Talk:British National Party

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)

The party discrminates british and not british, not specifically white and not white. As a multiracial member of the BNP i have removed the "all white" from the first line. Also, if you look at all the membership protocol for joining the BNP you have to show you're british not show you're white. As for your comments on perjury in the cases they defended their right to discriminate based on other groups forwarding views of one segment of society, they wouldn't have perjured.--user:anonymous23:10 30/03/09 (utc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

Sorry, we can't use your original research - you need to provide reliable sources that dispute the reliable sources we already have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:14, 30 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)

The BNP is nationalist and nationalism is far-right but it is still nationalist, meaning that it appeals to the otherwise far-right and the left. Complicated I know but thats how it is. SJHQC (talk) 20:34, 18 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)

Well, as you are probably aware the right/Left classification is quite confusing and open to debate. The way I see it is some of the defining issues on the right would be a belief in free market regulation, small government and a belief in the nation state. On the left we have a powerful state, less private enterprise and a belief in equality and social justice. Remember the Labour Party and Marxism were born out of the struggles of the workers and are much concerned with worker’s rights and trade unions.

Now the BNP is interesting because it does not neatly fit into either left or right. It’s principally what it says on the tin, as in, it believes in nationalism, which I accept is a right wing belief but not by any means far right either. On the left side of it we see it works with a union called Solidarity, it believes in a kind of racial social engineering, and generally it’s style of campaigning is quite Marxist. It does political marches much associated with the left and tends to campaign in the spirit of a belief, much as Marx advocated, as in the rise of the proletariat to overthrow the ruling elite and all of that sort of thing.

Interestingly though it does not appear to claim to be left or right, or not in what I have witnessed myself, but it principally claims to be nationalist. If I were you I’d use that classification instead, although it would be true to point out that it is often labelled as far right. As you will be aware though, what political opponents label opposing parties as, and what they actually are can be two entirely different things. So I say that qualification needs inserting to make it factually correct, rather than a political point of view, which I understand Wikipedia tries to avoid doing.84.70.212.152 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that Solidarity is not a real trade union - it is simply the a BNP front and the latest in a line of fascist attempts to set up a workers' organisation. "Racial social engineering" - you're joking. "Political marches much associated with the left" - tell that to Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, the National Front. "Belief, much as Marx advocated, as in the rise of the proletariat to overthrow the ruling elite " - where, oh where, has the BNP ever advocated anything of the sort?

No, "the right/Left classification" is not at all confusing; it's not always clear cut and there are degrees of overlap (the right wing de Gaulle nationalising Renault is a good example). But there can be no doubt that the BNP is most clearly on the far right and there are no serious independent commentators who have suggested otherwise. Emeraude (talk) 18:02, 19 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)

Once again, you are asserting that the BNP are Nazis and Hitler-philes without providing any evidence , which is disruptive in the extreme. The BNP clearly has nothing against Polish people in themselves, just the scale at which they have been allowed in over the past five years - due to a Government refusing to protect its own workers and its own economy. This is perhaps an even bigger issue now that we are in a recession.--MartinUK (talk) 13:19, 13 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)

first you say 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? then, when I challenge you on this, [| having seen this] and you say I accept peer reviewed journals to be the best sources What sort of peer-reviewed journals are you using which say the half-truths you espouse?--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)

