Talk:British National Party

Talk Page Archives

References of Fascism

All those references that claim the party is Fascistic are outdated, the last being from 2000.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

How Griffin defines his party is irrelevant. Fascism as a political philosophy has been defined and that definition can be applied to the BNP.--Rsloch 11:30, 13 October 2007 (BST)

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

Just look at the party's constitution

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

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

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

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 But your own belief that the sources do no accurately characterize the BNP does not make the sources "outdated."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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1936 Soviet Constitution

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

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

freedom of speech;

freedom of the press;

freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;

freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure whether the BNP should be described as fascist or not, that will depend on the "Reliable Sources" used (and I don't see any of those in this Talk). But I can tell you that your argument here is "Original Research" and is invalid for use in articles. You must quote what there is in secondary sources, you should not be using primary sources (or certainly not as you are doing). PalestineRemembered 12:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

While i'm hardly a supporter or even defender of the BNP, going on Wikipedia's own Fascism pages the party can't really be defined as a fascist party. "Fascist" seems to have become a generic term for anything authoritarian anyway, even Stalinism, fascism was apparently never really solidly defined, even the original "fascist manifesto" (which incedentally didnt mention race at all) seems to have been written a good 10 years after Mussolini came to power. "White power"-type parties are closer to National Socialism, which is admittedly similar to fascism but not the same. The List of fascist movements page in the fascism project has various criteria which could be used to identify a "fascist movement", and i don't really think the BNP, going by thier stated aims anyway, fit most of them. What they might get up to if they ever got into power, though, is something else entirely. 89.31.50.92 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take the initiative to do a background check and the books that allege the party is Fascist are not scholarly at all. In fact one of the authors, Renton, has a website where he professes himself as a left-wing activist.

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/

I will add that Fascism is alleged by critics and opponents but frankly the credibility of the authors is so weak that I don't even believe that the Fascism allegation even belongs in the column.--WhiteTiger86 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPOV reverted, you can't add perjorative labels to sources because you don't agree with them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I should have thought in wikipedian terms anti-facists would be a good source on whether an organisation is thought of as fascist or not. That aside, you need reliable third party sources stating that a source is unreliable (for instance we wouldn't cite David Irving on the Holocaust - unless discussing denial - because we can cite his trial as undermining his reliability.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there not credible references available for the BNP's origins being fascist (ie founder John Tyndall's past involvement with the neo-nazi National Socialist Movement and other leading members coming out of the National Front and the neo-nazi British Movement?) If so then it would not simply be an allegation to state that the BNP's founders came out of the fascist tradition in the UK but a verifiable fact. 142.204.70.20 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

8th Place

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

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

Reverts & Fascism sources etc..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many of their policies can be linked to Totalitarianism, such as oppression of labour unions, use of propaganda and misinformation, promotion of mass surveillance and the use of fear tactics. Totalitarianism has always been very close to nationalism. Nationalims is believe by many to be a large part of totalitarianism. I believe there are many citations to contradict your claim that the party tolerates dissent. Such as the expelling of John Tyndall, the campaign against chris jackson, in which nick griffen posted comments in his blog threatening his supporters with expulsion. --Neon white 14:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The debate is done and dusted. Several times over. Please stop disrupting this article. Marcus22 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although I myself do not consider the BNP to be a fascist party, couldn't we clear up this mess by saying that they are alleged to be a Facsist party by critics-User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFormby1 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• No. The debate is over. The overwhelming consensus is that the BNP are properly described as Fascist. Get used to it and please stop disrupting this page in one guise or another. Marcus22 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't stand some people, if every newspaper and news programme said that the world was flat, would that make it so?-User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This link simply gives the facts on the British National Party, and does not allege that the BNP are fascist, I think the article should be cleaned up and based on this.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/bnp1.html

Actually, the article you have linked to states a European Parliament committee on racism described the BNP as an "openly Nazi party". Lurker (said · done) 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the article doesn't actually state that the BNP are Fascist (Like we have done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.226.217 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

not convinced about the reliablility and verifiablity of the source anyway. --Neon white 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can I ask Lurker, and other regular editors, to not give these socks any more time? Debating with such casual IP's is fruitless. Marcus22 18:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I take it nobody else realises martinfrost.ws is a very out of date mirror then? I don't have time to track down the exact version, but does this look familiar? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Other Issues

No mention of the Facebook advertising controversy?

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

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

And when do we stop adding in every piece of anti-BNP news? When the article reaches critical mass and sufficiently warps space time enough to cause a black hole? The article doesn't exist to provide a streaming news blog. 81.153.49.180 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Racism in the article

The BNP are a racist party. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that. And so due coverage should be given to this matter. But.. isn't it over done in the article? They are, in fact, more than just a racist party. They are sexist. They are militaristic (dangerously so). They are authoritarian (dangerously so). They are economic protectionists - ruinous to the economy of the UK. Shouldn't some of these things be elaborated upon? So that people who are attracted by the racism may see them for the cranks they are? And in order to make space for that elaboration, can we not cut back on some of the racism content? Marcus22 10:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

well the ecomony thing is opinion. They are also homphobic or anti-gay. --Neon white 14:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

another Neo-Marxist, the British National Party have specifically stated that they don't hate anyone, they blame the government for out-of-control immigration-User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade. Marcus22 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Marcus22, do you think you are approaching this article from a NPOV or an anti-BNP slant? Be honest now. If you aren't NPOV, then why are you working on an Encyclopedia and not your own website where you can rip apart the BNP all you like? 81.153.49.180 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

the article is factually accurate, it does not contain any slander or libel. As extremist organisations are usually controversial. The controversy is noteworthy. --Neon white 14:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade 2. Marcus22 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether they are or not is not up to us to decide, wikipedia has to be 100% NPOV at all times, only undisputed facts go here. Highcount. 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial

What has this got to do with their policies? 86.156.88.25 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No reply, so if no-one minds, shall I delete this section or move it to where it may be more appropriate?86.156.88.25 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, as this is a notoriously 'hot' article, it's not the best idea to wade in and make a lot of edits as an unregistered user without first making a case for those edits. Nor is it best designed to win friends and influence people to make single - and rather abrupt - statements such as the above. That said, as for the point you make here, I actually agree with you. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are clearly NOT policies per se. So, as far as I am concerned, by all means move them to the appropriate section. Others, however, who may have put a lot of work into this article, may not agree. So why not show (some) good manners and wait to see what they say? Marcus22 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly relevant. The BNP tries to deny that it is a fascist party, yet these incidents and events in its and its leaders' not-so-distant past point to the opposite in this respect at least and are part of the evidence base that the BNP is fascist. The section could probably do with a rewrite, but not deletion or moving "to where it may be more appropriate". (Where would that be exactly?)Emeraude 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"but not ... moving "to where it may be more appropriate"" Why is it appropriate under policies? 86.146.124.30 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't their leader charged with offenses regarding publishing anti-semetic hate literature which involved some holocaust denial? --Neon white 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the consensus on moving this to where appropriate?86.146.124.30 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fascism, redact

The page is now protected, and the simple issue is this: should it be included in the infobox that this is a fascist group, without giving the information that this is denied by the group? I am an outsider (American, silly me), and it seems like there would be a better way to handle this than to simply state they're a fascist group if they deny it. Can't it be stated something like "far right"? If fascism is included, then we should probably at least state that the group denies it. However, I am an outsider, and for all I know, this group could be Hitler reincarnate... The Evil Spartan 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• There are reliable 3rd party sources which state that the BNP are a fascist party. There are NO reliable 3rd party sources which state the opposite. They claim that they are not. Well they would, wouldnt they. That's an end to it as far as I am concerned. Please remove the protection. Marcus22 12:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'm not quite seeing how we're going to negotiate if you're going to come across as that. It is relevant that they say they're not fascists, whether it happens to suit anyone's political point of view or not. The Evil Spartan 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• • "Come across as that"?!? Have you read the endless anonymous IP edits to the effect you propose? The countless times this page has been vandalised? The almost endless attempts to have this fiction inserted into this article by those anonymous IP's despite the countless regular editors who source the opposite?

But to answer your query, I'll put it bluntly for you, by way of an example: my mother and father say I am a certain age. My doctor agrees. My birth certificate agrees too. However, despite all those sources saying one thing, I say I am 700 years old. Does that therefore make my age a matter of debate? Would you now argue that "it is relevant that I say I am 700 years old"? What court of law would uphold my say so against reputable 3rd party evidence to the contrary? I cant think of one. There is no reputable claim to answer here. Marcus22 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • The difference here is that how old you are is not a matter of a point of view. And we must adhere to a neutral point of view. As for the other IPs, I have no idea what they add; all I'm addressing is that you want to include in the infobox that this is a fascist organization, without even letting it be included that they deny this. This strikes me as WP:WEASEL wording, honestly. If all these sources exist, then surely you will be able to come up with them: because the only one I see right now that says anything about Fascism is the Guardian, and even as an American, I know they're a pretty left-wing newspaper. At the moment, I'm not sure you have enough sources to even state in the article at all that they're Fascists, let alone exclude that they deny it. Please remember that we can't go by common knowledge, because a lot of people don't have that common knowledge (which is the reason we're writing the encyclopedia in the first place). So please do provide the sources. The Evil Spartan 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
      • i dont believe there is even a question of WP:WEASEL words. Fascism has a definition. It's not just opinion. The opinion of the party itself cannot be considered a valid source. I believe a consensus was already reached if you read above --Neon white 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Um, if consensus was achieved above, then why is the edit war still going on? Clearely, consensus was not achieved. Look, guys, I'm going to have to be a bit crass about this: you're going to have to be more concrete than just saying "they're Facist, and that's just the way it is". Please, give me sources, reliable ones, so I can at least work with it. Once we establish that, then we can work on whether this claim should be in the infobox or not, and whether they're denial of it should be. The Evil Spartan 14:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The issue is that the info box states an unqualified fact rather than the opinions of say a newspaper, therefore it has to be based on a definition of fascism. How do you source that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
            • If we are basing the validity of sources on the assertion that the Guardian is a "pretty left-wing newspaper" then we have a problem. Ridiculous. Lurker (said · done) 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Please, give me sources, reliable ones, so I can at least work with it". There are reliable sources; they are there, in the article and edit history. What is going on here is that The Evil Spartan, is inverting the norms of Wikipedia by claiming that a 3rd party sourced claim - that the BNP is fascist - cannot be allowed to stand because as an unsourced 1st party claim - that they are NOT fascist - is being advocated by some people. I think that whole protect is very suspect. It might be an idea to get other administrators to look at this unless this matter is resolved quickly. Marcus22 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not inverting anything. FACT, the sources are outdated and pre-date the party's reformed constitution which shows they tolerate dissent within the party. This shows that they abid by the concept of Democracy and being pro-Democratic is incompatible with being Fascist. This is a point that nobody was able to refute and there was an argument where some wanted the label Fascist completely removed, the part in brackets was the concession which everyone agreed upon, Marcus22 explicitly agreed upon that for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not "outdated"; in particular, they do not predate the introduction of the language you point to in the constitution.VoluntarySlave 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

They are outdated, the most recent one(I checked it) comes from 2000 and generally books that deal with political science or related things are of observations from 1 or 2 years prior. According to facts in this text that are sourced, the party no longer engages in Holocaust Denial, no longer associates with Skinheads or with Nazi groups like Combat 18, no longer promotes banning Homosexuality, no longer supports mandatory expulsion for non-whites but rather favors voluntary emigration under financial incentive etc.., All these reforms are from after the last reference was published and for this reason it is outdated, not to mention the fact the party supports dissent within the party is a rather strong refutation of the concept that the party is Fascist in itself. It would be like writing that the Republican party of the United States is White Supremacist whilst using a reference from 1950 to support that claim.--Sviatoslav86 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because teh senior members will have been members in 2000, the bulk of the membership remains the same. You can parade the OR of the permission of dissent in the constitution, and I can parade the references to the leader making all the decisions, till we're both blue in the face - you need credible, reliable, 3rd party sources. All teh points you address are discussed more or less in the article. Can you not find one soruces, otehr than an unnamed BNP spokesperson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Deathy (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav86, at the very least, you need to provide sources that these changes have taken place since 2000. Note also that there are a number of other sources from more recently (I think up to 2006) mentioned in the talk archives. VoluntarySlave 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Where and who are the sources that show the BNP is no longer fascist? Please provide them. And remember, they have to be reliable 3rd party sources. Not blogs, not gossip, not "the BNP say so" but independent reliable 3rd party sources. Marcus22 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you are, plenty of space for them:-

Everything I said about the BNP, which show that it cannot be accurately labelled a Fascist party, appears in the text and each thing is sourced, don't be lazy you can find them yourself if you look. Also, the senior membership can stay the same but things in life change. There are many Nazis which used to be Communists, Horst Mahler and Bill White are examples. Or look at the Skinheads, they started as a sub-culture that was inter-twined with aspects of Jamaican culture but the vast majority of them embraced the Nazi ideology in the 70's.

