Talk:British National Party/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Massive Cleanup/update of article

I am willing to work with other wiki editors/contributors to massively cleanup the errors on the main article and greatly update this article. The main areas that need to be updated:

• Current race/immigration policies (the article on this subject has not been updated in over 2 years).
• Current membership of non-indigenous members (the BNP have Sikh members).

Errors in current article (for cleanup):

• The BNP are ethno-nationalists not white nationalists.
• The BNP do not support fascism.
• There are many uncited claims in the article (i.e holocaust denial) which have not been substantiated in over 2 or even 3 years, quite clearly these need to be removed.
• General layout. It's not clear to read. Especially in the section on 'local gains in the 1990's', you read that title, but then the content is about claims about holocaust denial and racism. Poorly written - needs to be edited. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

- All policy sections now also need to be updated. Last references are to the 2005 manifesto. It is now 2011. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

While the BNP have attempted to modernize their image, there are no reliable sources that they have abandoned their core beliefs. Also we cannot use BNP lingo in the article but must use terminology from rs. TFD (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Woah, there is also no RS (or noted anyway, I am open to persuasion) which says they have not abandoned was is/was their core beliefs; it cuts both ways. Further, BNP literature is a RS for what they say is their current political stance - as ever any attribution should be that this is their claim, not that this is fact unless there is independent RS. Noting what the subject claims is encyclopedic, even when those claims may be subject to RS'ed rebuttal.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying that other active editors are "far-leftists/anti-fascists who are just here to disrupt and cause trouble" is hardly a good start AngloP. As TFD says if you have third part reliable sources we will all be happy to look at them but the statement of errors above reads like a BNP apologia. --Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Facebook material problem

Some users are posting sources concerning what was posted on facebook by a BNP member. Yet this is not a reliable source, and does not reflect the BNP, their policy, party or position in anyway. Comments posted on facebook on personal accounts cannot be linked to the views or policy of the British National Party. To argue so would be mad. We can scan facebook for sexist or offensive comments from labour and conservative members, does that then mean the labour or conservative party are a sexist party? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The posting did not use Facebook as a source, but a newspaper article that referred to a blog posting by a BNP candidate.[1] TFD (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is one rather nasty edit summary about the Evening Standard being handed out for free by "immigrants" on one of the reverts. That should stop. Otherwise its reported in a RS, its significant so it should be there --Snowded ^TALK 18:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

- The blog post was on the personal facebook account/page of a BNP member. It does not reflect the BNP, the party, their policy or position etc. Just before the royal wedding, several weeks back, it was revealed several prominent labour officials/members had left abusive comments on their personal facebook pages about the monarchy and wedding (as reported by Daily Mail). By your logic then, please go to the Labour party wiki page and post this & they that are anti-monarchy. One again, this is nothing more than biased anti-BNP from far leftists or self-proclaimed "anti-fascists". You leave every other party alone, but when it comes down to the BNP apply a completely different mindset and set of rules. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol! You actually believe what you read in the Daily Mail?! No wonder you support the BNP.Multiculturalist (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please now see here Admin incident board [[2]] Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The person concerned is the Party's Chief London Organiser and the edit makes it clear that the source reports his blog. Given the status the comment is notable and its properly sourced. If there are significant and notable equivalents on the Labour Party then take them to that page and they can be examined. --Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

this content is fairly dodgy coatracking and should be recorded neutrally. Disappointing to see experienced editors supporting such poor wording of content. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording can undoubtably be improved, for the moment however we need to resolve if the material is notable and sourced.--Snowded ^TALK 21:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposition

High-ranking politicians from each of the mainstream parties have, at various times, called for their own supporters to vote for anyone but the BNP, In 2008, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated: "Londoners and the rest of the British people know that backing the BNP is totally at odds with what it really means to be British—and the great British values the rest of us share, such as democracy and decency, freedom and fairness, tolerance and equality." Conservative Party leader David Cameron, Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg, and former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell have all condemned the BNP.

The British Government announced in 2009 that the BNP's two MEPs would be denied some of the access and information afforded to other MEPs. The BNP would be subject to the "same general principles governing official impartiality" and they would receive "standard written briefings as appropriate from time to time", but diplomats would not be "proactive" in dealing with the BNP MEPs and that any requests for policy briefings from them would be treated differently and on a discretionary basis.