189, I will admit unequivocally that I do not understand the subtle difference between an all-white membership and a whites-only membership. Will you make this difference more explicit please? You can use long words if you want, and I will give it my best. Boris B (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, and it is a matter of defacto white and dejure white. The BNP appears to be both. The problem is, the anonymous user does not understand that the proposed version does make this clear - that the BNP is both.--Npovshark (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, 86.155.245.189, please see WP:No personal attacks and WP:assume good faith, and try to keep things civil. Suggesting that other editors can't read because they disagree with your points is not constructive, although I do understand your frustration. Second, 'all-white' and 'whites-only', whilst not necessarily being the same thing, are not mutually exclusive; it's highly likely that a 'whites-only' organisation will, as a consequence, be 'all white'. However, it is possible for an organisation to be 'all white', either through demographic coincidence or because people from non-white backgrounds would not wish to join, for whatever reason, whilst being open to any non-white person that did wish to join. What we have to ask ourselves is which the BNP is. Npovshark suggests that since the BNP's website does not refer to 'whites only', we should refer to them all 'all white'; however, the very source makes it clear that the BNP is 'all white' as a matter of policy, not merely as a concidence or because non-whites choose not to join. By describing the party as 'whites only', we make this explicit, whilst, if using 'all white', we present a much less clear picture of the party's membership policy. FrFintonStack (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct FrFintonStack, but the point is the ideas of "white-only" (by policy) and "all-white" (because the party is pro-white, and therefore attracts whites) can be expressed without saying this verbatim. This is what the proposed version accomplishes. Please read it again: 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]--Npovshark (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that, though? It's just a longer, less concise, clause-ridden and ambigious way of saying exactly the same thing. Why do you object so strongly to the term 'whites-only' to begin with? If, for whatever reason, we wished to avoid the term, your wording above would be a good way around it, but I fail to understand why we do. That a phenomenon can be described using a different form of words is not an adequate reason for doing so. Secondly, with Lawrence Rustem issue, you'd need to establish 1) that, according to the BNP's designation, he's non-white (remember that they classify Sharif Gawad as white) 2) that he's actually a member of the party proper (it previously transpired that other councillors elected on BNP tickets weren't actually party members) and that 3) this represents general policy rather than a specific exception; please remember that the BNP themselves state that membership is open only to whites: it is not merely what 'some people' say about them. If there are, in fact, non-white members (again, using the BNP's own understanding of white, as the term can be very ambiguous) inspite of policy, that ought to be remarked on, but it does not change the fact that the policy exists.FrFintonStack (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You still do not see the problem do you? It should logically follow that if the BNP has a whites only membership policy that the BNP is all-white, but it does not. A one time only exception was made to allow a non-white person to join, but the BNP still retain their whites only memership policy. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The BNP website addresses the question of whether they are racist or not and they suggest that they atre analogous to "Black only" organisations, such as the "Black Police Officers Association" and that by implication these organisations are racist ad don't allow white members. The conclusion thenis that they are racist and do not allow black people to join. They have set up the Ethnic Liaison Committee which has one member, Lawrence Rustem - a deeply sad and lonely individual. Allwhite might be an organisation which black people have not chosen to join and whites only implies deliberater exclusion.--Streona (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Rustem any one of the following?

-A BME(in terms of heritage, not identification)

-mixed-race

a non-white character?

It appears he is. In which case, I withdraw my proposed intro and am now opposed to calling the party all-white or whites-only in the opening sentences, because it seems now that, in reality, the BNP is neither whites-only nor all-white. It would then be best likened to a white interests political organization and, in the second paragraph, write that the BNP has been accused of being all white - and so on.--Npovshark (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source - we can't use your original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not original research, this is trying to plan out how to approach the article so that the views of the BNP's opponents are represented (ie - perhaps we could say it has been called whites only), but doing so so that we are not calling 1+1 "7" in the process. A man with 72000 brothers and 1 sister is not a man with "all brothers" or "only brothers". This is not original research, it is understanding that "all" and "only" are beyond weasel words.--Npovshark (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Guardian article linked to above:

An activist for more than a decade, a special exemption was made to BNP rules to allow him to become a fully pledged member of the organisation. BNP leader Nick Griffin has said the rules will not be bent again, making Rustem unique.

So yes, technically, this means that the BNP are not 'all-white', though I'll remind you that it was you who argued for that wording in the first place. However, they retain a policy of admitting only white members, to which an exception was made in one instance, and will not be made again: therefore 'whites only' still applies, as long as a qualifier for Rustem is added. To represent the issue as "called" 'whites only' is simply insufficient and does not accurately or adequately describe the situation: the fact remains that it is the BNP's policy to admit whites only. This policy has not changed because a one-off, one-time exception was made to it.