So that is the first reply from one of those who insist the BNP is no longer fascist; in other words, they appear to have no sources. Marcus22 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone else care to provide these sources? The Evil Spartan perhaps? Marcus22 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/

etc etc all clearly show the common consensus that the BNP isn't labelled a fascist party.86.146.124.30 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• er.. But none of those sources say that. Do you think we cant read? The first talks, for example, about how anti-fascists oppose the BNP. The second mentions things like 'far right' etc... I cant see anywhere where it says the BNP are not fascist. OK, so, for a third time of asking, if there are ANY 3rd party reliable sources which say that the BNP are no longer fascist(ic) PLEASE DO PROVIDE SUCH SOURCES HERE. Marcus22 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest, it sounds to me like we should include that they are called far right in the infobox, or if we include that they are Fascists then it must be included that they disavow this. I'm sorry, but fair is fair - if a group claims not be of a certain persuasion, this needs to be included in the article. From my search on google, there is clearly no consensus on whether or not they are a de facto Fascist party, any more than Le Pen's party in France is. And I'm still waiting on the sources, guys, stating unequivocally that they're Fascist. The Evil Spartan 20:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree it should be included in the article that they claim not to be fascists. The question is, is the weight of sources sufficient to include the description in the infobox? It seems to me that it is; no-one has provided any third-party sources arguing against the description.VoluntarySlave 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • When the articles explain the BNP's political stance they never use "fascist". e.g. "Today, the far-right BNP..." To say that anti-fascists oppose the BNP helps in declaring them fascist is wrong. For example, the Stop The War Coalition protested Jack Straws comments about Muslim women wearing veils in public. Is this action helping to stop the war in Iraq?86.146.124.30 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• For a start, try a look at this google search. Looks like one or two people disagree. [[1]] Marcus22 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reliable sources, dude (sorry). I could type in the same nonsense about Hillary Clinton being a communist, and get far more google hits: [2]. I suggest seeing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. And you still haven't provided any reliable sources, let alone any that state it so unequivocably as to convince me that we shouldn't even include the BLP's dissenting opinion of the classification. The Evil Spartan 20:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dont DUDE me, pal. There are 189000 GHits on that search. There are sources already in the article. Marcus22 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly this endeavour to make a point that the fact that self-described anti-fascist groups term the BNP Fascist is not admissible here on Wikipedia because for anything to be legitimate it has to come from a neutral source which these groups are not, they have it as their objective to discourage people from supporting the BNP. It would be like using something said on a site like JewWatch to claim that AIPAC or the ADL are Judeo-fascist groups. And the party isn't even Far Right, they have absolutely nothing in common with people like David Cameron or George Bush. They are rather Socialist oriented. In my opinion the party should be labelled Independent in the part of the Infobox which refers to their Political Position.--Sviatoslav86 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to call them fascist we should definiotely include that they dont like the term but I think far-right would be better as fascist is an insult that people in England very easily take offence to. Gogle hits is original research and thus not admissible. Troling Spartan away from this article is unacceptable and we must all remain civil and friendly, SqueakBox 00:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But, presently, reliable academic/3rd party sources give them as fascist, we're looking for similar ones that state the opposite. Remember, this is the info box - the article could include a section on the fact that they dispute this appellation, but within the terms of wikipedia, WP:V in particular, the due balance has to be that they are fascists. I'kll give an example, the spgb page, at the time I was editting it I had access to the membership database, I knew exactly how many members there were - other editors wouldn't admit that as being compliant with Wikipedia policy, so I had to seek out a published source, that I knew to be outdated and incorrect, because that was verifiable. The standard for wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Unless substantive, verifiable, reasons can be shown to invalidate the current references, then the apellation should stand - un-modified.--Red Deathy 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, you people are dodging the point that those sources are outdated and the thing you cited below is only speculation. In the text there are many things which show that they have disassociated from Fascism and Nazism and these facts in the text are all sourced. As I pointed out with several examples the fact that many senior members are the same doesn't necessarily prove anything because people often change in life and can radically change their views, often in more radical ways than the BNP has.Frankly I think that Fascism shouldn't even be there but I am willing to make the concession of letting it stay in as long as the part in brackets next to it remains.--Sviatoslav86 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sviatoslav86, you're the one dodging the point - you've provided no third-party sources that the BNP changed their views after 2000, nor have you provided any third-party sources that reject the description of the BNP as fascist. You have at least, at long last, provided a source for your claim that the BNP denies that it is fascist; but, while that should be mentioned in the article, it is not sufficient to cast doubt on the many reliable sources that do claim that the BNP are fascist. VoluntarySlave 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a source I can think of which shows conclusively that Nick Griffin himself is not a Fascist, in fact that is the main reason why he ousted John Tyndall as party leader. There is a book mentioned in the text by a man called Nick Ryan called "Into a World of Hate, a journey amongst the extreme right" and in an interview he had with Nick Griffin in 1999 Nick Griffin actually states his dislike for the concept of a Nazi party and why he believes it has no place in Britain. You may claim he was lying but one thing that can be said about Nazis and other Fascists is that they are very overt and are often willing to risk being imprisoned for expressing their beliefs. If you are going to claim that they may be trying to guise it to gain power, one that is only hypothetical and two look at Russia where overt Nazis and in particular Skinheads are becoming very prevalent so logically they would not feel inclined to do so. If you go on sites of Nazi or otherwise Fasicst groups like B&H, the National Front etc.., you'll see that they strongly dislike the BNP.--Sviatoslav86 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, ousting rivals because of differences in policy is one of the key characteristics of historical facism. A non-fascist would have allowed discourse and differing opinions to have fair influence --Neon white 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what your point is exactly but the BNP actually tolerates dissenting opinions within the party. Just look at their Constitution.--Sviatoslav86 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite what the constitution says their actions have shown otherwise very recently, members were threatened with expulsion for backing a different leadership candidate. John Tyndall was removed, regardless of how it was finally done, because his views and opnions were different to those of the leader. One of the major elements of fascism is that their should only be one core set of beliefs. --Neon white 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This'll be their constitution which asserts that the leader has teh final say on policy, and which openly commits teh BNP to opposing Marxism and Liberalism (hallmarks of classic fascism - see, my original research trumps your flimsy original resaearch. Perhaps we should rely on credible, verifiable, reliable 3rd party sources...--Red Deathy 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me a reasonable approach would be to keep the fascist label with sources, but noting in small print directly below it that the BNP itself denies being fascist. OTOH, perhaps simply keeping the "far-right" label, which they definitely are, would be fair enough? Ngchen 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the case for any party that the leader has the final say but people in the group are permitted to bring up dissenting opinions, that is not typical of Fascist party and your sources are outdated.--Sviatoslav86 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest source is from february 2007! The Lib-Dems, teh Green Party, and teh Labour Party of yore the final say was with conference, not with the leader, nor are all appointments discretionary of the leader - but this is a debate about original research, research that is just as strong and original as yours, what you need are reliable third party verifiable resources to back up your claim. As I've indicated above WP:V says it must be verifiable, not necessarilly true,and if you can't find a source to back it up, it can't go in, and I've got a source from 2007, that is not out of date and explicitly looks at teh changes since 2000...--Red Deathy 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the source from 2007 and it is only a hypothetical assumption. Of the scholarly stuff the latest is from 2000 and that pre-dates the reforms the BNP has made. In any party the person elected as the leader has the final say on all matters, yet the fact Nick Griffin was able to replace John Tyndall through an elected process within the party shows that even before the BNP was at most only quasi-Fascist.--Sviatoslav86 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the British New Labour party a Labour Party? Is it a socialist party? Some people will say yes, some will say no. Many on the far left will certainly say no. So, if we define the BNP as being what we think they are and not what they think they are, then we would need to do the same with all political parties defined on wiki, correct? As far as I'm concerned, the British Labour party is right of center and I could give a million reasons to support that claim, but I'm not going to bother editing the labour wiki page to reflect my opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmer79 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some sources. Despite the spin they are still definately fascist. Wall-papering over it with "far right" would be misleading:

• "On 13 September 1993, the fascist British National Party (BNP) won its first ever election victory, when Derek Beackon was elected as a local councillor for the Millwall ward of Tower Hamlets, in the East End of London." - A. Sivanandan, 1994, UK Millwall and after, Race & Class, Vol. 35, No. 3, 63-68 (1994)
• "The British National Party [BNP] – an openly neo-fascist grouplet – had been very active in the area where Stephen Lawrence was murdered." - Paul Gilroy, 1998, Race ends here, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 21, Issue 5 September 1998
• "The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." - David Renton, 2005, 'A day to make history'? The 2004 elections and the British National Party, Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 39, Issue 1 March 2005
• "Though it is implicit throughout the book, it is only in its dying moments that Copsey really asserts that for all its cosmetic surgery, the BNP is still a fascist party, ideologically rooted in scientific racism and Jewish conspiracy theory." - Nigel Brailey, 2006, Reviews, Contemporary British History, Volume 20, Issue 1 March 2006
• "There is an ominously consistent logic to the arguments of such neo-fascist groups as the BNP, as was well illustrated in the media coverage of its young spokesman during October 2002." - Ram Gidoomal, 2003, Multicultural Societies and Futures of Dialogue, Multicultural Societies and Futures of Dialogue, Vol. 35, 2003
• "Perhaps it cannot be excluded that the BNP has anti-democratic aims, calculating to implement a neo-fascist regime if it ever gets into power." - Leto Cariolou, 2006, The Right Not to be Offended by Members of the British National Party: An Analysis of Serco Ltd v Redfearn in the Light of the European Convention of Human Rights, Law Journal 2006 35(4)

Hundreds more if they are needed, this is just a quick sample. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am left-wing if anything (though prefer not to subscribe to the left-right axis, I am basically against racism and for socialism) but I would say not to use the word Facism to describe the BNP, it is too loaded, not really neccessary and can excluded, and even wikipedias definition accepts that it means different things to different people. I personally have the opinion that it is fascist, yet I still say this is an opinoon, and in this case my opinion only. I think fascist is better attributed to governmental regimes that are in actual power (I hope the BNP never ever reach this stage), and only then with caution, I would argue against labelling the BNP facscist as I would the term islamofascism or labelling legitimate groups such as Hamas fascist (not trying to troll here just saying that I would accept this as a categorised left-winger).Rob.G.P.A 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A little help

Whilst a google search isn't much use, a look on Google Scholar for BNP "fascist party" (which is a search taht should bring up both sides of the claims) may help, so, happy hunting, lets see if an article you can cite turns up from there.