In October 2010, a Democratic Unionist Party councillor in Northern Ireland, Bobby McKee, condemned a BNP leafleting campaign in his home town of Larne opposing a refugee dentention centre being built there.

Amongst the most visible and vocal opponents of the BNP and other far right-wing groups are Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight. Unite Against Fascism, which aims to unite a broad spectrum of opposition to the far-right, includes the Anti-Nazi League, the National Assembly Against Racism and the Student Assembly Against Racism. Searchlight has monitored the activities of far-right groups in Britain and abroad, including the BNP and its members, for many years. The Anti-Nazi League-organised group, Love Music Hate Racism, organises regular music events in opposition to the far-right.

Claims of repression of free speech

Some opponents of the BNP call for no coverage to be given to groups or individuals enunciating what they describe as "hate speech". The "No Platform" stance is to deny perceived fascist hate speech any sort of publicity. The policy is most commonly associated with university student unions and debating societies, but has also resulted in BNP candidates being banned from speaking at various hustings meetings around the country. Direct action has been taken against the BNP stalls in shopping centres. The BNP claims that such cases exemplify how political correctness is being used to silence it and suppress its right to freedom of speech.

Universities

In 2005, the Leeds Student newspaper was criticised after publishing an interview with Nick Griffin. Also in 2005, an invitation to Nick Griffin by the University of St Andrews Union Debating Society to participate in a debate on multiculturalism was withdrawn after protests. In May 2007, a presentation by Nick Griffin was to be held at the University of Bath, but the University withdrew permission due to concerns over the large number of people opposing the meeting and possible disruption it could cause.

Journalists and the Media

The BNP says that NUJ guidelines on reporting 'far right' organisations forbid unionised journalists from reporting uncritically on the party.

The BNP is condemned by many sections of the media, including right-wing newspapers such as the Daily Mail.

In April 2007, an election broadcast was pulled by BBC Radio Wales' lawyers, who believed that the broadcast was defamatory of the Chief Constable of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom. The broadcast was made available to download from the BNP's website. The 2010 general election broadcast was shown by all but channel 4 who refused and censored the video.

In March 2011 Simon Darby released a letter of correspondence online between Nick Griffin and Alastair Machray, the editor of the Liverpool Echo, in which Machray admitted that "It is this papers policy to discourage the activities of the BNP". The letter was written in relation to an advertisement request made on behalf of the party.

---

Note who posted this - "Amongst the most visible and vocal opponents of the BNP and other far right-wing groups are Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight". This is not sourced and is incorrect. United Against Fascism and Searchlight are not opposed to militant islam or islamic terrorism. In fact they openly support far right Islamic extremists. Furthermore both the UAF and Searchlight oppose democracy and freedom of speech. In the recent local elections the UAF blocked the enterences to BNP candidates so they couldn't go to the election results. Great democracy and anti-fascism there. The UAF are basically themselves fascist and oppose british democracy and freedom of speech. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Police

In September 2005, 60,000 copies of Voice of Freedom, which had been printed in Slovakia, were seized by British police at Dover. The police later admitted this was a mistake and released the impounded literature shortly thereafter.

Veterans and Second World War

In June 2009, the Royal British Legion wrote to Griffin privately to ask him to stop wearing their poppy symbol.

Solution to User:Anglo Pyramidologist complains about bias ideological description

On his previous posts User:Anglo Pyramidologist has brought errors and possible to the table:

Errors in current article (for cleanup):

• The BNP are ethno-nationalists not white nationalists.
• The BNP do not support fascism.