A few of the other remarks from the Guardian interview are very telling:

"To look at him you would not know. He looks slightly different, but he is not a Negro. He is a bit like a Greek, I suppose," said BNP press spokesman Phil Edwards.

"A part of me is never going to be British. It is impossible. The blood just won't tell a lie, will it?,"FrFintonStack (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Finton. Yes, I know I proposed "all-white", but that was a mistake. Anon could have simply said "you know, you forgot about Rustem," which I did. It is clause-ridden - but because the BNP's policy is also clause-ridden. "White" makes a complicated assessment, where again we find ourselves asking who is white. Is the organization a white nationalist organization? If so, then this should be said, just as the Black Panthers were an African American organization, according to wikipedia.

How about this, then? "Party policy is..."

It would mean we don't have to make sentences like "for the most part/generally, the BNP has" which would be an overemphasis of the fact that technically speaking, the BNP has non-white member. At the same time, we can avoid giving instant mention to Rustem. Rustem should come later in the article, not in the intro. So...

The British National Party (BNP) is a ---- (far right? white nationalist? ethno-nationalist)---- political party in the United Kingdom. Party policy is to restrict membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" and accept white immigrants who have assimilated into one of these ethnicities.

next, I would propose talking about the party's most recent performance, followed by the media response to the BNP/what the party is also regarded as, which seems to be the format of other, less-controversial articles about nationalist parties in Europe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So the BNP is not "all-white"(due to Rustem) but it is "whites-only" (because it will not admit any other non-whites). --Streona (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. What about Whites of the Muslim faith? This is why a clause-filled into is needed, one like the proposal above. Or, perhaps we could simply say this: "...a party without what the BNP defines as "non-white or Muslim members"| 1--Npovshark (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to get away from this idea that we rely on what the source says about itself - we have reliable sources that state that it's a white only party. We don't get into original research or "truth", we are interested in verfication. You need to find a reliable source that states that the BNP is not a white only party. That's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

we have reliable sources that state that it's a white only party. Not quite. One source for the phrase "whites only" says that "the Rustem appointment aggravated the whites only hardcore." How does this support the reliable sources stating it's a white only party? Another source states that "the BNP has been accused of racism because of its whites-only membership policy". This source talks about the membership policy - not the membership - and cannot be used to support the current shape of the into. It is because of the current shape of the intro that I pushed for "all-white", because I misunderstood what it (the intro) meant. Interestingly, the other sources given for "whites only" talk about the BNP's policy, but do not use the phrase "whites only". Thus, another reason why I'm not going against the sources by criticizing "whites only".

My other problem with "whites only" is we're only talking about one aspect of its policy (and that is as it stands in the current-standing version) although the non-Muslim point is just as pivotal. Interestingly, "anti-muslim bnp" gave me 149 hits and "whites only" turned up only 69. Google scholar, which someone referenced earlier to support using the phrase whites only, also has more articles on anti-muslim bnp. So in conclusion, your synopsis that "we have reliable sources that state it's a white only party" is not much of a final word at all.

Back to my proposed version...it is important to say what the party's policy is. That is why I used the the phrase "The party policy is to...". To say "the party is whites-only" is not only an interpretation, and I am not interested in that in the first line and neither should anyone else shooting for NPOV in spite of the fact that the slant in the reliable sources will make this impossible. You want to make this article balanced? Then after the introduction sentence, state what the party's policy is, since this is a defining feature that sets it appart from other parties. Then go on to talk about how the party has fared and then, still at the top, talk about the media perspective and commonly-held views. That should get us off to a good start.--Npovshark (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it, we aren't adding meta-commentary about the sources into the articles and we aren't adding "commonly held" views - both are NOT what we do here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly take my one-sentence summary in the second last line a bit more literally? How about addressing the other 98 percent of what I wrote?--Npovshark (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

The BNP do have Euroscepticism. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

This article is pathetic, and has clearly been written by a bunch of commies, labour supporters, and general nutjobs with an axe to grind. You want to know why there are not any sources saying the BNP is not a fascist organisation, or that the BNP have changed their ways? Because under the rules of the National Union of Journalists, journalists are not allowed to write about the BNP in a positive light! That's why you're never going to find a source that says the BNP are just normal people who want the best for their communities. I've been a member of the BNP for three years. I'd been looking at their performance before then. I've seen first hand how Nick Griffin has changed the party. This can be reflected in our growing vote share over the years in elections. 3 years ago, getting 10% in a by-election would have been a cause for major celebration, now we generally get at least that number anywhere we stand.