This has brought up at least one interesting article: Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006 Author: Nigel Copsey (Show Biography) DOI: 10.1080/00313220601118777 Publication Frequency: 5 issues per year Published in: Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 41, Issue 1 February 2007 , pages 61 - 82 [3]

"Yet, in truth, despite cleverly dissociating itself from inter-war fascism, Nick Griffin's British National Party remains intuitively fascist. To locate the BNP on the national-populist right is ill-advised, and even to argue that it is a hybrid of fascism and national-populism misses the point. At its core, its ideological vision is revolutionary: its long-term objective is a post-liberal, regenerated national community although Griffin's own permutation owes more to the radical ideology of the 1980s National Front and the ITP than the closet neo-Nazism of Tyndall's BNP or, for that matter, the national-populism of the French Front National. Consequently, the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution." --Red Deathy 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

n·tu·i·tion (nt-shn, -ty-)

n. 1. a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing withthe use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight. 2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

"the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution"

This quote doesn't prove anything except saying that he doesn't do anything other than SUSPECT the BNP are fascist, because he hasn't the evidence to make a solid claim of it.86.146.124.30 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading, I think. Copsey doesn't say that his intuition is that the BNP are fascist; he says that the BNP's intuitions are fascist ones.VoluntarySlave 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, plus I was just quoting the concluding paragraph of an article that generally maintaions, with definitions, that the BNP is a fascist party.--Red Deathy 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems a good enough source as far as i'm conerned --Neon white 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask an Admin to add that article as a citation to the fascist description in the info box. I'd also suggest removing the BNP claim not to be fascist, that is something for the core text of the article...--Red Deathy 07:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And you don't think we are giving an incorrect impression of the BNP by doing that? How notable is that source? And how neutral is it, with a magazine title like "Patterns of Prejudice"? Would you use an article by Searchlight to describe the BNP? The links I produced show quite clearly that in mainstream opinion the BNP is NOT referred to or recognised as fascist.86.146.124.30 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an academic, peer reviewed, third party source - by someone whose biography is one of writing on the subject of the far-right - explicitly arguing that the BNP is a fascist organisation - the links you give are merely the absence of such a claim, to refute it, you'd need to show us similar 3rd party, reliable sources from a peer reviewed journal. I've given you the link to a google scholar search that'll be your most likely chance of finding one, go forth, go forth. If the page were not protected I would have added that source.--Red Deathy 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll just add the stated aim for the journal Patterns of Prejudice provides a forum for exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other. It probes the language and construction of 'race', nation, colour, and ethnicity, as well as the linkages between these categories. It encourages discussion of issues at the top of the public policy agenda, such as asylum, immigration, hate crimes and citizenship. As none of these issues are confined to any one region, Patterns of Prejudice maintains a global optic, at the same time as scrutinizing intensely the history and development of intolerance and chauvinism in the United States and Europe, both East and West.

Patterns of Prejudice is a peer reviewed journal published five times a year. The views expressed in its pages are those of the individual

As an ethno nationalist grouping the BNP are properly the subject of such a journal, without any warrant of assuming a priori prejudice by such an inclusion...--Red Deathy 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in the above the section is on-going, it hasn't been settled yet and you people haven't offered any rebuttals to some points of ours that have been made.--Sviatoslav86 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, this is a different section.--Red Deathy 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So you think that the categorisation of every British newspaper can be swept under the carpet and left unmentioned because of one scholars opinion? Why is he notable? How many people read the journal compared to newspapers? "to refute it, you'd need to show us similar 3rd party, reliable sources from a peer reviewed journal" Where does Wikipedia policy state this? 86.146.124.30 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He is a fellow of the royal historical society, 'the premier society in the United Kingdom which promotes and defends the scholarly study of the past.' He did his PhD on right-wing extremism in contemporary France and Britain. http://www.tees.ac.uk/schools/SAM/history_staff.cfm?copsey=true To quote the reliable aources page 'Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers'. It's verifiable therefore i don't see a problem with it.--Neon white 17:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And so why are we ignoring every mainstream newspaper, and the BNP's own stated stance?86.146.124.30 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Which newspapers say that the BNP are not fascists? Cites, please. VoluntarySlave 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have stated these before a little ways up the page:

Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/

Look for any newspaper website yourself. 86.146.124.30 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any articles at those links that say that the BNP is not a fascist party.VoluntarySlave 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look up articles pertinent to te BNP on Amren.com. It is a racial site but is nonetheless of scholars and you'll find articles that disagree with the assertion that the BNP is a Fascist party.--Sviatoslav86 22:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't see any such articles - most were eiether feeds from mainstream news outlets, what articles appeared to be internally produced seemed to just discuss teh BNP in terms oof ethno-nationalism - could you point us to a specific one? I'm afraid, with regards to your links above, the absence of evidence is not proof of absence - or, rather, just because mainstream news don't routinely call them a fascist party, doesn't mean they are. Look, it's very simple, find a credible, reliable, 3rd party source, makign the claim they are no longer a fascist party, and your job is done. At present such a credible, 3rd party source does make the claim they are fascist, and fascist after Griffin got in...--Red Deathy 06:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite your endeavours to impose your agenda here on Wikipedia, I have a reference here which shows that the party is no longer Fascist and it comes from 2006.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/most_britons_ac.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My agenda being to uphold the rules of Wikipedia, remember WP:CIVIL that article does not mention the word fascism one, does not address whether the BNP is a fascist organisation, nor even convey any claim from the BNP to be a non-fascist organisation. You need a reliable, 3rd party source which explicitly makes the claim that the BNP is not a fascist organisation. That is, not something which you can construe as suggesting the BNP is not fascist, nor which can be interpreted or inferred from that they are not fascist, it must explicitly, directly say so.--Red Deathy 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That article clearly shows that the BNP has reformed its policies and it is from 2006. The most recent reference you had was from 2000 and pre-dates the party's reformed stance.--Sviatoslav86 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the most recent reference, which was no. 10 on the previous edit, and which is cited at the top of this section, is from 2007. Teh article only clearly indicates a degree of sympathy and widespread agreement with BNP policies. It does not mention fascism once, nor discuss in any way, shape or form whether or not the BNP is fascist.--Red Deathy 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the references which you put next to fascism in the infobox and the most recent comes from 2007. The article doesn't mention Fascism because it probably thinks that the concept of labelling the BNP as Fascist is ludicrous. However, it does mention the REFORMED policies of the BNP which is our point that the BNP was probably Fascist before when those sources were published but has since changed and this neutral article shows that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

-I don't acknowledge the patterns of prejudice reference because aside from being biased it is only a hypothetical assumption.--Sviatoslav86 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the most recent article is up-todate. Whether you recognise it or not, it is a text explicitly arguing that the BNP is fascist (tehre is no hypothetical, have you read the article?) Now, I've re-read the article you've linked to, it doesn't mention reform, or reformed once. you are intepolating ffrom the text, so it requires original research to use that text to demonstrate that teh BNP are not fascist, you need reliable, 3rd party sources that directly, explicitly - on any reasonable reading - claim that the BNP is not fascist. Now, you've gone beyond WP:3RR, and don't intend to, but please, consider trying to find a source that can be rationally used...--Red Deathy 15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is a source needed to explicitly say they aren't fascist? Isn't public/mainstream representation by the media good enough to discount your articles that struggle to seem unbiased?86.146.124.30 17:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because those media sources do not comment one way or another on whether the BNP is fascist, you are deploying original research by using those sources. A 3rd party, reliable source is all you need that explicitly states that the BNP are not fascist. That's how Wikipedia, specifically WP:V works.--Red Deathy 06:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"You are deploying original research by using those sources". I don't think that is strictly true. The newspapers state the party is far-right/nationalist. If such material was written as borderline acceptable as the fascist sources but instead stated the BNP were "communist", would you need to put this in the info box or would you take the overwhelming majority of representation and the fact they are stated in every major (thus less biased, more verifiable) publication? Would we need another third party source to stop putting "communism" in the info box? How do we conduct our own research by taking this as precedence over the opinion of one scholar and other outdated material? WPV states sources are held accountable on their verifiablity. So all major newspapers owned by different companies each cannot be considered more important than one up to date scholarly article and 3 outdated others? Anstatt 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

the fascist sources aren't 'borderline acceptable', they are pretty much perfect for encyclopedic content. The major source is an expert scholar in the field of far right politics. No national newspaper journalist is therefore they are not considered as reliable a source. --Neon white 00:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

An expert scholar in the field of criticism of far right politics. He isn't neutral. Why haven't we even taken the newspapers into account? Do you think more people read that one article than every single ruddy newspaper in the UK? Your source is less notable, less neutral, and so less reliable. At the very least, we should be mentioning that the fascism claim is heavily debated and disputed. Anstatt 01:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He is a noted and published expert in far right politics, according to wikipedia standard that is a good source, whehter you think he criticises too much is your personal view and is irrelevant as is the amount of people that read the source. Please read WP:RS for more info. All truth is subjective, there is no such thing as absolute fact, for the purposes of this online encyclopedia, as the guidelines say, as pointed out above, 'Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers' --Neon white 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But the newspapers don't say that the BNP is not a fascist party, they simply don't positively call the party fascist; that's not the same thing at all. If the fascism claim is "heavily debated," you should be able to find some examples of that debate, which no-one has, as yet, provided.VoluntarySlave 02:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is this: why is this one article considered good enough to get the BNP referred to as fascist on Wikipedia but not good enough to be used by any other mainstream media? Anstatt 03:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because, that one article dirctly and explicitly is considering whether the BNP is a fascist organisation, the mainstream media articles are silent on the matter, that is the difference. All you need is a reliable, 3rd party source explicitly saying the BNP are not fascist, implicit arguments fall foul of WP:OR--Red Deathy 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopia. It's not our problem what newspapers print or dont print. i dont see how that is revelant to the article or discussion. --Neon white 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any source that says they are not fascist. I did find another source that calls them fascist, not sure is Rob Marris, labour MP for Wolverhampton South West can be considered a neutral/reliable source. http://www.robmarris.org.uk/index.php/?p=379 NUS article that does the same http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/ruqayyahcollector/274559.aspx and finally the guardian http://society.guardian.co.uk/localgovt/comment/0,,2013877,00.html --Neon white 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding ... politically charged issues". Your source does not cut it I am afraid. I think fascism can be removed completely from the infobox, it's rediculous it has been there so long without a single mention of fascism in the actual article itself. Anstatt 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is fine according to wikipedia standards, you're objections have failed multiple times. So i think it's time to accept the consensus --Neon white 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

POV addition

I added the POV header for a few reasons:

Having Fascism in the ideology box is clearly considered POVish by a fair number here.

Much of the article uses sources that are clearly anti-BNP and they claim this themselves.

Most of the article is dedicated to non-notable news items that invariably show the BNP in a bad light, without taking into consideration the BNP's opinion or reply. Now I can't make any edit to reconcile these points because they will immediately be reverted. It's no secret that most of the people who look after this article do not like the BNP one bit. So I'm asking for us all to have a look through this article to deal with the points I have raised and hopefully find some problems that we can all/mostly agree need to be solved somehow.

86.146.124.30 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is funny how they thought you were a sock-puppet of me, when you're from London, and then accused another one of the same thing, when that person is from Montreal! It is almost funny how many of them try to use tricks when they can't refute something they dislike.--Sviatoslav86 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? What are the "non-notable news stories"? Which sources are you rejecting? VoluntarySlave 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For example:

"In the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the BNP released leaflets[36] featuring images of the bombed Route 30 bus and the slogan "Maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP." This move was criticised by the Daily Mail as playing on people's high emotions and grief following a horrendous attack.[37]"

"After the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the BNP republished one of the cartoons of Muhammad on a leaflet, accompanied by a photo of Muslim demonstrators holding placards bearing murderous anti British slogans[40] and a "Which one do YOU find offensive?" caption.[41]"

The "Guardian's infiltration" section

The racial policies section is huge compared to the others and is different in scope. The other sections are pretty much taken word for word from the BNP manifesto, while the racial policy section is subject to commentary. "The BNP publicly disavows any interest in white supremacy. Its detractors argue that its definition of white supremacy as the "wish to rule over foreign peoples" is too narrow." is just someones opinionated commentary. "Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism"". claims, espousing, both of these words seem designed to give the impression that the BNP (or Nick Griffin) is objectively incapable of honesty.