Considering most other European parties of the Far right are not described in this way on the English wikipedia he has a point. There is a easy solution to this problem that I have derived from the Sweden Democrats page, where the authors have split ideology in two to help the reader understand in more detail. Proposition for the BNP is to do the same considering anti Fascists consider the BNP to be Fascist and the BNP claim not to be:

British National Party/Archive 22
200px
Leader	Nick Griffin MEP
Deputy Leader	Vacant
Founded	1982
Headquarters	PO Box 14 Welshpool SY21 0WE
Newspaper	Voice of Freedom
Youth wing	Resistance
Membership	14,032
Ideology	British nationalism Right-wing populism Euroscepticism Anti-Globalism Protectionism (Claimed by Opponents, Denied by the BNP): Fascism Nazism White nationalism
Political position	Far-right
European affiliation	Alliance of European National Movements
European Parliament group	Non-Inscrits
Colours	Red, White, Blue
European Parliament	2 / 72
Local government	13 / 21,871
Website
http://bnp.org.uk/
Politics of the United Kingdom Political parties Elections

Where is the evidence any of the sources cited are opponents of the British National Party? You say "considering anti Fascists consider the BNP to be Fascist", well none of the sources cited are "anti Fascists" to begin with. 81.151.158.156 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn’t write that it can be proved that any of the sources were written by anti Fascists, I made a generic comment that anti Fascists consider the BNP Fascist. At the same time logic must suffice to allows us to accurately presume that those who claim the BNP are Fascist are opponents at worst or disagree at best, due in part to the negate connotation that the fascist label has, hence the use of the word in the first place is bias. Considering Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information it stands to reason that for the best interpretation of neutrality to suffice the reader must be able to have the facts placed in front of them, regardless of the Source. The facts are that their are people who say the BNP are Fascist and those that say they are not. Wikipedia must there fore represent that Fact.

amendment:

|ideology = |ideology = British nationalism
Right-wing populism
Euroscepticism
Anti-Globalism
Protectionism

(Claimed by Some, Including Opponents, Denied by the BNP): Fascism
Nazism
White nationalism}}

That is a very accurate proposal to updating the ideology tags on the box. I would also add that the BNP's Swedish equivilant are the National Democrats (Sweden). Note how their pages labels them as ethno-nationalism not white nationalists and secondly notes that the fascist label is just a label their opposition label them - they consider it a smear. Its exactly the same with the BNP. The fascist/nazi label is only what their opponents call them, it doesn't reflect their ideology. the white nationalism tag should be replaced with ethno-nationalist and the fascist label certianly should be removed. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources Anglo P, you know the answer --Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea to upload ideology tags, it might be difficult with the BNP though, for some reason the page shoves down any writing that is considered to wide for the box, for example the international affiliations and European affiliation group is doubled lined unlike say the French National fronts page, I don’t know why this is happening and could be a hindrance. On another note the sources used to describe the BNP as Fascist cannot even be accessed on the internet without parting with money, they cannot be said to support the claim and are as good as dead links that should be removed. Further more as i was explaining before just because a couple of academics (and there are literally only two 'academics' listed in the source section) say the BNP are Fascist (of which both links cannot be accessed properly)it doesn’t mean they actually are. At the very least the article should make it clear to the reader that the BNP denies these accusations, thus the page should read:

|ideology = |ideology = British nationalism
Right-wing populism
Euroscepticism
Anti-Globalism
Protectionism

