Talk:Andrew Brons/Archive 1

National Socialist etc

In recent days, an editor (194.80.178.253 has repeatedly deleted from the article links to National Socialist Movement and White supremacy, and the Category:British neo-Nazis. The justification given has been that "Brons no longer believes in Nazism nor white supremacy" or "Andrew Brons does not believe in National Socialism anymore". Myself and others have reverted these deletions, quite correctly, on the grounds that while this may true (and no evidence is actually provided for this) the links/category are historically accurate and relevant. It is exactly the same as the categories given, for example, for Winston Churchill who is categorised as Liberal MP, Home Secretary etc etc, none of which applied in his later life but all of which are historically accurate. Far be it from me to suggest that Brons is a Churchill, but the point is a simple one: categories are not meant to reflect simply what is but also what was. Brons was a member of the National Socialist Movement so the category is correct and required. Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, there's no evidence that he has changed his views. If he'd published an essay on his beliefs then the editor might have an argument, but at present it's just an opinion from an anonymous person.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

the same user has made simialr edits to other articles, [1], so I'm not sure how discriminating he is.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed White supremacy form "see also", since it wasn't clear why that was there. Also, we shuold be aware that the anon might be Brons himself, and should treat his comments with respect even if they are ultimately superceded by reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just given this IP editor a final warning for a further removal of this category; looking at this page, it seems he is unwilling thus far to justify his removal. So be it, if that is the case. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed, as he says that it was teenage silliness and that Mandelson was in the Young Communists but has no 'British Communists' label on his page. This seems sufficient repudiation for a 62 year old MEP who from what I've seen on TV has been spouting views rather closer to Nigel Farage than Adolf Hitler. Sumbuddi (talk)

14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Justification given by Sumbuddi was "removing neo-nazi label, perhaps justifiable in 1965, but does not appear to be now - no such label appears on Griffin's page)". Firstly, from the previous contributions to this discussion it ought to be apparent that the category is appropriate. Secondly, it is not for Wikipedai to justify anything - Brons was a member of the National Socialist Movement as a matter of historical record. Thirdly, the category is not on Griffin's page because, though he may wellbe a closet Nazi, unlike Brons he has never been a member of an overtly Nazi group. Fourthly, it is no good justifying edits on this page by referring to Mandelson's page. If there is a perceived problem with that, go there, discuss it and sort it out. Edit reverted. Emeraude (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also does this article not have to conform to the living persons biography standards? I think calling him a neo-nazi when he has clearly denounce it himself (as cited in the article) could be libelous. As stated, does Peter Mandlesons page also refer to him as a neo-communist? I doubt it. Cathy3849 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Plainly he is not a neo-Nazi now. The neo-Nazi group in question was apparently established when Brons was 14, and its leader was imprisoned when he was 19, and Brons was a member for some of this time. However as a living 62-year-old man he is factually no longer a neo-Nazi, and the label is factually incorrect.

