here with the non-stop arguments that have been dismissed time and again that stop this article ever improving. The BNP are far-right and fascist and whites-only and described like that by many sources, if you think differently then good for you, get yourself published in a peer-reviewed journal then come back, otherwise you are wasting your time and other people's. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ouch lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't encourage him, BritishWatcher. All anon demonstrates is why people like him need to disappear from reach of this article, because he, like so many others, cannot distance himself from the vague half-truths that influence his opinion.--Npovshark (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean I accept peer reviewed journals to be the best sources available and do not use ever excuse going to try and say they are not acceptable unlike the endless stream of BNP apologists, then you are correct. Otherwise, you are not. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

because they aren't a bunch of neo-fascist racist thugs with a gas chamber fetish, if my knowledge of Irish political parties is correct? Again, you pull a completely new topic out of the blue that is completely irrelevant.--Npovshark (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Browse through the talk page archives, this has seemingly been going on forever. Every so often a BNP member or supporter or sympathiser or apologist pops up and the same discredited arguments pop up. 'The sources are biased' -- yawn. 'The sources are out of date' -- yawn. 'You have to pay to read the sources' -- yawn. 'The BNP have changed since Nick Griffin took over' -- yawn. 'The BNP are not fascist because of their economic policy' -- yawn. 'The BNP are not fascist because they only wear their Swastika armbands on the second Sunday of each month' -- yawn. The best possible sources according to Wikipedia policy - peer reviewed academic journals - were added, and it still goes on, it is taking the piss. It is time for a FAQ to be added to this page like on the Barack Obama article, and if anyone pops up with the same boring arguments they are pointed to the FAQ and the discussion is archived, instead of the endless points being explained over and over. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

if you mean "discredited" as in saying that biased, politically-interested sources, the disparity between BNP activity/policy and the definition of fascism and 10+ year-old sources being used to claim the BNP continues to be a fascist party do not matter to Wikipedia, you are right. I am willing to accept that. Still, your defense of the last of these three points suggests that maybe you don't think political parties change, which is completely insane.--Npovshark (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Got any sources for your opinions? I do not believe you have. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See the conversation above this topic with fascism in the title.--Npovshark (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, not "whites-only" but "all-white" then. Glad that's sorted out.--Streona (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed, shortened the lead:

The British National Party (BNP) is a political party in the United Kingdom.[15][16][17] The party is restricted to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" and also accepts white immigrants who have assimilated into one of these ethnicities. Thus, the party has all-white membership.[19]

Suggestions for next paragraph: either a) accusations and labels of "far right", "fascism", etc. with sources listed (x says y), followed by the BNP's counter points, if they exist. or b) talk about its election performances. Either a follows b in the next paragraph, or b follows a.

Peer review says the article is biased anti-bnp, especially in the lead. So we're working with that. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you have not bothered to read the talk page or recent archives, and your proposed version of the lead is unacceptable, as well as not being correct. The BNP are not "all-white", their membership is "whites only". There is a subtle difference you do not seem able to comprehend. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect" is not the right word - incomplete is. I thought I had mentioned that the BNP is white by design and not just default (unique from most parties which support white nationalism), but apparently this fact was lost in the shuffling. In any case, I have changed the proposal above rather than reposting it here. Maybe that was a mistake?--Npovshark (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable - chock full of weasel words and we don't get into "he said, she said". If there is dispute in reliable sources that the BNP is a fascist organisation, please present the sources for review. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So you want to get into "he said she said" in the first sentence? Did you not see my proposal for the third sentence, at the start of a new paragraph? This is where the mention of fascism could go...

Pertaining to the label Fascist and NPOV

Each source must be indicated, and it must say "according to", or something along those lines, in accordance with wikipedia policy. There is too much of a disparity between the definition of fascism and the BNP for the sources claiming the BNP is fascist to not be treated as sources with opinions instead of sources with all-knowing wisdom. Cameron, you said we, as Wikipedians, must accept that the sources dictate what we can say, which is why we say "source x says this, source y, this". But, in spite of this conclusion, this is not what the article does.