(Denied by the BNP): Fascism
Nazism
White nationalism}}

Currently the page reads that is actual fact which is clearly untrue and is thus in breach of wikipedia code of conduct, cite: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Note: Admins etc were consulted about the constant vandalism by the "anti-fascists/anti-BNPer's/far left wingers" (Snowded, multiculturalist etc) but still i see they are reverting updates and corrections to the main article. Where do we go from here? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We go to policy. You have added unsourced ideologies, this is against policy. You have added a claim that the authors of peer-reviews journals saying the BNP are fascists are "opponents [of the BNP]" without sources saying so based on your opinion, this is against policy. See also WP:PAYWALL. 86.135.153.38 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"the authors of peer-reviews journals" - As was also pointed out by another user here, they are not readable. 2 or 3 of the links lead to websites where you have to pay to read them, furthermore there are no page references. All these sources are not appropiate, quite clearly they were added by a biased anti-BNPer who is deceitfull linking to stuff that cannot even be accessed and verified. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement in Wikipedia that sources be free to view: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries". RolandR (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the actual sources have been checked a number of times by Wikipedians with access (from memory, I've done it at least one). Our Reliable sources policy considers Peer reviewed journals to be the 'best' type of source, so unless someone can point to anything that disqualifies any of the sources that are currently used, there is nothing to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Sources must be verifiable, but that does not mean that every Wikipedia reader has to be able to verify them and most certainly it does not mean that they have to be available online. There is nothing to stop anyone going into their local library and consulting the books referenced or, if they are not in stock, requesting them. Any public UK library will do this; some university libraries will allow public access to consult journals. But, regardless, all of these sources have been verified in the past by Wikipedia editors (several times) which I'm sure is well known to the objectors. One must conclude that their continuing this pointless debate - which has been settled several times previously (see archives) - is deliberately timewasting and vexatious. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's just an attempt to wear down editors and then say "well nobody objected!" --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to FAQ, feel free to tart up the wording if you want. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations to books need page numbers, citations to journals do not. The fact that you can't read a journal, newspaper, or book for free on the web is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This page has now been protected for a week while it is sorted out. Users against neutrality on this page have cited several reasons ranging from 'reliable sources' of academics of the same kidney and 'consensus' and finally when made to make a concession on the FAQ section above (which no ordinary user ever reads) they refuse to extend this to the info box where it can be clearly seen by members of the public and not users. I have been personally threaded by User:Snowded and have also had threatening and sarcastic language used against my edits on the edit page. The 'consensus' that is the finally reason given for not allowing a clear denial of the Fascist slur on the main page has been achieved through bullying and banning active members such as Anglo Pyramidologist and this 'consensus' is clearly in breach of wikipedia neutrality. If users are going to resort to banning, bullying and are going to render Wikipedia:Neutral point of view not applicable to this page and this page only and are going to use it as a political tool then i would rather not be involved with it at all. This is a shame because i have added information on several occasions to this article over the past year as has Anglo Pyramidologist who single handily updated the 2011 elections by himself only to be banned for having the nerve to point out that the article is politically bias. U6j65 —Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

BNP is a far-Left party, according to many observers. Why should this not be mentioned?

It seems any references to the BNP being a party of the far-left are quickly removed anytime it is mentioned on the article. For the sake of being neutral, shouldn't this be mentioned? They have described themselves as "socialist leaning" and "the old Labour party in essence" in the past, and have been labelled far-Left, due to their political views of nationalization, protectionism and so on. The article seems to be using the term "far-right" as the media does; as a buzz-term with no real meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.235.50 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We rely on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No sources describe them as a 'far-left party', however the BNP has some left-wing policies. However you are quite right any mention of the BNP's left wing economic etc policies and they get removed quickly. According to a BBC poll, something around 40% of BNP members are ex-labour supporters. They joined the BNP because they see it as the true workers party since labour betrayed the white british working class for immigrants. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is silly. There is not a party in the world that is 100% consistent on its left-right position. De Gaulle (right wing) nationalised Renault and some banks (left wing). So what? One must look at the totality. Among left wing positions that the BNP does not hold (and quite important ones if it is to be described as left wing) are: nationalisation of banks, workers' control of industry and the means of exchange, international worker solidarity, abolition of monarchy and inheritance, scrapping of nuclear weapons, anti-racism (and your poll subjects seems to have joined the BNP for the exact opposite!), etc. etc. While all the sources say the BNP is fascist party (i.e right wing) then it is right wing. As in the past, you are challenged to provide reliable verifiable sources, but please go throughthe archives of this page first to avoid wasting your and everybody else's times in rehashing old themes that have already been dealt with. Emeraude (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

as has been repeatedly pointed out we can only say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

please make the page more neutral like jobbik

This is my final ever post here and my last attempt to get a change to the biased ideology box. If you please go to jobbik you will see the articles states only their opposition/media call them fascist but that they themselves deny these labels/claims as smears. Can we please do this for the BNP? Why do all other nationalist parties get treated and presented neutral, but with the BNP its a completely different matter? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems a fair question why is this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Because socialists aren't interested in presenting a fair argument. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparisons between other articles and this are meaningless. Each article stands on its own two feet regarding what reliable sources have said about them. In the case of Jobbik the media and opponents are being cited, neither are authoratitive source for ideology and require attribution. In the case of this article peer-reviewed academic journals are beind cited, they are authoratitive source. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the (FAQ) section at the top of this page it states that "These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article", at currnet this is not the case and the article must be ammended slightly to comply with wikipedia code of conduct, I draw attention to the solutions thread above, (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Refers to article body only not infobox. There have been several discussions about this and there has never been a consensus to give undue weight to a fringe viewpoint by including it in the infobox. It is up to you to gain consensus for inclusion. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Your rationale is wrong re infobox
2. (revised)