Libellous? How? He WAS a neo-Nazi. HE SAYS SO HIMSELF. Please, comment on what the article says and not what you say it says!! Nowhere does it say that Brons is a neo-Nazi. It is, though, a fact that he was,or at least was knowingly a member of a neo-Nazi organisation. Neither is there a "label" saying that he is a neo-Nazi; the article itself has been placed under several categories. One of these is neo-Nazi, because Brons was a neo-Nazi. The only way this article can be removed from thatmcategory is to prove that he was not a neo-Nazi, which quite plainly is impossible. Categories do not describe the latest situation. Thus, as I've said before, look at Winston Churchill and you will see the article is categorised as Liberal Party, Chancellor of the Exchequer and several other things that he ceased to be, inclusing prime minister!!! Emeraude (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does he say he was a neo-Nazi? According to the article he joined a Nazi party aged 17, in 1964 and then in 1965 joined the first British National Party. This is not the same thing as serving as a Liberal MP! It is however quite similar to being in the Young Communists. Heinrich Himmler was a Nazi, there is plenty of evidence for that. It is not in my view reasonable however to insist on the Nazi label for Brons when there isn't.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Where does he say he was a neo-Nazi? According to the article he joined a Nazi party... " Talk about answering your own question, minus the neo. Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One problem here is that we don't have a "former neo-nazi" category. Coincidentally, I just opined that we shouldn't have such categories.[2] I'm beginning to rethink my view. The discussion is still open at CFD#Category: People by former political orientation in case anyone else wants to contribute. In the case of this subject, he appears to have stayed involved in far right, "nearly-" neo-nazi groups, like the British National Party and the British National Front. So it isn't a case of making a major shift. On the other hand, it's not what he's known for - at the time he was an unknown teenager. For that reason I might tend toward supporting the deletion of the category from this article.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that we have to be very careful with "former" categories. For the very simple reason that people change their opinions and beliefs more often than the weather changes. You cannot categorise something which is constantly evolving and in motion. Of course, categorising what a person is known for "in the now" or primarily in historical terms is perfectly fine, but we have to draw a line between relevant categories and pigeon-holing nonsense that obfuscates the reality of a persons biography. To give an idea of this problem, why are not all adults in Wikipedia in a "former children" category? Historically accurate, but totally irrelivent! 81.105.9.22 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It comes across as anti-fascist 'point scoring' to me. There's quite enough that's damning in this article without claims predicated on the party memberships of a teenager. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, there seems to be lots of far-left "point scoring" going on with this article and the Nick Griffin article since being elected to the European Parliament. It's a shame they don't want to stick to what makes a good article rather than get their digs in! The category removed is most certainly a red herring and needed to go for the reasons in the reply above yours. Cathy3849 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with him being elected - the British Neo-Nazi category (oe similar) has been attached to this article for years (see this version). No, quite the opposit: now that this former Nazi has been elected his supporters are turning up trying to whitewash the man. He WAS known as a Nazi when younger; I believe he was photographed with other NSM members in Nazi style uniform by the News of the World in the '60s. The Guardian (8 June 2009) reportted that when he seemed to approve "the arson attacks on Jewish property and synagogues" carried out by NSM members. "In a letter to [Colin] Jordan's wife, Brons reported meeting an NSM member who 'mentioned such activities as bombing synagogues', to which Brons repsonded: 'On this subject I have a dual view, in that I realis that he is well intentioned, I feel that our public image may suffer considerable damage as a result of these activities. I am however open to correction on this point.'" As to him being silly when he was 17 and young: fair enough, people change (though he WAS still a Neo-Nazi at 17 - historical fact). Unfortunately, he was still a neo-Nazi at 27 - hardly youthful!! Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

27? I'm confused. Where was that in your sources? That would be 1974/5, correct? Long after this Nazi party disbanded. BTW, your tactic of accusing people who disagree with you 'supporters' is against wikipedia policy. Please don't do it.Sumbuddi (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put Andrew Brons back as a Neo-Nazi. Wikipedia articles on individuals, I believe, are meant to deal with history, therefore Arlen Specter is still listed as a Pennsylvania Republican as well as a Pennsylvania Democrat; closer to home Shaun Woodward is listed in both Conservative MPs and Labour MPs.

The fact that Brons has left both the British National Socialist Movement and the National Front to my eyes does not expunge his membership of either from history. 79.73.67.64 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it again. I watched him here: [[3]] he explicitly denies being a Nazi and moreover said that his only link to a neo-Nazi organisation was betwen the age of 17 and 18 and rejected it at that stage. There are plenty of other things say about him. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing this. I and other editors have pointed out above, repeatedly, the function and meaning of categories in Wikipedia. If you do not understand this, go read up on it. Category:British neo-Nazis and Category:Far-right politics reinstated in line with usual Wikipedia practice. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are ZERO people in Category: Far-right politics. If you do not understand this, go read up on it. Removed in line with usual Wikipedia practice. Clearly he is Far Right, but that doesn't excuse you putting incorrect categories on. As for the Neo-Nazi category, have you watched him in the video I linked to above? What right do you have to label him as a Neo-Nazi when he is explicitly denying it and the ideology that goes with it? Sumbuddi (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be no people in Category:Far-right politics; that is intended to categorise movements, not people. If anything, Brons would belong in Category:Far-right politicians, but even so, WP:BLP would require such a categorisation to be scrupulously sourced. Some review of what categories are intended to achieve might be useful here. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. The categories are slightly muddled (e.g., Far Right Politics contains a subcategory for France, but none for the UK) but for people they are pretty clear. There is Category: British far right politicians, which is itself a subcategory of British politicians, and contains subcategories British National Front politicians and British National Party politicians. Of which Brons, as Nick Griffin, is both a member. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More left wing sources

He was elected so the article needs more liberal and left wing propaganda like attack sources from Guardian or Searchlight magazine. --147.251.103.11 (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

????What???? Emeraude (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of improvement suggestions

As the article is protected, I'm putting forward a couple of suggestions on how it may be improved:

In the title "...European Parliament for Yorkshire and the Humber for the British National Party at the 2009 elections.", I think the "2009 elections" link needs to be changed to "2009 European parliamentary elections" or something similar to let the reader know instantly which election it was. "2009 elections" is far too ambiguous.