I remember when BNP lads were going out leafletting and just getting 2 or 3% of the vote. Those days are over. You really think a sizable chunk of British society suddenly turned fascist? Not likely. It's damned obvious the BNP has changed, and that is not BNP apology, that is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.6.10 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we aren't *using* newspaper articles for the fascist claim I'm not sure what your point is? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is such an NUJ rule (can you point us to it?), there are tens of thousands of journalists who are not members of the NUJ and therefore would not be bound by it. Nor, of course, would the academics whose work we prefer to use. Barnabypage (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the anon ranter actually believes that crap. The BNP has never scored 10% in a parliamentary by-election. If he's referring to local council by-elections, given the appallingly low turnout in them, it is proof of absolutley nothing. Emeraude (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regular readers will know that the NUJ guidance is not binding on journalists, who are edited not by their union but by their editors. The NUJ in common with many, if not all TUC affiliateed Unions does have a position on the BNP. They share the opinion of the 90 percent plus who do not vote BNP. In fact I do not think that those whop do are fascist or even especially stupid, but I do think they are being deceived as to the true nature and intentions of the BNP. Perhaps we collectively can clarify this? --Streona (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For 90% plus, read 99.3%, as of 2005. I share Streona's position on BNP voters, incidently. 79.77.6.10 may which to acquaint his- or herself with WP:No personal attacks before editing this page futher..FrFintonStack (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

79.77.6.10 should also bear in mind WP:COI Autarch (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BNP police officer sacked

Can someone please update the information on the BNP membership leak / employment troubles for BNP members. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7956824.stm - the police officer who was on the list has now been fired. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are smiling? Yeah, you don't have a bias.--Npovshark (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made my view very clear on several occasions, i find the BNP disgusting and thats one of the reasons i dont actually edit the article myself. However as the issue over BNP employment problems is included in the article i thought someone should update it with the latest information. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not realizing that User:Wordforge had already added the sacking under "Organisations which ban BNP membership", I duplicated the fact at Bettley's first mention, under "2008 membership list leak". After discovering the duplication, I decided to leave it in because my edit occurs earlier in the article, is only 6 words, and cites a different source (BritishWatcher's link above), but if anyone objects to my edit, I have no objection to its removal. Unconventional (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to include a mention in both sections, so i think it should stay, Thanks for adding. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire pilot joins BNP

It may interest all you people who agree with the mainstream idiot press (and their equally idiotic opinions about the BNP) to know that one of the last few surviving Spitfire pilots from WWII just joined the BNP.

Yep, I'm sure he'd quickly sign up for a far right fascist party...

But I understand...rules are rules, "reliable sources", as you call them, are the sources we use. I have come to accept that Wikipedia has no dedication to truth and is just a mouthpiece for the ruling regime and its beneficiaries - just like Wiki would have been under the CCCP, and just like it will be under some unknown government of the future, guided by a new "spirit of the age". Well, hopefully that "spirit of the age" will embody a commitment to truth. Hopefully, it will be an era where people cannot make a living telling us that an ethno-nationalist party is "fascist", that the only remaining right-wing party that has not sold out its people is "far-right".

link:[1]