The BNP is linked in association with three other parties which are defacto whites-only parties. For comparison, here are their intros:

The National Front (FN, French: Front national) is a French far-right, nationalist[1] political party, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen. The FN has 75,000 members.[2] In the French presidential election of 2002, Le Pen finished a distant second to Jacques Chirac in a runoff election. From 2002 to 2006, the Front National established itself as the third largest political party in France, after the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, formerly RPR), and the socialist party (Parti Socialiste). In what pertains to the international scene, FN is affiliated to Euronat.

next paragraph Although the party describes itself as a "mainstream right" organization[citation needed], observers in the media describe the party as "far right"[3] or "extreme right".[4][5] Both Le Pen[6] and FN general delegate Bruno Gollnisch[7] have been condemned sometimes for Holocaust denial or minimizing.(to a loud-and-emotionally influenced anon: this is why your point about the BNP is moot)

The German NPD

The National Democratic Party of Germany (German: Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) is a far-right, pan-German nationalist and white nationalist political party.

next paragraph: An ARD-led poll states that the majority of the population in Germany considers the NPD to be undemocratic and damaging to the image of the country. [1] The NPD is viewed by its opponents and the mainstream media as a de facto National Socialist organization for various reasons, particularly because the party opposes the increasing number of non-whites, Jews, and Muslims living in Germany.

The National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna, ND) is a minor political party in Sweden, formed by a faction of the Sweden Democrats in October 2001. The far right[2][3][4] party describes itself as a democratic nationalist ("national democratic") and ethnopluralist party.[1] The general media and other observers frequently designate the party as xenophobic and/or racist[5][6][7][8][9][10] and the Stephen Roth Institute has described it as "neo-Nazi"[11], while the party itself rejects these descriptions.[12][13]

two other nationalist-oriented parties, have been attacked by opponents and the mainstream media:

The Republicans (German: Die Republikaner; REP) is a nationalist conservative political party in Germany. The primary plank of the REP's program is anti-immigration, and the party tends to attract protest voters who think that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU) are not sufficiently conservative. It was founded in 1983 by former CSU members Franz Handlos and Ekkehard Voigt, and Franz Schönhuber was at one time the party's leader. It is currently led by medical doctor Rolf Schlierer. In the 1980s the Republicans had several seats in the European Parliament as well as in the parliament of the German state of Baden-Württemberg. In Baden-Württemberg, the party has had seats until 2001. Currently they only attract between 1 and 2 percent of the vote in Bavaria, and approximately 3.5 percent in Baden-Württemberg, thus failing to reach the 5 percent necessary to win seats in the parliaments.

The Republicans are considered by many Germans as extreme-right and neo-Nazi in orientation, but do not see themselves in that way. The German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz observed the party from 1992 to 2006 and categorized it as an extreme-right party, until 2006, it does not regard REP as extremist. The avowedly extreme-right party National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and the far-right German People's Union (DVU), both of which are more successful than the Republicans, have offered the Republicans a chance to join their electoral alliance, but the REP leaders refused any cooperation with any openly extreme-right parties.

The German DVU

The German People's Union (German: Deutsche Volksunion, DVU) is a nationalist political party in Germany. It was founded by publisher Gerhard Frey as an informal association in 1971 and established as a party in 1987. Financially, it is largely dependent on Frey.

Note the common thread: "he said, she said" comes into play after the intro, not in it.--Npovshark (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

98 results on Google Scholar for "far right british national party", plus every major UK national newspaper means the BNP are far right, to suggest otherwise is advancing the BNP's fringe view of themselves. If you are so concerned about NPOV, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories. NPOV only calls for significant views to be included, not fringe views. That's why "the earth is round" is NPOV, not "the earth is generally seen as round". And you still do not see the difference between "whites only" and "all-white", the BNP are not "all-white". 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that "far right" should not be mentioned. In fact, I suggested the opposite. As for your comment about the party's whiteness - I see the difference. It is an obvious difference, and I made it clear that I accidently lost the distinction between white by default and white by design when I was playing around with splicing sentences together. Perhaps my description to you was not clear, and I should have used the words defacto white and dejure white instead of default and design. Anyway, this time around, your argument about whites only and all white does not reflect what has been said. This distinction is made ("membership is restricted..."). I'm not even addressing your second point, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.--Npovshark (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

<panto>Oh yes it does!</panto>Your proposed wording is 'Thus, the party has all-white membership'. If you understood the different between "all-white" and "whites only", you would understand your proposed wording is not correct in relation to the BNP. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you responded before I finished my post. I hope you understand...by the way, you were not clear that your "the moon is not made of green cheese" argument was in reference to the whites only thing. You mention the "thus" line without referencing the previous line, where it says who the party is restricted to. Calling something "whites only" and calling it something "allowing only caucasian people with historic roots to the isles" does not change the point, it merely elaborates on it. One is more descriptive and therefore, more useful and npov. Saying "the earth is round" as opposed to "generally, the earth is thought to be round" conveys two different ideas, not the same one.--Npovshark (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? The BNP do not have an all-white membership. There are nine words in that sentence, many of them only have one syllable, any words you do not understand I will be happy to explain for you. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)