The section "BNP" should be renamed to "British National Party" in line with the section above it not being just NF. We should avoid using just acronyms as section names, it's bad form.

Keen for thoughts to these suggestions. 81.105.9.22 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Cathy3849 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks for wanting to improve this article. Regarding "keen for thoughts," I agree wholeheartedly about the section heading. I'm less enthusiastic about the clarification of 2009 election, but not enough to decline. I would have expected the reader to understand which election from the description of the post to which he was elected. Celestra (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Far right? Don't think so.

The second sentence of this article is flawed, inasmuch as: "Long active in far right politics in Britain," directly contradicts the later assertion that "Brons began his political career at seventeen, when in 1964 he joined the National Socialist Movement." He can't possibly be both far right AND socialist, so which is it?

I suggest 'long active in extremist politics in Britain'. The left / right spectrum is becoming increasingly obsolete.

DonnaEdmunds (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a contradiction, just a different use of the word socialist. The National Socialists are the Nazis, who are far to the right on most scales. Celestra (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not socialist but National Socialist, of which Nazi is a abbreviated form. No contradiction at all.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

North Yorkshire County Council election

Is this the same person who stood on the same day as the European Election for the Skipton West division of North Yorkshire County Council? See result for that division. Keith D (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

yesSumbuddi (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant Stock

My addition to the article in which I pointed out that Brons was of German immigrant stock was deleted at great speed. I wonder why? Perhaps because I wrote that his German great grandfather, Conrad Brons*, who settled in London's East End, never became a British citizen. (Source, The Independent). Obviously someone out there is watching this and might be a little sensitive. Ausseagull (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you because you didn't cite a source for this, and a review of this policy and this might be useful. My sensitivity is irrelevant; I leave my prejudices at the door when I edit here. Would that others could do the same. Rodhullandemu 22:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually it's Cordt Brons or Bruns. I don't know if he took citizenship, but his son was a London Policeman of many years service. 78.0.83.35 (talk) 21:54r, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over categories

... is distinctly unedifying, but I take on board all the concerns expressed, particularly those relating to WP:BLP, which I regard as an overriding policy here. However, other editors make good points for inclusion. Rather than continually revert, I suggest this is referred to WP:MEDCAB or even WP:RFC, because as far as I know, there is no authoritative ruling or consensus on "ex-categories". However, if the edit-warring doesn't resolve rapidly in a collegiate and civil manner, I would have no problem about protecting this page, and probably in the wrong version. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do take some action or refer it to Medcab or RFC (I'm not sure how to go about these). It is quite plain that articles belong in categories that historically their subjects have belonged to. The article text itself will point out that things have changed. Thus (and check all of these random examples):

• Eric Cantona - categorised as Manchester United F.C. players
• Rupert Murdoch - Australian mass media owners
• Piers Morgan - English newspaper editors
• Paul McCartney - The Quarrymen members
• Shaun Woodward - Conservative MPs (UK)
• John Major - British Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (NOTE: For considerably less time than Brons was in the National Socialist Movement)

and let us not forget:

• Andrew Brons - Leaders of the British National Front

None of these are now what these categories say, or has been for a long time! But each belongs in the category as a matter of historical fact and encyclopaedic completeness. Emeraude (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Plain and simple. You have insisted on reinstating a category that doesn't even contain any people! Please desist. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brons's supposed Jewish ancestry.

I've edited the part that claims Mr Brons has Jewish/German ancestry and that his original grandfather's name was Bronstein. The linked article from the Daily Mail that supposedly substantiates this claim doesn't mention any such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GnosticM (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Stabbing & Raj Incident

Please note my edit of the stabbing incidents in Harrogate. The two people (slightly)stabbed were Terry Sherwood, a friend of Mr. Brons and Steve Gaunt, another friend of Mr Brons who was also a student at the college and took over the running of the student union after it's collapse. they way it was worded made out that the National Front was responsible, which is incorrect. 78.0.83.35 (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brons arrest and conviction. I am a little concerned about the accuracy of the description of Brons' arrest; there appears to be some inaccuracies.