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Revised... Why don't you log in? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will create an account when account creation becomes compulsory. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe he thinks you are a sockpuppet of Anglo Pyramidologist. I'm not sure if there is any truth to this; however, almost all of your edits started after Anglo Pyramidologist was blocked and they all appear to be on British National Party. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP on British Telecom. [3] is where you can see me disagreeing with Anglo Pyramidologist with a previous IP address. I assume that is sufficient for you to accept I am not him/her? 86.183.62.57 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for logging in. Please feel free to blank that whole section of my talk page, if you so desire (and this comment, if you deem it suitable). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ive requested a page protection so that ISP Vandals cannot attack the page without it coming to this discussion page first, im sick of people trying to use this page as a political tool without contributing any new information to it and thinking they have right away over everybody else. Read the FAQ section at the top of this page and cite Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 'balanced' section. No wonder this page failed miserably to get a 'good article' approval.User talk:U6j65 —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

This page has now been protected for a week while it is sorted out. Users against neutrality on this page have cited several reasons ranging from 'reliable sources' of academics of the same kidney and 'consensus' and finally when made to make a concession on the FAQ section above (which no ordinary user ever reads) they refuse to extend this to the info box where it can be clearly seen by members of the public and not users. I have been personally threaded by User:Snowded and have also had threatening and sarcastic language used against my edits on the edit page. The 'consensus' that is the finally reason given for not allowing a clear denial of the Fascist slur on the main page has been achieved through bullying and banning active members such as Anglo Pyramidologist and this 'consensus' is clearly in breach of wikipedia neutrality. If users are going to resort to banning, bullying and are going to render Wikipedia:Neutral point of view not applicable to this page and this page only and are going to use it as a political tool then i would rather not be involved with it at all. This is a shame because i have added information on several occasions to this article over the past year as has Anglo Pyramidologist who single handily updated the 2011 elections by himself only to be banned for having the nerve to point out that the article is politically bias. U6j65

Comments

1. Someone needs to create a new section for actual article discussion, and then keep the upcoming raging debate ordered.
2. U6j65, for a rather new editor, you (above and in your actions) both seem to know a lot, and a very little about policy. Be careful who you accuse of what - as you did above. The talk page of the article is not the place to make such accusations. When the page is unprotected, I advise you be careful with the edit warring. Edit warring and then requesting page protection once caught does not make it look like you are editing in good faith.
3. I've already covered the infobox
4. In the upcoming week, the direction I think is most beneficial is: breaking down the article into it's component sections and discussing what each side thinks is wrong or correct. I'm willing to help out with this - I have no stake in this race at all (this, like 90% of my Watchlist, is on said list because it kept showing up on RecentChanges, AN/I or both... guess which category this fit into). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again can users please refrain from threatening me without viewing all the evidence, I made one reversion of the original work that was congruent with an earlier reversion that User:RobertMfromLI also made, the info box claim of consensus was only achieved through the banning of Anglo Pyramidologist there was no overall consensus, and the article continues to refer to the BNP as fascist as if it were fact while the truth is that 3 academics have been sourced as stating they are, a compromise was put forward to show the BNP denies this, which was sourced and is factual but has still not yet been implemented.