"The BNP [67] supported Leeds University lecturer Dr. Frank Ellis, who was suspended from his post after stating that the Bell Curve theory "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".[68] Ellis called the BNP "a bit too socialist" for his liking and described himself as "an unrepentant Powellite" who would support "humane" repatriation.[69]

In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards. It has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell,[70] with a tape of telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape Russell could be heard to say that "black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional ... and are probably going to mug you". He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".[71]" - two paragraphs that are superfluous.

"Anti-Semitism and holocaust denial" doesn't belong in the policies section (how has it ended up there?), neither does "anti-Islam focus", or "Homosexuality" as these aren't policies of theirs either. They have a new manifesto on their website updated for 2007, the policies can be transferred from there.

The local government section can be shortened, and made much more relevant I think. "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" doesn't give enough focus to the modern BNP's viewpoint on the matter.

"Critics of the BNP assert that a significant minority of elected BNP politicians have criminal records and that the party is more tolerant of the criminal actions of some of its members than other parties would be.[129]" The source is out of date and doesn't support the claim made in the text.

The "opposition to the BNP" section is very fragmented and is mainly based on non-notable news pieces.

"Lancaster UAF has accused all of the below companies of being directly affiliated with the BNP" - Why are we trusting Lancaster UAF? They are the LEAST trustworthy of all sources we could give.

i believe the statement to be truthful and accurately sourced. --Neon white 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Does believing make it true? Why is this even notable? It may or may not be embellished, and it is not a NPOV source; it shouldn't be used anywhere especially without hard corroboration. Anstatt 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV refers to how wikipedia article's are written not how the sources are written, most newspapers, magazines have a POV. I checked the source and Lancaster UAF has made such allegations. --Neon white 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There may or may not be more, I haven't spent so much time looking through.Anstatt 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has tended to focus on Muslims as its main adversary." This is someones own research, not backed up by any source, and it is poorly worded (adversary, enemy etc are not appropriate in this political context) with too much punctuation. If such a 2-dimensional phrase were to be included, something like "the BNP believes the main modern cultural threat to Britain is Islam". Why does the article bring up their historical anti-semitism so early? Do we need the two sentences about Sikhs and Hindus? I don't believe they are notable enough to be in the introduction. I think their immigration policies are also given undue weight and consideration in the introduction, and would be better expressed by merely saying that they have stronger immigration laws than the main parties of Britain (this is an introduction, not policy section, further detail can be given there)Anstatt 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Muslims are the BNP's new target by By Geoff Brown, Morning Star 20th September 2006 talks about an interview with Think-Israel and quotes ' He rejected the arguments of "those 'hardliners' who would rather attack the Jews than the Muslims," condemning them as "people whose one-track concern about 'the Jews' is blinding them to the clear and present danger of resurgent Islam." If that interview could be found it would prove a useful citation. As a 'white nationalist' party, you'd expect race and immigration to feature early in the article --Neon white 00:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying the BNP has positioned itself against Islam, but saying that it is their "main adversary" (main adversary in what context even?) is POV and sounds childish. I'll repeat what I said: this is an introduction, not a policy section. One could mention that they have the strongest immigration policies of any "mainstream" (if they can yet be called that, but they are certainly on the radar where other nationalist/far-right groups are not) parties, or something to that effect, but having two paragraphs that belong in their policy section in the introduction is not good article writing. All of it is repeated in the bloated/opinionated race section anyway.

May I infer you agree more with my other points I have raised? Anstatt 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

State which points you mean. The "main adversary" of any political party would be other rival political parties, so i agree that needs to be reworded. I think the main purpose of that paragraph is to define the changing ideals of the party in relation to a populist stance. According to the guidelines WP:LEAD it should be a concise summary of the article --Neon white 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The rest :-). I logically assumed you answered the points of mine which you disagreed mostly with. I would say the introduction needs to include among certain correct elements already present their most relevant and briefly stated contemporary stance and ideals, and a small part stating something like since Nick Griffin has been chairman the BNP has made efforts to rebrand itself (with the details given further in the article).

The sources given for white nationalism in the infobox are severely outdated (and the last source, while more recent isn't an article even focused on the BNP or its political classification). The BNP are more accurately British nationalists (already in the article), or ethno-nationalists, and they associate themselves with this too. I think we can get rid of white nationalism without any loss at all to the article.

There are no real limitations on the age of sources, more recent ones are preferred but if there are none older ones are acceptable. It's irrelevant what the article's main focus is as long as it is reliable and verifiable and backs up the facts stated. --Neon white 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are not even about the BNP, so are hardly trustworthy according to WP, and are very dated if you consider the changes the BNP have made since Griffin. Having both white nationalism and British nationalism is unnecessary. Seeing as they are quite similar (but different) white nationalism can be got rid of. British nationalism is a lot more specific and accurate anyway. Anstatt 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, an important point I have just realised. How can we have fascism and radical right wing populism in the same infobox? These contradict each other explicitly; one has to go otherwise we have a conflict. Anstatt 03:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

populism is mentioned in the fascism article. I don't see why you think they are in conflict, please explain. --Neon white 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is "populism", not "radical right-wing populism". Look at the RRP article: "they accept representative democracy". This isn't fascism. Anstatt 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been populists who are not fascist, and fascists who are not populist, Peronism I would think illustrates an intersection between the two... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Deathy (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No-one has yet responded to my wishes to remove/rewrite the sections from the article I have put up here. If no-one objects, when the article is unlocked I shall begin to make changes. Anstatt 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I object and judging from the other responses above so do other editors, so you should not begin to make changes. The current form of this article has come about through discussion among a large number of editors who have, sometimes painfully, managed to reach consensus. There are in my opinion, still improvements to be made, but the right way to go about it is to propose each as a separate point for discussion. Emeraude 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have. There has been little to no consensus regarding the body of the article or the intro itself. I remember no-one being consulted about putting Muslims as their "main adversary" and I have witnessed several times new pieces of (inevitably) anti-BNP news items put in for little reason. A lot of it is just superfluous news articles; this page isn't a current affairs blog, it's an encyclopedia.Anstatt 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaninglessness of the term Fascism

Unless a party specifically wishes to call itself 'Fascist,' the term 'Fascist' applied by outsiders must be considered highly suspect, especially as the term is chiefly recognized as a term of abuse and a device to discredit political opponents. By the way, this is not a recent development. It was even commented on by the George Orwell in his great essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946). Let me quote:

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'"

By continuing to use the term Fascist in conjunction with the BNP, you are merely expressing your own subjective feelings rather than an objective reality. References to members past beliefs is however legitimate although it's also good to see that Mr. Griffin has moved on and now embraces views that are more central to the British political tradition.

Great shining light of nerdy truth 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at footnote 10 you'll find an article that addresses the BNP within the context of a standard definition of fascism. Further, the Oxford English Dictionary defines fascism as like unto the policies and programme of the Italian fascist party, which gives a nice concrete basis for begining discussion. Further, I'd be prepared to bet this has been debated ad nauseum in the talk archives.--Red Deathy 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Please see WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding ... politically charged issues". Your source does not cut it I am afraid. I think fascism can be removed completely from the infobox, it's rediculous it has been there so long without a single mention of fascism in the actual article itself."Anstatt 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources, I only listed the one I've read directly - and that one cites its sources, if you'd care to read it.--Red Deathy 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they all especially exceptional? The answer is: no.Anstatt 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yes the source is of excellent quality. If your read the entire guidelines on exceptional claims you will find that the claim is nowhere near to being considered exceptional. The claim hasnt been contradicted by scholars, it's not 'out of character', i can't see anytyhing controversial about the claim --Neon white 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"The source is of excellent quality" - Thats the point - it's only one source, and it isn't of excellent quality. They are NOT a major authority on British politics, or anywhere near it. It is an exceptional claim because of the newspaper sources I have given you, there are no scholars corroborating him, and the fact the article says nothing else about their alleged fascism. The fascism claim will be justifiably removed as soon as the article is unlocked.Anstatt 21:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There are four sources in the article, and more in the talk page archives. Still no-one has provided any third-party sources that explicitly state that the BNP are not fascists.VoluntarySlave 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't keep Fascism in the info box without saying that they deny it, we could say that the Labour Party is Neo-Marxist (There are multiple Sources that say that) but we don't because they would deny it, Fascism is nowadays used mostly as a term of abuse and it would be unfair and POV to keep it unless we say that they deny it (Although I personally think that it should be removed entirely, the sources are more that seven years old)-GeorgeFormby1 08.56, 26 September 2007 (GMT)

And there are scores of reliable, 3rd party sources that would rubbish any source that claimed that the Labour party was any sort of Marxist organisation. Further, note 10 is form a source from 2007, so they are fully up to date. The place to note that the BNP deny they are fascist is in the text of the article. To have the designation of fascism removed from the info box, all that is required, under Wikipedia rules, is a reliable 3rd Party source. We've been waiting weeks and none has been provided.--Red Deathy 08:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say we need a source to refute the fascism claim. There are no debates against it because there is no debated. These articles are not taken seriously, and they are known by hardly anyone. You only have one source that is up to date, and it is nowhere near the quality needed. Fascism is leaving the infobox. Anstatt 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable, referenced academic resource from a peer reviewed journal, you have no source at all, therefore WP:V, which only requires that a claim be verifiable suggests the inclusion of the verifiable claim. I could go through the 2007 article, and use it's references to produce a stack of up-to-date references, but it isn't a case of never mind the quality, feel the width - a verifiable claim has been made, there is no reliable 3rd party sources stating the contrary, therefore the designation should stay. Please read WP:V particularly the point about Sources...--Red Deathy 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really a citation that disproves the fascism tag, but an intesting article [4]. Of course it's always much harder to prove that something does NOT have certain properties than to prove that it does. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's more relevent to the fascism page than this one, and it's an opinion peice, not a peice of research or scholarly criticism. A reliable, third party source is requried that demonstrates that teh BNP is no longer a fascist organisation...--Red Deathy 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your trumpeted source is also an opinion piece, just published in a journal. This article is enough with the reasons I have already given. Give it up. Anstatt 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But the fact that something is published in a journal, rather than on the comment page of a newspaper, is probably the single most significant difference, in terms of WP:RS. This is very simple: we have sources that say the BNP is fascist, we have none that dispute that claim. I don't see that there is or can be any serious dispute about including this description in the article until you provide some sources.VoluntarySlave 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference between an opinion peice and a scholarly work is the requirement to provide a degree of evidence, provide references, to undergo peer review and scholarly criticism'before publication, and also possessing the requisit qualification in the subject field. Finally, it is a text that directly discusses teh BNP, unliked JediLofty's linked peice, and as an article, it users a clearly stated definition of fascism.--Red Deathy 06:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already said, your source is not good enough according to Wikipedia policy, and there needs to be more than just one. It's leaving the article.Anstatt 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's of my opinion that your continued objections when the guidelines on verifiablility and reliable sources have been mentioned time and time again is intended to stall the consensus. If you don't have any sources to back up you're claims then you're just stonewalling in breach of wikipedia guidelines. WP:POINT WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Any edits against the consensus will be considered vandalism and will likely land you on WP:AN3 --Neon white 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. You and your biased editing friends "win", even though the claim is expceptional and your sources are not (I can't fight against your "gaming the system", thanks for the link). Fascism stays with the note as agreed. I will be making changes to the rest of the article as I have stated, because it's not that good. Anstatt 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no question of bias, as long as things are backed up by verifiable sources then it can be included in an article. You have a)failed to provide a source contradicting the claim b)failed to prove the claim is exceptional, imo a desperate arguement you invented when all others had failed c)failed to state why you are continuing to object to a source than passes all guidelines on reliability and verifiability. --Neon white 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this may clear things up

Using the model given by http://www.politicalcompass.org which, I think, is more representational than the simple Left-Right axis used in politics, shows the BNP to be 'Authoritarian Left' rather than Fascist (an offensive and often POV term)-GeorgeFormby1 22:35, 29 September 2007 (GMT)

The Political Compass uses a rather idiosyncratic definition of "fascism", in which it means pure authoritarianism independent of economics. According to their definition, the BNP is indeed far towards the "fascist" pole on the chart.[5] We have better sources for the claim that the BNP are fascist, so I don't think the Political Compass website (which is not published in a scholarly journal, or by a mainstream press) is particularly relevant. VoluntarySlave 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Political Compass is far from authoritative and not a scholarly tool of any merit. It remains the case that numerous academic sources describe the BNP as fascist; several are referenced in the article and many more have been cited in Discussion. In addition, newspaper articles have called the party fascist and these have been cited in Discussion. There are still no reliable sources saying the BNP is not fascist or is no longer fascist. (Incidentally, all those who are arguing that the BNP used to be fascist but isn't any more need to address the issue that the BNP has ALWAYS denied it was fascist, even before it changed its constitution.)