"The incident in question involved Brons leading a march through Leeds city centre with a group of NF supporters who were handing out leaflets and chanting slogans including "white power" and "death to Jews".

this then gives a link to a newspaper article that contradicts this statement.

The facts are that there wasn't a march, nor was there chanting of slogans. The incident took place at the regular newspaper sale held every Saturday morning on Albion St in Leeds. Those are the facts. What can also be conjectured is that the whole thing was a police set-up, using a non-white officer to pick out and approach Brons and ask him to move on, who of course responded that he was within his rights. It would be out of charcter for Brons to call anyone an "inferior being", sepecially a Police officer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibalia2006 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the whole of the source carefully and note the following: "Since being chosen as the BNP's lead candidate in this week's elections, Mr Brons has attempted to skirt over his controversial past." (Well, he would, wouldn't he?) The report goes on "But Mr Raj's evidence was accepted over that of Mr Brons by both Leeds magistrates and a Leeds Crown Court judge... " So, the Yorkshire Post is not contradicting the evidence presented and accepted in the courts nor even questioning it. Brons is repeating what he apparently said at his trial and appeal, which was not accepted. The fact remains, he was found guilty as charged and the coverage in this Wiki article is accurate and sourced. Emeraude (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment refers to the link to the above staement, which has no mention of a march or the ridiculous idea that someone was chanting "Death to jews", It's just not factual therefore has no place in these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibalia2006 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The source, which is the Yorkshire Post, is a bit more careful than the article, but no substitute for court records. Mr Brons, then a politics lecturer at Harrogate College, was leading a group of supporters leafleting in Leeds city centre in October 1983. A shop assistant heard them shouting "National Front" and saw clenched-fist salutes, while a policeman heard other slogans including "white power" and "death to Jews". Then PC John Raj, the area's community constable and of Malaysian-origin, told the group to disperse after elderly shoppers voiced their fears. But when he asked Mr Brons to leave, the politician said: "I am aware of my legal rights. Inferior beings like yourself probably do not appreciate the principle of free speech.".

As far was Wikipedia is concerned, the newspaper report is factual, unless you can find a contradictory reliable report, and the text should reflect what the source says, no more, no less. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well lets start with the fact that there was no march shall we? There is no mention of a march in the quoted source. This incident took place at a static weekly newspaper and leafleting drive, so that section can be corrected and removed. The controversial report of John Raj has always been disputed, and while it may have been accepted by the courts, it still remains totally unverified. Why Wikipedia, which is supposed to deal in fact, should wish to publish this ridiculous idea that Brons would shout a slogan like "Death to Jews" makes me doubt the aims of the contributor. It is akin to the most excessive accusations of the anti-nazi league and Socialist Workers party. Does nobody find it unusual that a single policeman of non-British origin was the only policeman to approach this group? (other policmen were a short distance away, waiting to see if Raj's intervention would spark an incident.) It was a total set-up. But dealing again with the facts, Raj was the only witness who came up with the ridiculous statement that this group, who regularly leafleted from a static postion every Saturday at the same time over years, would shout "Death to Jews". In Palestine, perhaps, but not Leeds. As for "clenched fist salutes", unless the NF had taken a sharp left turn, the "shopkeeper" seems to have confused this group with a smaller group of SWP paper sellers who have their turf nearby! I believe this so-called factual biography is not being objective and is littered with damaging and unfounded slurs. Let's get it it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibalia2006 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article to better reflect the source (note for future reference, that anyone, including you, can edit the page). 'Clenched fist' does seem implausible, I have hyperlinked to the appropriate Wikipedia page that states that this is a black power/Communist salute. Otherwise your statements are pure conjecture, and need to be referenced with a reliable source if they are to be included in this page. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious of anonymous and unsigned edits, but let that pass. The complainant above is clearly someone very closely involved in the events described, and as such, subject to the usual Wikipedia conerns of Conflict of Interest. What he/she would have us believe is that the Yorkshire Post and other papers in their reporting of two court cases, plus the magistrates and later appeal judges were hoodwinked by a police officer committing perjury. That's a very serious charge and there is absoltely no evidence on which to base it other than the say-so of a CoI-tainted anonymous contributor. None of what he has written is supported by any independent evidence and none has been offered. The whole tone of his or her remarks is highly unbalanced - dragging in the ANL and SWP is totally irrelevant. To ascribe to it the status of 'conjecture' is, I think, rather generous. What it amounts to is a simple assertion, the gist of which is that Brons is a nice man who wouldn't do that, and you can trust me because I say he wouldn't do that. Personally, I have more faith in our courts and, at times, our press. Incidentally, I recall on several occasions in the 1970s hearing NF members saying "Death to the Jews" and other equally distasteful slogans. Finally, the unsigned comments are based entirely on a sloppy misreading which we must presume is deliberate. The Wikipedia article does not say that Brons actually used the words "death to Jews". Neither does the Yorkshire Post. Brons was convicted of using insulting words and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and fined £50. This was for his comments to the policeman (which it seems our anon contributor is not denying), as Wikipedia and YP clearly state. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not anonymous, I am signed in as Cibalia2006. It is true what you say that the only evidence against Raj's accusations is the subsequent court case and conviction, and the newspaper report, except for the National Front supporters evidence of course but I am sure the editors of this section would not consider their testimony valid. I would be interested to know where User Emeraude heard the words "Death to jews". After 35 years of documenting the NF and likewise organisations, i have yet to hear it. But his/her hearsay and mine do not matter. It's the facts we are after.