I put a protection request in after ISP accounts were used to change the page, as they have been constantly over the previous months to delete whole sections of the article and use abuse language ect, I did this with the best intentions of trying to solve these problems on this talk page. In relation to a 'breaking down' of the article I have also contributed more than most with a fully set out combination of 'opposition' stated above, so please take this as clear evidence that I always 'edit in good faith' which is more that can be said of some, I stand by my previous comments that there is persistant bullying and marginalising of users who wish to reform this page.User:U6j65 —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

• Please refrain from the implications of personal attacks ("which is more that can be said of some"). It definitely will not help in such a highly contentious article. Fixing the article is a far better goal That aside, I asked for no explanation of your actions - they are evident in the page history and protect request. And finally, the article is still in a contentious state, so, personally, I could care less who thinks who's contribution is good, bad, biased, NPOV or otherwise until (a) we come to a consensus and/or (b) those with biases leave. In that respect, I'm content to sit back and watch you all politely work it out, sans the normal incivility that seems to happen here, and will gladly assist by reporting #RR, civility and bias/POV issues. Again, I could care less what the article says... but I expect everyone can actually collaborate and make it into something unbiased.

Here's a tip: numerous of you seem to have different points of view. Instead of cannibalizing each other's efforts, why not try to help each other give the other's points of view due weight? It doesn't matter what you (or I, or any other editor) believe personally about this matter. What matters is that citable beliefs (from reliable sources) are given due weight - which includes diverging viewpoints (as opposed to simply reverting each others opposing viewpoints). Wait a minute... you all already know that... nevermind. When you all are ready to stop the "they did..." "he did...", let's get to making the article balanced without trying to destroy each others' contributions. At least, those are my suggestions. And I'd be happy to act as mediator in this - though don't be surprised if I don't take sides. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem

Hullo - the problem is the info box. The issue is that reliable sources describe the BNP as fascist, and those who oppose that view have been unable to find reliable, published third party sources to put a contrary view. It has been said many, many, many, many times, that the production of a reliable third party published resource that says the BNP is not fascist will lead to that item being removed from the info box, and relegated to a description of the contesting views in the article body. That the BNP deny they are fascist has usually been held to be insufficient to change the infobox, but thought worthy of mention in the body text. The next stage in the argument is then to argue the toss, and claim that the references aren't neutral, or are outdated. This has been debated out many, many, many, many times. I realise new users come here and have the same argument, and there's no excuse for us not to explain patiently the why's and wherefores of policy, although sometimes it feels like WP:DEADHORSE.

Achieving consensus in these conditions is difficult. We cannot ignore the reliable third party sources, but we do have to take some account of the opposition. The simplest option is just to kill the infobox outright, and leave it all to the article text. Next would be to drop ideology from the infobox, and leave that to the article text. But, if ideology stays in the infobox, unless a reference is found, then fascism has to stay.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Most political parties have an info box and an ideology - I can't see any reason to move it --Snowded ^TALK 09:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just becasue other pagers have one does not mean this page should. Source for the goose.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be an unusual solution, but it is for a particular problem. I don't think it would be a good solution, but the status quo isn't exactly a happy one. Slatersteven - I don't think that was a helpful comment, let's try and work in a civil way. There is a distinction between the justification of differing treatments and contents between different articles, and the application of standard features. The article should ahve an info box, it should contain an ideology statement, I was making a suggestion to see if there is8any* way out of the impass to consensus.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Not sure what a common waterbird has to do with the issue. And of course there is no absolute requirement, but in general articles on political parties follow a similar format so there would have to be a reason to change it. The very simple fact is that reliable sources say the BNP is fascist and some editors don't like that. Compromises are OK where there are competing sources but this is not the case here --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