"an offensive and often POV term": The term 'fascist' can be and is used as an offensive description, but here in Wikipedia it has been used correctly. I remember someone once talking about "That fascist bastard Thatcher" - wrong on both counts - but it does not mean that 'fascist' (or 'bastard') should never be used because some people misuse them. (See William the Bastard) Emeraude 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LATEST NEWS: - Since the 9th of December, many members have been sacked from the BNP including several officials named in the article (see the Lancaster UAF Blog or far right blogs via google; [6]), others have resigned, and dissidents have been silenced, resulting in the sudden loss of hundreds of bnp members countrywide.

Nick Griffin and Mark Collett's undemocratic actions seem to justify the fascism tag. If, as now seems, the BNP are fascist, the article must reflect this.

The article seems to read like a party political broadcast for the bnp not an unbiased critique of the far right party. CybercafeUser: Dave: 10:12:07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.32.130 (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the infobox

I've little desire to get involved in the arguments above, but here's my two euros. If a disclaimer does need to be added next the BNP being described as "fascist", it cannot be worded as it is at present. "alleged by critics" is imposing a perjorative view of the sources, which cannot be done per WP:NPOV. You can put that the BNP deny it, but cannot attempt to label the sources in this way. "see article for details" is also a self-reference, that has to be removed as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, if it is cited properly which i believe it is, i dont see any need for any extra comment. The article explains the various POVs. It's the same arguement that happens over music genres of bands and i cannot find any instance on wikipedia of an infobox with a comment adding the bands opinion of how they are considered. They can't be used as a source for that info, whether contraditing it or backing it up and at the present there is no source to deny the claims. --Neon white 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with the above. Any infobox must contain easily assimilated information, sourced as necessary, but with nothing to detract from the key points. Otherwise, there's a danger that the infobox becomes an article itself!!! Emeraude 09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for the RFC. I would say on the one hand that the BNP is most likely a fascist party, but on the other, that this should be discussed only in the body of the article where a rebuttal can be presented. Infoboxes and categories are special sections of Wikipedia where the NPOV policy cannot be rigorously applied -- no rebuttal can realistically be included -- so contentious claims, even if regarded as true by an overwhelming majority, should be excluded from those areas. --Marvin Diode 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the claim is contentious as there are no sources refuting the claim. --Neon white 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the BNP itself accepts the term, it is contentious. Regardless of what we may think of the BNP. --Marvin Diode 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's ridiculous. The evidence and sources are what decide if anything is contentious or not. Any 'self-description' is highly likely to be contentious (and I'm not thinking just about the BNP here). Whether a description is accepted by the subject or not must never be the sole or even the main factor. Consider: Would Goering have accepted the term 'war crimninal' to describe himself? Would we be contentious in using it? Emeraude 10:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact that there are so many people discussing this (both agreeing and disagreeing) not give an indication that this is a contentious statement?-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. The discussion is polarised between those who accept the validity of the sources given and those who refuse to accept the evidence. The sources in the article, as well as others cited in discussion, remove any question of contentiousness. There are no reliable sources saying otherwise. If any should be provided (and those denying the BNP's fascism have had plenty of opportunity to provide them) then there might be need for a debate. So far, there has been nothing. Emeraude 11:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing that the BNP is not fascist. I am making a different point altogether, about Wikipedia policy. NPOV provides that any claim that is open to dispute, by anyone, may be rebutted in an article -- but not in categories or infoboxes. Material in categories or infoboxes should be universally agreed upon. --Marvin Diode 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. But for a 'claim' to be open to dispute, the holders of the opposite view must be able to present evidence - it is no good simply saying "I don't agree". There have been repeated requests for those arguing against the 'fascism' tag to put up some evidence and this they have consistently been unable to do. Therefore, we must assume that the evidence (cited, sourced, peer-reviewed) is unanimous that the BNP is fascist. As you say, the BNP's denial may be included in the body of the article (as it is), but the infobox must surely stand given the lack of anything contrary. Emeraude 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of principle I support that. We cannot allow editors to halt the progress of an article by saying I don't agree unless they actually have something concrete to refute the opposing sides reliable sources. That would be allowing disruption which we do not do. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 16:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already refuted the inclusion of fascism for the following reasons: 1. Article says nothing about their supposed stance of fascism, so having it in the infobox is not justified unless it is explained 2. It is a contentious and controversial claim which needs to be backed up by several extremely high quality sources (which it is not, as three of them are far too old and are not even about the BNP and one of them isn't respected enough or enough of a precedent) 3. Popular representation of the BNP is conclusively not fascist 4. The counter-argument given for removing the fascism tag is that we need a source to refute the other 4 sources claims, which is not Wikipedia policy (as far as I know, I may be wrong). Anstatt 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who is right here there cannot be a disclaimer inside an infobox. You are free to describe the issue in the article. If you cannot agree on this then the most likely solution is to remove the text from the infobox and work on a section to be inserted in the article before protection is removed. So I actually agree with your first argument. As for your last point you are not entirely right. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth per WP:V. In other words, those with reliable sources win but WP:NPOV grants you the right to add the opposing view if you also have reliable sources. As a final more general comment it is worth remembering that the party itself is a primary source so their own opinion on the matter is not considered a reliable source, see WP:RS ad WP:V. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first argument isn't really relevant though. All that means is more information about the BNP being fascists needs to be added to the main article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"All that means is more information about the BNP being fascists needs to be added to the main article" I completely agree, if it is to remain in the infobox. Otherwise, what does it explain exactly?Anstatt 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I say this is however just a flying though that a dose of mediation may help clear this issue up. Any one else agree.--Lucy-marie 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion below I say mediation is required anyone agree?--Lucy-marie 11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was placed there so it was the first thing people would see when schrolling down to the section. It should not be put chronologically as it does not contribute chronologically to the arguments. I also do not see why mediation is opposed as it would sort things out a lot quicker, unprotect the page and create a rational, policy and fact based discussion to take place which would end this dispute.--Lucy-marie 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No. (And it would help if you had placed your comment chronologically so readers are more likely to see it.) Emeraude 12:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is already cleared. --Neon white 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that this has been settled then request unprotection. Hackney is absolutely right, that disclaimer is a blatant violation of policy. It needs to be removed and doing so counts as enforcing policy. EconomicsGuy ^{Return the fire!} 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Neon white and User:EconomicsGuy here. Emeraude 09:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine then, we should just remove the ludicrous concept that they are Fascist all together. The sources are academic but pre-date the party's reforms and as of the party's reforms there are no neutral, third-party sources that show the party is still Fascist. The party simply put does not favor the Totalitarian aspect of Fascism, even if they're still Racial. Instead of having Fascism I suggest we replace it with Racialism or Racism.--Sviatoslav86 19:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The main source, Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party by Dr Nigel Copsey, FRHistS is dated 2004 and specifically centres on the alleged reforms of the party. [[7]] is also dated 2004. [[8]] is dated february, 2007. The info is well sourced. This has been explained to you many times. You're refusal to accept this clear point is disrupting the consensus according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT --Neon white 17:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But the party has not in any meaningful sense reformed. It has, it seems, made minor changes to its constitution which still leave the final say with its leader! Its polices and philosophy are what define it as fascist (or define any party), not its internal structure, and there is no suggestion that these have changed at all beyond the changes that every party makes as events pass. This is what is reflected in the infobox, not the party's organisation. It is worth remembering that the National Front in the 1960s/1970s also had a supposedly democratic constitution, but no one seriously says they were not fascist. (Indeed, the party leader John Tyndall was voted out but reclaimed power in a coup. Griffin learned his politics from Tyndall.) Emeraude 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that source is a biased one, if you want to claim that in spite of the reforms that the party is still fascist get a scholarly source. Secondly, in every party the leader has the final say and the BNP has made many changes. They no longer engage in Holocaust Denial, they no longer associate with Skinheads or other Nazi or Fascist groups, they no longer are in favor of mandatory deportation of non-whites and they pro-Democratic. Nice try, but sorry. Your case isn't very strong.--Sviatoslav86 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We have two scholarly sources, one from a leading expert in right wing extremism. Again read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The BNP leader is well known to be friends with David Duke, the infamous former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, white supremicist, anti-semitic nazi and has even stayed with him. I'd call that associating with fascists. There is no evidence that the core beliefs of the party have changed only evidence to the contrary. It's becoming very obvious that you have a conflict of interest here. WP:COI --Neon white 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, do you realise that? Anyway, the Ku Klux Klan aren't fascist, neither are white supremicists (while some may be fascists, it isn't necessary), and neither were the Nazis. It's obvious you have the conflict of interest as well, seeing as you seem to use the word 'fascist' to mean an insult for anyone with extreme right-wing views.Anstatt 18:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am associated with no political party or group, therefore there is no conflict of interest. I am here because a request for comment was made due to people disrupting the consensus. The word fascist has a dictionary defintion that is what is used here. "Not only in its world view, but also in its dynamics as a social movement, the [second] Klan had much in common with German National Socialism and Italian Fascism." - Beyond The Mask Of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan by Nancy MacLean --Neon white 22:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when did being in common = being?Anstatt 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that source is rock solid, as are the many, many other sources cited in the article and in this discussion, all of which decribe the BNP as fascist. There is not a single source saying otherwise! Officially at least, the BNP never did "engage in Holocaust Denial,... associate with Skinheads or other Nazi or Fascist groups" etc, so no change there, so what's your point. Behind the scenes, of course, it was a different picture. Where is the evidence that they no longer do these things? That they say so? They always said so. Your case is non-existant. Emeraude 09:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They officially never used to denounce it, and often promoted it in their assorted literature, contrary to the modern BNP. As I said before, two mediocre sources with no explanation for its 'necessary' inclusion in the article itself are not enough of a reason to include fascism. However, I seem to be pissing in the wind.Anstatt 18:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying the sources are mediocre, but you haven't said why. They are articles by academics with relevant expertise, published in scholarly journals; prima facie, they are reliable sources. What's the problem with them? VoluntarySlave 21:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Who else uses these sources as precedent? What impact have they made political commentators outside of their magazine? Why haven't the articles been discussed anywhere else? Why aren't they good enough for all other forms of media to use when they need to define the BNP's stance? They are nowhere near extraordinary. They might be considered reliable under WP's guidelines, but they need to go the extra mile to make the claim of fascism.Anstatt 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant who else uses the sources, discusses them or what impact they have, it simple has no bearing on WP:RS, WP:V. The source are as verifiable and relaible as any i've seen on wikipedia. If you consider them to be reliable under wikipedia's guidelines then you can have no grounds for your objections, they do not have to meet any standard other than those. --Neon white 22:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going insane saying this over and over again. Wikipedia policy requires SEVERAL EXTRAORDINARY SOURCES. THESE SOURCES ARE NOT SEVERAL IN NUMBER, NOR ARE THEY EXTRAORDINARY. Anstatt 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. This does not constitute an extraordinary claim. It has already been established. read the article WP:RS. --Neon white 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Something has been lost in the translation here. I believe the policy you wish to quote is found at WP:REDFLAG, which says "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources." In fact, I think that the claim that the BNP is fascist is pretty well documented and is not at all exceptional. However, it is still subject to dispute, which is why I don't think it should go in an infobox. --Marvin Diode 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Documented by whom? The flimsy sources given in the article? Or the general murmuring of those who grumble about the BNP? The party itself strongly denies any ties at all with fascism or Nazism, which is enough to make the claim exceptional, especially as nowadays they tend to actually mean it. I am glad to see you realise this is a contentious issue however. Anstatt 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, documented by the 3rd party, peer reviewed academic papers cited in the article, for one thing. I think you're stretching what is an extraordinary claim. Claiming George Bush is a lizard is extraordinary. Claiming that Nick Griffin is possessed by Great Cthulhu is extraordinary, claiming a political party has an ideology is not extraordinary. The fact remains that according to Wikipedia policies, reliable, third party sources maintain that the BNP is a fascist organisation - all that is required is one such source to the contrary. One. The criterion for inclusion in wikipedia is not truth but verifiability.Red Deathy 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity how many attempts have been made now to solve this trough RFC and AN/I? A pattern seems to be emerging here. If you cannot agree to take this to mediation I would suggest that you take this back to AN/I, not to settle the content dispute but to deal with the disruption that is blocking you guys from reaching a consensus and have the protection removed. Content dispute or not, if someone keeps beating the same dead horse over and over to halt the progress on the article then that is perfectly within the jurisdiction of AN/I and ultimately ArbCom to deal with. EconomicsGuy 10:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think i suggested that earlier in the discussion, but i always assume good faith and am hestitant to do so, only as a last resort and considering the article is protected and there isnt an edit war, it's not that urgent to require admin. --Neon white 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt can you explain this and this? If you are indeed Sviatoslav86 then I suggest you stick to using one account here and provide full disclosure. If not then this dispute may solve itself sooner rather than later given that Sviatoslav86 is suspected of being a sock of indef blocked user Laderov. EconomicsGuy 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