User Emeraude is naive indeed if he/she believes that policemen never commit perjury, it happens on a daily basis. User Emeraude quotes " The Wikipedia article does not say that Brons actually used the words "death to Jews". Neither does the Yorkshire Post. Brons was convicted of using insulting words and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and fined £50."

No it doesn't, but the comments hints that he did simply by mentioning it. It's a thin line. If this article is to be just another character assasination then Wikipedia loses.

I am disturbed by user Emeraude's comment "The complainant above is clearly someone very closely involved in the events described, and as such, subject to the usual Wikipedia conerns of Conflict of Interest."

So I must ask; if I have an interest in seeing the truth my input is invalid? Why do you assume I was closely involved with the events? I was living in Madrid at the time. I have no conflict of interest. Truth will out goes the saying, that's what i strive for.

I note that the stabbing comments still remain, despite my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cibalia2006 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But you never sign your comments, so you are anonymous until someone does it for you!!

• Quote: It is true what you say that the only evidence against Raj's accusations is the subsequent court case and conviction, and the newspaper report." I said no such thing. I have nowehere said anyting about evidence against Raj.
• Quote: National Front supporters evidence Hardly going to be unbiased, is it?
• Quote: I would be interested to know where User Emeraude heard the words "Death to jews". Actually, I said I heard "Death to the Jews", but let's not allow inability to quote what is directly in front of you cloud our judgement. I heard it.
• Quote: But his/her hearsay and mine do not matter. How true. Yet everything Cibalia2006 aserts is his hearsay at best; it is not evidenced in any of the sources.
• Quote: It's the facts we are after. A snide insuation that I am lying.
• Quote: Emeraude is naive indeed if he/she believes that policemen never commit perjury No I'm not and I know they do. As do defendants....