--Npovshark (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to approach the story in such an aggressive way. However, this might be worth addign to the article, if an appropriate spot can be found. AFAIK the NPI is a 'reliable source'.--MartinUK (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am a bit angry. In case I have not made it clear why, see the previous two topics, above Euroskepticism--Npovshark (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I have come to accept that Wikipedia has no dedication to truth and is just a mouthpiece for the ruling regime" you are complete correct in that wikipedia is interested in verification not truth and that there is a bias towards mainstream media and discourses. It's both wikipedia's biggest strength and biggest weakness and why we aren't aren't for everyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] I'm not sure that the National Policy Institute truly qualifies as a reliable source. It might be regarded as a fringe organization. They appear to just be rehashing the BNP as a source - I think the BNP itself would be a better source for their own membership. Here's a cached copy: [2]   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrible thing Alzheimer's Disease. Tragic. I also understand that he flew with the Apartheid South African Air Force in 1978. --Streona (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How DARE you suggest that he has Alzheimer's without a source - that breaks so many Wikipedia guidelines I can't even begin to list them all...--MartinUK (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Getting back to the matter at hand, I don't think this is noteworthy unless it's been noted in a reliable source. There are many old soldiers, sailors, and pilots, and unless this one is particularly celebrated it doesn't seem extraordinary that he'd join a political party. Would we mention it if he joined the Labour Party?   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As it doesnt seem to be on the BNP website anymore and theres little other sources i think its best to leave it off and it doesnt seem that notable. If it was one of the last survivors from WW1 then it would be a much bigger deal.

One thing notable in the news recently is about Winston Churchill would of been a bnp member. It was covered on BBC news and has been talked about alot, dunno if thats worthy of a mention somewhere? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Nicholas Soames (Churchill's grandson and a veteran Conservative MP) spoke out against Nick Griffin's assertion that Churchill would now support the BNP, so it should be possible to find a neutral source.--MartinUK (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes heres the BBC article if anyone wants to try and ad something about it somewhere in the article although im not sure where it would fit in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7955799.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of that information. Why should we include it? Griffin has said something silly as a publicity stunt, nobody takes it seriously, to include it is propaganda. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So now this South African Apartheid supporter wants to deport my wife and what ? Maybe gas my son? How many Namibians died, before the Cubans knocked the hell out of the SAAF? And when Mandela got out, was it then that Tidy went scuttling down to Devon? If he does have Alzheimer's this would be a mitigating circumstance.--Streona (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But seriously folks, this piece of news is not noteworthy apart from the BNP trying to milk it for publicity purposes and would obviously have no place in the substantive article, but this talk page has become a blog for knockabout political jibe throwing in its own rather than a talk page for the article.--Streona (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The longest lasting fascist regime was in Spain, created after a revolt against the established order by the army. Many other right wing dictatorships relied on the army to create or sustain them, so "military type joins BNP" is hardly news. Move along people, nothing to see. Valenciano (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how this could possibly be regarded as notible.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Walker

His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for accessing pornography using school equipment, and was eventually dismissed as a result of his sickness record.

I have returned the above sentence to the article, after it was removed by Npovshark at 13:27 on 15 March 2009 on the basis that it was "utterly irrelevant". The edit can be seen here, and removed all mention of Mark Walker from the article. Not only is the case and the information contained in the sentence highly relevant and fully-referenced, but without it the following two sentences, which deal with his employment issues, appear to refer to his brother Adam Walker, and thus create a potentially libelous paragraph. Could the user in question please explain fully why he or she sought fit to undertake this confusing removal of information?FrFintonStack (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"BNP are joke"

BNP can't be taken seriously: anti Semitic/anti immigrant/anti Christian/ anti-ethnicity/anti-Holiday/ anti-everything but white

The BNP are constantly changing their views about many things which we British stand for. Why do they think they can have one foot in the Bible and the other on anti-everyone but those born in Britain and are white (except anyone who disagrees with all their other ideas)? They don't make sense, the BNP come across to the general public as ignorant no-brainers and beer drinking complainers. The anti-BNP group have some interesing sources:

“ "We British should be looking for ways to work together, not looking to skin colour as a reason to be hateful. ”

[3] I'm going to get some sources. Refreshments (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BNP Sells Racist Book

The BNP website manager Arthur Kemp sells his own book on the BNP website March of the Titans which asserts that Southern and Eastern Europeans are race mixed with non-white blood. Kemp conveniently fails to mention in his book that the Romans brought black slaves into England for 500 years. Kemp has no formal education in history. Kemp's book should be cited in Wikipedia's article there in the third paragraph where it is discussed how the BNP restricts its membership. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)