? I don't even know what those links are trying to prove. I'm not Sviatoslav86. I agree this is going on too long. I will support fascism in the infobox and end this debate IF someone can put a relevant section in the article explaining why, using references from the articles given as evidence. It's not proper work to half-heartedly stick that ideology in without explaining it.Anstatt 12:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt, a few comments ago you said you don't have to be fascist to be a Nazi. Mate, i'd be worried to leave you alone with a sharp pencil, let alone an article, after that little gem. And the reason this argument goes on and on is because everyone here has decided what they think and is determined to have their way. Remember, Wikipedia isn't an Encyclopedia, its a Role Playing Game.

P.s. "Considered by some to be Fascist etc etc" would be my tip :)

--Theironcross 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascism doesn't = Nazism. Try and fathom why we have two different names for two different things. Why isn't there one word for both? If you want something more indepth, there are plenty of books for you to read. I'd like to know why you've immediately taken on antagonistic rhetoric?Anstatt 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because until you and all the other "non-fascist" Nazi loving BNP supporters get into power, i can still do whatever i want. This is the greatest country in the world, and the BNP are the pollution, you're like an oil slick. Long live the golden sons of Albion.--Theironcross 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not helpful at all. It's because of people like you that the tag is still up and discussion is being stifled. JRDarby 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And its because of people like you, that people like that, with such blatantly disruptive agendas, get given the right to ruin this project and my country. Anstatt is a BNP sympathiser, he doesn't know the meaning of objectivity, to give him a say in this dispute is totally counter-productive. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it shouldn't be a Nazi dictatorship either. --Theironcross 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The BNP are rooted in the NF which itself was rooted in past neo-NAZISM, so to some degree at least the BNP has evolved using NAZI party doctrine, especially the idea that genetic trates are passed down in race (eugenics), anti-semitism, which with Israel (and the Jewish race) being brought over to western and right-wing American acceptance has evolved into anti-islamism (all groups that rely on support from the disillusioned or uneducated must have a specific enemy, now islam, again in context with NAZISM). I would use the term fascist to describe the BNP, even though I would vote against its inclusion in the encylopedia as I understand fascism itself is broadly defined. Also stating the evidence above I would call it a Neo-NAZI movement to some degree, as it was bourne out of Neo-NAZISM, however that is too loaded as well. , and by the way NAZISM comes under fascism. Personally I think the most appropriate classification of the BNP is that of a white-supremecist movement, as that is what it is, it advocates that white people are better than asians/blacks etc. As most of its supporters are highly uneduiucated, unitelligent or have anger complexes I dont understand why they think they are 'better' than the often better educated, more peaceful, and usually less ignorant migrants, but they do. The fact that eugenics is totally discredited by eveyone who has more than half a brain cell shows that these people are not superiro in anyway shape or form, but my point is they believe in white-supremecism.Rob.G.P.A 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Making progress

Splendid, I propose that we rename the "Policies" sections "Politics" and begin with a para describing the BNP's orientation. Something like: Some commentators locate the politics of the BNP within the fascist tradition. Writer A Notes: "blah blah blah." As does B who says "yakkatty yakkatty." The BNP themselves have traditionally publically dissociated themselves from fascism (BNP Source); although some commentators observe that their policies belie this disavowal. It's a start...Red Deathy 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. What source states their policies as fascist? And is it current enough for their latest manifesto?Anstatt 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Copsey (2007) & Renton for two, we're already citing them, this is an opportunity to quote them - the above just carries over the stuff from the info box and transcribes it into the article.Red Deathy 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

why the rename? surely a new section would be better? --Neon white 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coz on a quick look I couldn't see anywhere where the section could sit comfortably within the flow of the article - strictly speaking it wouldn't even require a rename, that could be a paerfectly adequate preamble to listing the policies, and an improvement on the section as a whole...Red Deathy 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the best place for this is near the top, since the BNP is controversial because of its fascist tag. The 'white nationalist' phrase has to go anyway, to be changed back to 'far-right' (I don't know how that ever got changed). Perhaps a short final paragraph in the introduction? Failing that, there is a section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" which could perhapd be renamed and rewritten to include this. Alternatively, it could make a good introductory paragraph to the "Opposition to the BNP" section. Emeraude 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's place is in the lead, and it's kind of hard to squeeze it into the history of the party section. I Also feel that since we are discussing their ideology, the best place is where we discuss their policies. That said, I think finding a wording for the para takes precedence, and agreeing it before insertion is important - could anyone scare up some quotes to insert into the above para?--Red Deathy 06:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have yet to see anything but waffle from the fascist apologists. No sources. Nothing. The best they seem able to manage is "The BNP say they are blah blah blah... ". So what? The BNP - now try and grasp this - are not an independent source. (Only two words there, 'independent' and 'source', so it shouldnt be too hard even for those of you who's Mom is still ironing your black shirts). The BNP are a fascist or neo-fascist party. Independent and reliable third party sources in the article show this. No sources show otherwise. But the debate goes on, and will go on, endlessly, because such apologists, by their very nature, need to tell porkies. Marcus22 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to report Marcus22 to an admin? I don't think he is suitable to edit this article any further. Would like to hear an admins point of view.Anstatt 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • By all means DO report me. Please do draw attention to what is going on here. I would be very glad for several administrators to look into the reasons and reasoning behind several presumably fascist supporters editing this article to a standstill without bringing any reputable third party sources to evidence their claims. Please do do so, I insist! Marcus22 17:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how please.Anstatt 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Violence and criminal behaviour

Why does this section even exist? I notice that no other parties of the UK have such sections devoted to the subject. This information would be better expressed in their own personal articles (seeing as it has nothing to do with the BNP other than by association).Anstatt 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority of political parties would likely not allow members with criminal records to stand. The fact that the BNP tolerate this is noteworthy as a difference between them and other parties. It's all properly sourced. As wikipedia guidelines point out what other articles may or may not contain is no relevance to the content of this article. --Neon white 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

But none of those people are standing anywhere. The BBC link is over 5 years old.Anstatt 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Cottage was a candidate, the others are organisers and regional representatives. The info in the bbc link has not really changed. The panorama program is a major source of info. --Neon white 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cottage isn't in the party any more, and you don't know at all if the information has changed, unless you have a source that you aren't telling me. Why is one programme about the BNP five years ago notable enough? How many candidates of other parties have been involved in scandals? How many of those appear in Wikipedia? Television programmes are also not strong WP sources for info. When are you all going to admit to being biased? Anstatt 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The section exists - even though fascist apologists may not like it - because the BNP, at grass roots level, are still and have always been a party rooted in racist and homophobic violence. The same cannot be said of other political parties. (Hence why such a section does not exist in other articles). Were the BNP to eschew violence then, over time, you might have a point that such a section no longer belonged. Sadly, whilst many of their thugs continue to be violent the section should remain. If you dont like that, ask them to stop being violent. Dont ask us to not report the facts. Marcus22 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Were the BNP to eschew violence" Have you been keeping up with the BNP for the last 8 years? "are still and have always been a party rooted in racist and homophobic violence" No. You've just horribly exposed your ulterior motives with this article.Anstatt 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• • If by "horribly exposed your ulterior motives" - you mean I am totally opposed to racist and homphobic violence, then yes, I have done so. And willingly. But are you not then so opposed? Do you mean you support or have no opinion either way towards such violence? If so then I can see clearly where your motivation lies. Marcus22 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what I mean. If you were a balanced individual, you'd see that the BNP hasn't engaged in or promoted violence since well before the turn of the century, and that the party in the last few years has changed even more so.Anstatt 15:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying the BNP did engage in and promote violence before the turn of the century. That's interesting, because the BNP has always denied it!! Which is not to say they didn't do it, they just denied it. So, how has this changed? Emeraude 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What has engaging in and promoting violence got to do with denying it? It's whether they actually do it or not. Anstatt 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell"

He's resigned from the party now so can someone that is allowed to edit the page add former to the start of it, please?

It's just above the contents box. :)

Thanks, O2mcgovem 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} See above, not controversial and completely unrelated to the protection One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Adambro 21:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New section

Hi all.

I've never contributed to Wiki before so forgive if I making some sort of horrible faux pas. I am however a member of the BNP and I obviously object strongly to being called a facist. I understand from this debate reputable sources are required to "prove" that the BNP is not a facist party. So here are two, are these admissiable?

"When the election finally arrives, beware. Given its [the BNP] talent for issuing leaflets that read more like Socialist Worker than Mein Kampf, the British National Party is making hay with the issue of casual labour, as I was recently reminded while reading The Triumph of the Political Class, a new book by the Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne. An elegant tirade against a cross-party cabal either in thrall to vested interests or so lost in the woods of electoral arithmetic that the stuff of real lives scares them, one of its most sobering sections deals with the rise of the BNP "in Barking, Dagenham, Dewsbury, Leeds and Burnley" and its place in what he sees as an "insurgency against the political class".

John Harris, The Guardian, 19th October 2007

"Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, challenges the widely held view that the BNP is an extreme Right-wing party. He said that he was unable to find evidence of "Right-wing tendencies" in its 2005 manifesto."

Telegraph, 22 March 2006,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/21/npoll21.xml

Given the hatred directed at the BNP if it could be proven that it is a facistical organisation then it would most certainly have been by now. The fact that this can not be proved is itself strong evidence to the contray.