RS say they are fascist, but is it their ideology? How do we determine what a political parties actually policies are? Sure its an accusation, but its not one that they accept. The info box should reflect the FAQ, which says its an accusation only. The info box implies it’s a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources say they are and the FAQ makes it clear the overwhelming body of academic literature says so (your "accusation only" is not an accurate representation of the note). In the years in which this has come up no editor has yet produced a source (other than BNP claims) to contradict this. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But the point is they deny it, so it is an unproven accusation. It does not matter who makes it. If its an incontestable fact then it does not need to be in the info box but in the text as we have. Then we allow the reader to decide its truth. What we have is the reader being told its true, then being presented with the debate. I agree the text of the article needs to refelct the accademic consensus and the fact that only they deny they are facist, but that is not (as far as I can see) refelcted in the info box with implies its a wholey uncontested fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources say they are and the FAQ makes it clear the overwhelming body of academic literature says so (your "accusation only" is not an accurate representation of the note). In the years in which this has come up no editor has yet produced a source (other than BNP claims) to contradict this. --Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources themselves are all written by people in whose interests it is to find evidence to prove them as fascists. Yes there has been elements of fascism in the party. The sources show that, but what I find increasingly hard to believe is why these elements should be used as a sweeping judgement on the party as a whole. I so far in this debate haven't expressed which party my alliegence lies at, but I'll tell you now that the BNP detracts votes from any party I want to see in power. However, It still enfuriates me to see people pushing agenda. The question is not so much "There's a lack of sources" but "why are these sources credible in order to class the BNP, on the biggest encaeclopdia in the world, as fascists". When the telegraph, daily mail, the times, the express, call the bnp fascists. Then I will open my arms up and allow it. But when it's simply self proclaimed "liberals" "socialists" and "marxists" writing artciles on it, and using their university background as credit to their article. They together can only be treated as one entity. you need articles from all sorts of spectrums of the media. That, it seems, so far has not been proven. And third sources claiming the BNP aren't facist? Who on earth is going to write an article claiming they aren't facists. Just like no one is going to write an article saying the conservatives aren't communists. It's just not congruent. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They all do call them facist [[4]]. I seem to recall that the lack of evidacen is not evidacen of lack argument has been used elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexandre8 academics cover a similar range of political opinion to society overall. Its not just current sources its also the roots of the party by the way. It is common for political disputes to have articles on both sides of a debate. The unanimity of the sources and the various political parties on this point should tell you something. Oh, and your political views (or mine) are not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As we can see again the so called 'consensus' that is used time and time again as the argument of last resort for certain members of the wikipedia community to Police this page against the wishes of many that have tried to add to it constructibley over the years is not a consensus at all but a persistent and obsessive attempt for this page to remain un neutral underdeveloped and as a result it has been unable to achieve the status of 'good article' that such a contentious page should be able to achieve if ALL USERS were able to compromise and work together for the good and credibility of Wikipedia. Unfortunately there are about 3 users in my opinion (I will refrain from naming them) who simply refuse to do this and have continued to create havoc on this page over a period of time through refusing to compromise, this is simply Wrong. A compromise was put forward for the info box in which the Fascist and white nationalist tags would remain but it would be stated that the BNP denies these accusations baked up by sources First and third party which I provided out of my own time, Note I have never stated that the Fascist tag should be removed and have proved myself willing to compromise, we have to get over the info box first before we can move onto cleaning up the rest of the article. U6j65 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"The problem is that the sources themselves are all written by people in whose interests it is to find evidence to prove them as fascists." - the sources are written by reliable peer reviewed academics who are experts in their area. "Then we allow the reader to decide its truth. What we have is the reader being told its true, then being presented with the debate." Wikipedia doesn't do truth, wikipedia does verifiable - WP:V. Our opinions don't matter, only what reputable third part sources say.