But enough of the personal. Cibalia2006 continues to put out his own deliberate misreading of the YP article, asserting interpretations that are simply unsustainable. It is not a thin line - it is categorically what it says and if he wants to make innuendo from it that's fine, but that is not the basis for editing WIkipedia. As to conflict of interest: It is abundantly clear that Cibalia2006 is intimately connected to the events or personalities described and most likely was a participant; as such any contribution he makes is suspect. That does not mean it is wrong or that he is a liar; neither does it mean he is correct or honest; it simply means that there is a conflict of interest. However interesting, his input is not invalid but, crucially, it is not verifiable either and therefore, under Wikipedia rules, it is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Emeraude (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"I note that the stabbing comments still remain, despite my comments." The only reference in this thread I find to stabbing was by the first contributor who was..........anonymous. The Post says "two students were been stabbed in the clash [sic]", and gives no names or details. Our article says "two students were stabbed". This accurately reflects the source. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I met with Mr Brons in Zagreb on Monday, and it was interesting to get the story from the horse's mouth. I am now quite sure what happened, though until it is published, it's pointless to put it here.Cibalia2006 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends who publishes it. If Brons does, it's about as valuable as his testimony in court i.e. unbelievable. At the risk of being repetitive, see See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Emeraude (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion user Emeraude has in many articles and edits displayed (HIS?HER?) overwhelming communist bias and a determination to utilize left wing sources as citations to back up opinions. The fact that a court accepted an ethnic policeman's testimony about the phrase inferior being does certainly not give it greater weight than Brons' denial. What should be IMHO given great weight is that in forty years of teaching, with undoubtedly many leftist students attending his classes to try and catch him out, they could not come up with a single complaint. Of course it is more difficult to make up lies about what someone said when there are thirty people watching rather than in a one on one confrontation. That is why in American courts though obviously not in the communist infiltrated British ones, and accusation must have additional witnesses before it can be utilize to prosecute someone in court. the fact that in a 61 year old mans entire adult life, this is the entirety of the bias that is attributed, stands both as a testimonial to Mr. Brons and an indictment to Wikipedia I notice none of Mr. Brons rather extensive commentary has been included, but several guilt by association pieces, one where he was a co editor of a newspaper where another editor wrote something anti semetic and other even sketchier references seem to serve as Wikipedia's summary of this mans life. Since the controllers of Wikipedia seem unable or unwilling to remove the leftist political pollution that adorns their otherwise quite useful reference site, I am taking the liberty of copying this entire section,in my own article as an example of political bias in allegedly objective publication. Of course I will gladly attribute the sources of this garbage to any who would want to come out from under their usernames and own up to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.138.253 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that Emeraude controls the content of this page and is driven by bias or antipathy. Only items that may be damaging to Brons are included. I shall soon have in my possession the transcripts of the Brons-Raj court case, which I hope Emeraude will accept as a better source than the local evening paper?Cibalia2006 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange that a pait or raving Brons fans have been able to say categorically what my political bias is. But not nearly as strange as the fact that they are both wrong! Transcripts of the court case better source than nerwspaper? Of course. Punlish them. Brons was convicted on the basis of what is in the transcript!!! "communist infiltrated British" courts - come on! My "determination to utilize left wing sources as citations to back up opinions" - where? In this particular instance, I've referred to the local evening paper which is certainly not left wing. 40 years of teaching without complaint? Well, I can say the same, but then no one here has ever claimed that Brons is anything other than a professional in his work and, as a politics teacher myself, I know that a good professional would never let their own views intrude. The fact reamins, Brons was (and for all I know still is) an out-and-out Nazi. It doesn't require left wing or communist sources to show this - his admitted membership of Nazi organisations is more than enough. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Raving Brons fan eh? So nothing I say is valid? A poor ploy from a "raving Brons hater". Nevertheless, if the truth will never appear in the Wikipedia article due to what is clearly Emeraude's total control of the content of the article, then at least let it appear here,in discussions. Brons would never "cheek a policeman", only those who do not know him would even suggest that he would risk losing his position. The fact is that Brons never spoke to Raj at all, until Raj stated "Right, you're nicked". Nobody heard "Death to Jews" or anything similar, there was no evidence at all. The National Front had been flogging their newspapers in that square every Saturday morning since 1976, without major incident. Would the authorities allow this to happen if people were shouting "Death to Jews"? "National Front News" maybe, "Death to Jews" not. It's patently ridiculous. The sellers on that day went to their task as usual; four sellers. How strange that it was Mr. Brons of the four who was approached by Raj and ask to move apart from the other sellers. Brons complied. Not far enough says Raj. Brons shuffles another yard away. Not far enough says Raj. At this point Brons gave up and put the newspapers in a bag in preparation to escape the situation. He didn't get the chance though, as he was arrested by Raj. The rest is history (or fantasy) and Brons now has a record that is brought up at every opportunity. interesting to note that Raj left the force and is working for "the other side" as a criminal lawyer. Cibalia2006 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Category restored

The parent category Category:Neo-Nazis makes it clear that it is for "persons who are, or who have been Neo-Nazis". Brons admits he was a member of a neo-Nazi organisation, it is reliably sourced, therefore there is no BLP violation. If the SPA concerned wants to split the category then WP:CFD is down the hall on the left, but as the category stands now it's a valid category no matter how much people might want to cover up Brons' Nazi so-called "past". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA? Er, no. Cover-up? Get over yourself.