With regard to the BNP's policy set. Almost all of the BNP's most controversial policies have been endorsed by mainstream policians.

The superior claims of indigenous people to state resources was recently supported by Margret Hodge.

The volentary repatriation scheme is already law (1971 Immigration Act) and in use with Labour offering financel rewards to asylum seekers to return to their home nations.

So if these polcies make the BNP facist then then Labour should be also be deemed to be so.

Refrences to the BNP's past are irrelevant. The Labour Party may once have been socialist, the Conservatives were once pro-Slavery, both were Imperialist for the majority of their existance but no sensible person would claim them to be any of these things now.

The argument that the BNP membership is the same now as it was in 2000 is also wrong. The BNP's membership is now at least five times greater than it was in that year, at a conservative estimate. Even assuming the entire 2000 membership are still members they would constitute a fraction of the total.

(spencer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.1.169 (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If Norman Tebbit can't find evidence of "Right-wing tendencies" that's probably because he's more right wing than they are. After all, a member of the Tory party described him as "a racist and a homophobe". And I don't think either of those articles are likely to break this deadlock, until the BNP supporters/members/apologists (delete as applicable) accept that the BNP are, and always have been, a fascist party nothing will change. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spencer: Those references have been cited before but don't address the issue. You may not like being called 'fascist', but you are a member of a fascist party whether you realise it or not. The point is that many of its suppoprters and members do not realise this and the BNP has been very astute at hiding its fascist credentials. The problem is that philospophy or ideology is not the same as publicly stated policies, a point this debate has covered many times. As to the membership issue: You wrote that "The BNP's membership is now at least five times greater than it was in that year [2000]..." Are you saying that it was fascist then? Where is your evidence that membership is now "at least five times greater" (i.e. 10,000+)? No reliable sources that I am aware of say this, though the BNP has ALWAYS said that is the fastest growing party (even when it is losing members). Not surprising really; its fascist predecessors also claimed the same. Emeraude 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spencer, those sources do not explicitly address the question of whether the BNP is a fascist organisation, and can only count as a form of original research (i.e. you are extrapolating from them that the BNP is not fascist, even if they do not state it explicitly). A reliable, third party, explicit source is required. It took me less than five minutes to find the Copsey(2007) article above, via a reliable mechanism - maybe if you ask your colleagues they may have knowledge of articles/cuttings from 3rd party soruces we could use.--Red Deathy 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Theres nothing you can do to convince the various slow-learners here of anything Spencer. They most likely work for UAF tbh. Among the deluge of anti-BNP work, some articles somehow extrapolate that the BNP are fascist. The question of whether or not they are fascist is so much of a non-sequitor for everyone else (as the idea is ludicrous to anyone outside of an anti-BNP association) that no major articles have been written to say the opposite. However all major media outlets in the country treats them at the most as "far-right" and the BNP completely eschews any association with fascism.

Sooner or later, they won't be able to keep labelling the BNP as fascist without looking ridiculous, we just need to wait until then to get a fair article. I have managed to get them to explain the reason for the "fascism" label somewhere in the article, so watching this materialise should be fun. Anstatt 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to withdraw your implied accusation that I work for or with or am a member of UAF, I am not and do not - I am applying the rules of Wikipedia that the chief criterion for inclusion of a fact is verifiability - which means a reliable third party published source is required - of which plenty are cited in the article. The mainstream media articles you have provided are entirely silent on the subject, whereas I have found and linked to a reputable academic article which explicitly discusses the question of the BNP's fascism in the light of scholarly definitions of the same. I'd like to remind you of WP:ASSUME, and WP:NPOVRed Deathy 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Equally, you may withdraw the suggestion that I work for UAF, and further that those who oppose you and have given evidence that the BNP is fascist are 'slow-learners'. In any case, even if we did work for UAF, that would not make our contributions invalid. Bear in mind that the UAF opposes fascism and it identifies the BNP as such; it was not set up because it does not like the BNP and wants to insult it. And I would also remind you that, despite what you say, the national press has on many occasions described the BNP as fascist and the references have been given above. Emeraude 13:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is boring. BTW I'm still looking forward to seeing a fascism section in the article, quoting parts from your sources. Also, LOL at you Emeraude. YOU = UAF SUPPORTER.Anstatt 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Enough!! You do not get to harrass other editors like this. This is being dealt with on AN/I now. EconomicsGuy 17:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Anstatt has left the building and so has Sviatoslav86. EconomicsGuy 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And in addition, 84.66.110.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was actually Lucy-marie using an IP as a sockpuppet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is boring and all thanks to you. You have contibuted no reliable sources, no helpful suggestions and no avenue for progress. As to a fascism section, I have tried to find the sources that would be needed for such a section as described by Red Deathy at the start of Making Progress above. I can find plenty of independent, reliable, third-party sources for the BNP's fascism (all listed countless times in this discussion). I can find nothing for the contrary. Seeing as Anstatt has now resorted to nothing more than personal attacks on editors, it is time to ignore him and his contributions. Emeraude 10:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hackney would you mind backing up your frivolous claims posted on your talk page claiming I am a racist. I find that offensive that just because somebody interprets POV differently on a controversial issue regarding race theyt are automatically branded a racist. I also do not push POV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see how many sources will say the BNP is Fascist when they are in government (!), There are reputable sources which say that the Labour Party are Neo-Marxist-User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• When the BNP is in government, no one will dare say anything!! I'd like to see these reputable sources that say the LP is neo-Marxist. Emeraude (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Emeraude, stop being such a liar and quit being so paranoid. As for the alleged fascist policies, those books were published by leftists, just look at the authors' beliefs. The BNP seems pro-citizen libertarian on many issues (in which policies would benefit the citizens), why did they publish an article supporting Ron Paul? Qwenton (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Your insulting and scurrlous remarks are not acceptable in Wikipedia. The sources quoted are entirely acceptable - it is up to you to suggest reliable sources that state the opposite if you can, rather than attacking the authors who say things you personally disagree with. Your own POV is glaringly obvious here. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Wiki articles

It is to be noted that, there has been some cases of vandalism of Wiki articles from what it appears to be by BNP activists or online supporters from the circumstantial online evidences and traces. This is not stereotyping BNP by any means, but it is very important to increase awareness and responsible editing for both BNP supporters and general readers of the main article, hence I have cited few references of such cases and IP address traces in the "Violence & Criminal behaviour" section. Smet 13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Undid the RV, 13:55 13 Nov 2007 Smet 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Without reliable third party sources stating that the BNP is organising vandalism of wikipedia, this cannot be included. Wikipedia should not be cited as a source on wikipedia articles. Please see WP:V, WP:OR.--Red Deathy 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's as much from the other side as there is from the BNP; should we include that as well? Just leave it out. JRDarby 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

"Companies alleged to be linked to the BNP" has gone. UAF making claims about companies on their blog just isn't a reliable source. If the claims had been made somewhere more reliable it would be better, but it's completely unreasonable to claim organisations have links to the BNP without reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV - evidence request

Where's the evidence for this?

"The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals."

This is a pretty serious charge! It should not be permitted without a credible primary source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.89 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I also had a quick look for citation number 83. and found nothing... please can we check these supposed citations?!

[[9]]

Clearly, the inclusion of citations lends credibility to any statement made; but if the information they claim to cite just isn't findable, then they have to go, until or unless a reliable source link is provided, otherwise it's no better than hearsay and badmouthing.

This article is clearly hostile to it's subject, so it's extra important that contentious claims are credibly verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.89 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 14 leads to a dead link, however, the BNP manifesto for 2005 wills till exist in dead tree for, so WP:V is still satisfied. Maybe I'll try and update the reference to point to a better source.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the 2005 manifesto is no longer available on the BNP's website which is hardly surprising given it is now more than 2 years old. However, as noted above it does still exist in paper form so is accessible if you go to a library etc. To view it online, go the BBC and this address: [10]. So, the citations perhaps need changing to this location. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Guardian Infiltration section

Why does this get a section of its own under the history of the party? There have been many articles on the party and I can't see why this one should be viewed as so critical in the history of the party to warrant its own section. I suggest it should be shortened and included in the 2000s section. Suitsyou (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1) New topics go at teh bottom. 2) Because the BNP was infiltrated, a significant fact in itself, and the infiltration was a notable news events it's worth its own section, IMNSHO --Red Deathy (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This "infiltration" consisted of a journalist joining the party, which is insignificant. The "infiltration" didn't reveal anything that was not already known. A single article in a newspaper is not of historical importance so is out of place in the history section of the article. Maybe you should create a separate section called "The media and the BNP" and move it there? Suitsyou (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro gripes

"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."[12] The BNP proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[13] 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’".[12]

The party accepts white people with non-British ancestry if they are assimilated into one of the British ethnicities. The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals. The party asserts that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature.[14]"

Why is their view on race so intricately described so early in an intro? Would it not make sense to put this in their policy section, whilst making reference in one way or another that they hold controversial views on multiculturalism (as they do)?

"Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has tended to focus on Muslims as its main adversary. The party has publicly said that they do not consider Hindus and Sikhs to be any threat, although the BNP doesn't accept practicing Sikhs and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[15] The BNP has even worked with anti-Muslim Sikh groups.[16]"

This is more about their racial policies, and what exactly does "main adversary" mean? That they have been sword fighting with Muslims? The word "tended" seems to make this sentence redundant, even if you believe a political party could have an ethnic adversary. It seems like a weasel word to me. Surely a political parties adversary is another political party?

"Mainstream political parties in the UK marginalise the BNP, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, and former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair.[17][18][19]"

The first part of this sounds like a sentence designed to emote pity for the BNP, but I guess it is fact anyway haha.

So what do you think about changes as I have suggested to the intro? Sinthesizer (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It seems that many editors in the past have gone out of their way to be fair to the BNP, and probably too far at times. I would make a concrete suggestion for your second point (The part starting Historically..) How about: Under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has focussed more on Muslims. In other words, drop historically, since it's there in the context, and drop the stuff about sikhs/hindus, which is of dubious relevance in the overall scheme of things.

As to your other points, yes, I think the stuff about what the constitution says would be better placed in the policies section, if only to make the Intro shorter and more readable. And as for Mainstream political parties...", personally I'd delete marginalise and insert oppose, which is a far more accurate word. Emeraude (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to include such a misleading statement? Sure, the BNP campaign on a dubious anti-Islamic religionist vote along with their broader anti-immigration stance, but "focusing on" and "adversary" words make it out that the BNP are preying on these minorities almost into pitched battles. In the ways that the BNP universally campaign nowadays, they would take the defensive view of protecting the British cultures and being self affirmative rather than indulging in xenophobia. Seeing as this sentence tries to explain what the BNP's stance is from an insiders point of view, it doesn't make sense; according to them, they are simply reacting differently to different scales of threats. Sinthesizer (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is necessary, in order to provide some sort of historical context. I read somewhere a long time ago that, as an out and out Nazi, Tyndall's real target was Jews, but he was a smart man. So the National Front concentrated on blacks/immigrants because in the 1960s no one was going to get anywhere by attacking jews - too soon after the war. (Can't give a reference for this, but it doesn't matter.) The BNP has moved on from there. While racism is not quite as 'out' as anti-semitism, it is moving that way and there are laws. So attacks on a religion are easier and made even easier by the current climate in the world; they appear almost mainstream. Note that in my suggested wording, 'adversary' has gone.