Removed, and if you want to include it, suggest you rename the category so it's clear HERE that it refers to people 'who have been', not just those 'who are'. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not clear in the article that he was a neonazi and is no longer? Meanwhile, It's up to you to change the category if you don't like it. Meanwhile, this edit-warring is getting disruptive and I will give a short time for consensus to be reached before imposing sanctions. Rodhullandemu 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hack correctly quoted the category page, and there is no doubt that Brons was a Neo-Nazi. I am really puzzled as to what the dispute is here. Stop removing a legitimate category. It's that simple. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's up to those that wish to include what is one of the most pejorative terms to apply to a person, to ensure that it is accurate. The label 'Neo-Nazi' at the bottom of the page is far more conspicuous than the note buried somewhere in the middle of the article. Flagging at WP:BLP/N. (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You obviously fail to understand the meaning of the policy Rodhullandemu quoted. The burden is upon you to show why the category is inappropriate. Failing that, you need to go to the proper venue to have the wording of the category changed. As it stands, the category is accurate and correct. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't play policy games, it's very tiresome. I'm not going to get embroiled in some life-shortening discussion about the world's neo-Nazis, past and present, and how they should be categorised. I have removed this category several times over the last year because it incorrectly states that Mr. Brons is a neo-Nazi. I already explained myself at the top of this talk page, I don't see why I am doing it again. If you want to include misleadingly titled categories on THIS page, then THIS is the place to have the discussion. If the same discussion is happening somewhere else, by all means point me to it, but right now we are talking Mr. Brons and the statement on THIS page that he is a neo-Nazi. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi is in the right. The category does not include, in its title, the "former" notation. As such, it is a BLP violation. I am removing the category, and fully protecting the page. Such a step would not even be up for consideration if the participants in this talk page had given more benefit of the doubt to good faith BLP objections. The obvious (to me) solution is to rename the category, (and no, that's NOT Sumbuddi's responsibility) or create a new category for former neo-Nazis. That's past my interest in this page, however. Please feel free to seek unprotection on my talk page once you've come to an agreement that everyone can agree both represents the facts correctly and meets BLP obligations. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Sumbuddi is wrong. Totally and absolutely. Brons was a neo-Nazi, hence he belongs in this category. For all I know, he still is a neo-Nazi (there being no source to say otherwise). I am always happy to, as you say give "benefit of the doubt to good faith BLP objections", but Sumbuddi's objections are blatantly NPOV and not good-faith at all. Sorry, Jclemens, but you're wrong. Emeraude (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point - this is not an exercise in taxonomy, it is a BLP. BLP concerns are serious, while whether somebody is included in a particular category or not is frankly trivial.

I am not really sure why are you casting aspersions on me (although it's nice that you think my objections are WP:NPOV) - as Jclemens has observed, if you put the label 'Neo-Nazi' on someone's page, it is an apparent statement that that person *is* a Neo-Nazi. As for whether Mr. Brons *is*, you're being disingenuous in suggesting that the question is open to debate - he explicitly states, as quoted in the article "People do silly things when they are 17. Peter Mandelson was once a member of the Young Communist League but we don't continue to call him a communist.". Is it really necessary for me to replace the word 'Communist' with 'neo-Nazi'? Sumbuddi (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I question whether he still is for a simple reason - Brons has never categorically denied that he has changed his views. If that quote is all you have to go on, then we must conclude that Brons is still a Nazi - where's the denial???? As for doing silly things when you're 17 (i.e. old enough to join the armed forces, just below age of majority and able to vote, marry, make contracts etc) this would carry some weight if he had subsequently left the Nazis and recanted his views, say at age - what do you think? 19, 21, 25? - but he didn't. Putting 'Neo-Nazi' on someone's page (I presume you mean in an article about someone) is most emphatically NOT a statement that the person is a Neo-Nazi. Suppose it says: "X was a Neo-Nazi"? Clearly past tense. As for categories, which is what this discussion is really about - they always carry historical detail and do not need to be updated, otherwise there would only be one entry in Category:British prime ministers for instance!. Same with footballers - they will appear in categories as players for past as well as present teams. Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't editors create a "former neo-Nazis" category? There'd be more than one entry.   Will Beback  talk  16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because Sumbuddi would still object that saying what someone used to be is not permissible.Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NatDemUK, 7 May 2010

{{editprotected}} In the election results section, Andrew Brons gained 1,962 (4.1) for Keighley in the 2010 General election

NatDemUK (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 01:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done as I have the source for the change. I have also changed the preceding section from prospective candidate to show that he stood and the result. Keith D (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)