I'm not sure that the article attemptes "to explain what the BNP's stance is from an insiders point of view". If it does, it shouldn't: this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. In any case, we should not be attempting to provide explanations/justifications for any party's views; we should merely be stating them. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But this is historical context for their views on immigration and race. I think it should be in their policies section, or in a section of itself. All that needs to be said in the intro is something along the lines of: "the BNP are most illustrious for their often controversial views/stances on race and immigration, both historically and today" (this is fact, whereas statements such as "strong anti-semitic tendencies", "targeted" "tended to focus" and "main adversary" move away into subjectivity). You cannot give a concise historical context for the BNP's views on such things in an intro, otherwise it will end up bloated as it is now, or it will just be pointlessly limited. Sinthesizer (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree materially. I would make a (bold) suggestion that the whole of the 3rd paragraph be deleted and replaced with Under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has focussed more on Muslims. (Anything else worthy of keeping from that paragraph can be incorporated in the Policies section.) The historical context is of prime importance in the introduction, since the BNP now is a direct product of its antecedents; it is right that the fascist background of the BNP is up at the top. The introduction for any article should give a flavour of what is to be detailed later; at present the 3rd para seems to be all detail. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What has anti-semitism got to do with fascism? What would your sentence, if put in, actually explain? It is hopelessly vague. What does focusing on Muslims actually mean, does comparing it with their anti-semitic past mean that it is similar, have their policies about Islam actually strengthened or have they just become less anti-semitic, how "strong" was their anti-semitism, why is it "Muslims" and not "Islam"? My suggested sentence is more succinct and not at all misleading. Why would you not have that in?

Here is my suggestion: delete both the second and third paragraphs. The election data in the first paragraph needs to be moved somewhere else in the intro. There should be a statement about when the BNP was formed and its founding chairman (Tyndall) and that Nick Griffin has been the chairman since 1999, and that electoral performance has improved after reforms. A sentence about their nationalist stance, with a footnote that interpretation of their ideology is often a cause for debate. A statement like mine stating they are most known for immigration policy. The last paragraph is fine, probs best to use oppose as you stated.Sinthesizer (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've attached to my user space a temporary page which has a posssible draft version to replace the introduction. Please take a look. I have incorporated most of the suggestions made here and the vast bulk of it is made by simply copying and pasting what already exists, i.e. I have avoided editorialisng. I have attempted to confine the Intro to key points (all of which are expanded in the body of the article). I have kept in the 'anti-semitism' reference because I think it explains why the party is regarded as fascist. (Personal note to Sinthesizer: If you want to see how their anti-semitism was an integral and defining part of their fascism, do a Google search and you might be amazed.) Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Policies

Most of the sources for this section currently point to 404's (not found) so can't be verified. They are also from 2005, so are heavily outdated and should be updated to 2007 policies. Here is a link to their current policies, including a 'Mini Manifesto' which seems to be more indepth. http://www.bnp.org.uk/?page_id=51

Note: The main BNP site has been redesigned so many of the sources for the article now return 404's. Triedandtested (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As noted before, the links may not work, but the references are valid in Wikipedian terms - two years old is hardly heavilly outdated.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources can be verified in original paper form much more reliably than any source can ever be verified on the Internet. It is not and should not be a requirement that sources are acceptable only if available online. If the links don't work (e.g. to the BNP's manifesto), it is a simple enough matter to simply remove the link and leave the stated sourcce. I will check some of them later and make the changes.

I agree with Red Deathy - two years old is not outdated and, besides, if the reference is to the last general election manifesto, that is to a major document that is reliable and easily available. Emeraude (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[Seven references to the manifesto now altered. New link to the full manifesto added to External links. 6 or 7 other dead links from Policies to BNP site to be followed up.] Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent or Far Right

Where to begin. I wrote Independent because the party cannot be categorized into the scale of left-wing or right-wing. They actually share more in common with the Liberal Democrats or Labour than they do with the Tories. They oppose laissez-faire captalism, Globalism, Foreign Intervention, Materialism, Consummerism, and support endeavours to clamp down on Greenhouse emmissions. It is actually more accurate to label the party leftist than rightist because Conservatives oppose the racial element of the party, the one area where they're at odds with left-wing groups while they share nothing in common with Conservatives.--WhiteTiger86 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, you might want to look over the discussion there. All the positions you mention are standard far right positions (with the partial exception of greenhouse emissions - but certain sorts of environmentalist positions have long been held by the far right). The fact that the BNP do not share all the positions of the Tories is not the point; what matters is that the BNP disagree with the Tories from the right, not from the left. Anyway, the arguments that me or you might put forward about whether the BNP are far right or not are not really the point - if you want to use a different designation of the BNP's political position, find some reliable sources. VoluntarySlave (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

redirects

Could the redirects be fixed? Here are some examples:

• National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) redirects to National Democratic Party of Germany
• white nationalist redirects to white nationalism
• Radical right-wing populism redirects to Right-wing populism

Could these and others be fixed? 206.113.132.130 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Those examples are now fixed. What are the others? Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is well cited

With some improvement and cleanup, this could attain GA status. Why this hasn't been rated against a WikiProject in importance and class yet I don't know.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Edward's comments

Here is a video that shows the recorded dialogue that he explicitly said that blacks are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, a burden on welfare resources and are probably going to mug you. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRKk2K3fMk0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting that. However, what he says is still not what you have put in quotes. The clip has him saying: "Because the black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, low achievers that drain our welfare benefits and the prison system and probably go and mug you." So, we need either to give this full quote with its correct citation, or leave the quote as it was originally given in the Timesonline. It is not acceptable to add things to a quote that are not in the original, which is what you have done with the Timesonline source. I will be bold and alter this to the full quote with its Youtube source. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, my apologies. It had been a while since I had heard it.--WhiteTiger86 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ROA

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - mention of a spent conviction, without malice I should think applies to people seeking to hold public office - so I think the mention should stay...--Red Deathy (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny, most fascists I came across weren't rehabilitated using that method, I found a crowbar worked best! It absolutely should stay, and editors with a COI should stop removing the information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly given the context there is malice and the Act applies more generally than you suggest. You can make your point without breaching the Act as there are other examples. Therefore I will continue to edit breaches. If you can put a reasoned argument as to why you need this specific example I will reconsider. On the COI point I am not a BNP member or supporter so there is none. The support for political violence above is hardly indicative of a balanced approach. (Doublethink64 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

• The Act and relevant case law provide a clear public interest exemption which surely applies in the case of politicians and leaders of political parties. The BNP claims that is the party of law and order, so there is a clear public interest issue for anything which shows otherwise; it is not a question of malice to expose hypocrisy. The defence of qualified privilege or justification applies. Besides, if you check the dates of his convictions, you will notice that the second was committed only six years after the first. If he was imprisoned for the first (assault), he would not have been 'rehabilitated' by the time of the second, but even if this is not the case, the public interest argument applies (Note s8(3): "nothing in section 4(1) above shall prevent the defendant in an action to which this section applies from relying on any defence of justification or fair comment or of absolute or qualified privilege." Emeraude (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, you're the general secretary of a "union" (and I use that term loosely) associated with the BNP and a long-time associate of Nick Griffin, sorry but your claim of no COI is dubious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am aware of the possible defences under the act. I don't think a public interest defence would be justified. No one has answered why it is necessary to use this specific example to support the general argument. Can you find only these few examples? The Act is there for a reason. It is to prevent people from being labeled for their whole lives and allow them to move on. Isn't this a general principle you would support? If someone is standing in an election you might justify communication to the specific constituency but that is not what is happening here. No imprisonment was involved and the Act applies.

As to my alleged COI, I know Nick Griffin and the Union accepts members from all political persuasions and none. We have a lot of BNP members because other Unions operate a New McCarthyite policy of denying them workplace representation. I make no secret of my views on racism and fascism - I am opposed to both. I am also someone who supports a pluralist, democratic and liberal society. My liberal views are what make me question why other editors aren't as open as to their motives and affiliations and the hypocrisy they exhibit in using fascist techniques against 'fascists'. If you can show clearly why you need to use examples which breach the Act I will reconsider. (Doublethink64 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

• • No one has said your COI is "alleged". You quite clearly have a COI, given your position. Be that as it may, three editors here have said that the sentence on the convictions of Kevin Scott belong in this article and mention of them does not infringe the Act. That is a consensus, to which you are the sole dissenter. But for further evidence that this is so, simply follow the reference to the BBC's website which is given as one source of the information - if the BBC has the information on its site, it clearly does not think there is a problem and that's good enough for me and for Wikipedia. I have, therefore, reinstated the deleted text and unless and until you can achieve a consensus for change you should not go against consensus and delete it again. (Incidentally, one might question why you are not making similar arguments regarding the convictions of Griffin, Owens and Lecomber.)Emeraude (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And see also The Observer, 16 April 2006 and still on its website at [11]: "Its founder, Kevin Scott, is the BNP chief north-east England organiser, who has convictions for assault and threatening behaviour." So, that's the BBC and The Observer setting the example for Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because you assert something doesn't make it true Emeraude. I have stated why I don't think I have a COI therefore your assertion is not only denied but countered with argument. You have just asserted it again without responding. I will not edit the item again but I urge others who believe in the principles underlying the Act to edit it out. I believe that the process is still open and it is too early to claim a consensus. As to the BBC and Observer all it shows is that they are as misguided as you. I shall be contacting them too - thanks for drawing my attention it. I feel very passionately that it is wrong to label people on account of convictions that have taken place years previously - over twenty years and ten years ago in this particular case.I have answered the point you raise about the convictions of others on my talk page. I have since found that two of those listed Joe Owens and Tony Wentworth are no longer BNP members. Indeed the entry on Tony Wentworth on Wikipedia itself states he is no longer a BNP member and Paul Stott himself can serve as the source for Joe Owens. Can any of the three editors who have such a strong interest in this subject explain why they can't find a)examples of criminal behaviour not covered by the ROA and b)ones involving current BNP members? Will you edit the entry to reflect the past membership status of some of those listed or shall I? (Doublethink64 (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
      • You are of course correct that something is not true just because I (or anyone) asserts it. However, you miss the point. Your COI is based in the fact that you are or have been very closely related to the events and people described. A "conflict of interest" does not mean that you must necessarily be biased or lack neutrality in all you say or do, but nevertheless it is still there. Be that as it may, your point about various people being ex-BNP is valid and I will make the necessary edits. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I have not sought to conceal who I am and I think the points I am making are reasoned whether you accept them or not. I therefore think the contention regarding COI is pointless. My arguments stand in their own right. Whether I put them forward or someone else matters not one jot from a logical standpoint. I do respect the conventions of Wikipedia and I thank you for taking on board at least some of the points I have made. My reasons for making these points are quite genuine and I think that the process of debate is part of what ensures that Wikipedia works. If I knew of members of other parties who had their convictions of many years ago maliciously publicised I would defend them too. (Doublethink64 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Projects

Hello. I'm wondering why this article is not part of either Wikiproject United Kingdom and/or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics given it's nature and notability. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian Council of Britian

The page for the group itself and this article need reliable sources; I found these two-- [12] and [13]

Overall, the larger issue of BNP front group and BNP infiltration needs more coverage in this article. Griffin has said: "If we can't achieve anything in the parliamentary sense, we'll achieve it in another way, by going into communities in other ways; it's far easier than fighting elections." 24.32.208.58 (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done - good reliable sources, and now added to the appropriate section. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What you think about the question that I asked in the above section? Also, does the Nick Griffin quote about "other ways" seem encyclopediac enough for "Nick Griffin"? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Anti-semetism and Holocaust denial even belong in their policies section?

The Policies section is strictly meant for current policies. As the BNP has Jewish members, I think this section should be placed in the history section. None of these smear tactics are done on the Labour Party page or the LibDems. 206.113.132.130 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) restored signature change made by Qwenton Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yeah,if you look at what they say about peak oil and the neo-cons, then you will see that they criticise those who believe in the "world Jewish conspiracy", some of those articles written by Nick Griffin. Qwenton (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could Protectionism be added in the info box?

Because I'm a new user? Qwenton (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate adition to an already crowded infobox, imo. Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I believe the editors who placed the"disputed neutrality" tag have left Wikipedia, so we could remove it per policy. However, if any other editors want the tag to remain, could they list their specific changes they would require us to make before removing it - else I'll take it off in a few days.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)