We may be daeling with BLP here. We have an accusation mnade that a prty (and therfore by inerance) its leadership is facist, a claim they have specificaly denied. If this were a page on a person this would not be allowed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"When the telegraph, daily mail, the times, the express, call the bnp fascists. Then I will open my arms up and allow it." Newspapers are not reliable sources, they are not peer reviewed and written by experts in their field. Academic citations are a better quality of source. But, even a third party source, like the Mail saying the BNP are not fascist would be sufficient. but they *have* to say it, we can't interperate them as saying it. "Just like no one is going to write an article saying the conservatives aren't communists." Indeed, but an article positively saying that the BNP are communists, or liberals would be enough to mean the info box would have to be changed. "I seem to recall that the lack of evidacen is not evidacen of lack argument has been used elsewhere." Not on Wikipedia, lack of sources means absence of comment. QWe're not interested in turth, just verifiability.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actualy it has been used (as part of a succefull argument) on wikiepdia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP - does seem to apply, so the BLP consideration is that we must use reliable sources with inline quotations, which we appear to be doing already.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Given teh size of the BNP (a very small group) and the fact that the articel goes to great lengths to talk about its leadership (and indead to use its leadership as an example of its factist connections) I would say that its a boarderline case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The info box lists 14,000 members, so hardly that small. The policy is referring to groups so small that you're really talking about specific individuals. I don't think a political party with 2 MEPs qualifies for such consideration.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP is a red herring here - we have RS that provide WP:V for the statements made in the Info-box, that's the start, middle and end of it. No amount of "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" is going to overcome that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Again we have the problem of some willing to compromise and others not, again i refer to the acknowledgment of the article stating that the BNP denies the accusations backed up by newspapers or third party as has been provided, I personally have no outright desire for the fascist tag to be removed as i accept that a significant amount of people, whomever they may be, describe the BNP as such. If we look at the Political tendency section I much concur with Alexandre8, notoriously anti BNP papers such as the Guardian and the Daily Mirror are used as sources to support the claims, anybody with a vague understanding of British politics and Society know that these to papers hate the BNP and are run by people who are ideologically opposed to the BNP. That’s fine but if you take the telegraph for example they have never (to my knowlage) called the BNP fascist outright and have merely stated that 'some people describe them as fascist' as has the BBC in the Andrew Marr- Griffin interview I sourced earlier, there is thus always a problem with the sources provided, no sources are cast iron in fact. The page should account for the BNP denial of the accusations in the Info box as well as the article. U6j65 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the infobox shouldn't even contain citations, that's already a concession to controversy. Discussion of disputes belong in the article text, but a statement in the infobox belongs or it does not. Either the BNP is a fascist organisation or it is not.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats rubbish and you know it, people keep on changing the goal posts and changing there excuses for not allowing neutrality to prevail on this page, firstly it was argued that consensus had prevailed over reform, which has proved to be untrue, then the sources were cited as being viable, which those who want reform have accepted, now the excuse is that the info box and the article are separate and follow separate rules, it plain to see that some are willing to compromise and others are not. If the BNP denied the accusations and it can be verified through source it should then be included where ever appropriate to achieve balance and neutrality, the article is not balanced at the moment and has been turned into a joke. If we cant compromise on something as crucial as the info box then this article will never move forward.U6j65 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No its always been argued that its about reliable sources. The consensus is with that as it should be. Its legitimate to put the BNP's claims in the main body of the article. You need to understand that WP:NPOV is NOT about equally representing all sides of an argument. Constant attempts to modify the material to conform with the BNP's view of themselves, if not supported by reliable third party sources is disruptive and will hold back development of the article --Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The only ones who are holding back development of the article are those who refuse to allow others to contribute to in and engae in deleating their work time after time, the sources i provided for BNP denial of accusaions were soucred from third party sources, the BBC and the metro as far as i remember, your refusal to include them lead time and time again to disuptes on this page and is not constructive. U6j65 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That the BNP seek to deny it is not disputed and I am sure there are sources which report that denial. That is not the point --Snowded ^TALK 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh so after all the defence now is 'thats not the point', well yes it is the point, it's the point of the whole problem of this page not being balanced enough, the truth as i see it (and correct me if im wrong) is that you don’t want a balanced argument put forward for reasons we can only presume are political but are willing to accept a small sentence within the main article which nobody will read in order to try and claim the article is balanced. Those who originally wanted the Fascist tag removed have tried to compromise but every time you come up with some new excuse not to at least compromise over the issue, I find it imposable to argue any longer. Anyone can see that the info box presents a one sided argument, despite of the sources used supporting it, it is surly fair and balanced to have a sourced denial to show the reader that the evidence is NOT CONCLUSIVE OR CONSENSUS.U6j65 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll stand by my statements but not your paraphrasing. We follow wikipedia policy here, if you don't like it then you can try and change it, but not on one article --Snowded ^TALK 17:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You don’t follow wikipolicey on presenting a balanced argument that’s the whole point why people have issues with this page, let me ask you snowded when was the last time you actually contributed something positive to this page? Instead of blocking those that want to see it move forward.U6j65 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack it was a specific point followed by a specific question which you have failed to answer for your own reasons, presumably as you don’t want other users to know the truth. The article is not balanced, many people have raised this issue on many occasions a compromise was put forward and you have resolutely refused to compromise, have changed your argument on several occasions and have now resorted to reverting and deleting, please act Constructively, U6j65 (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any moving goalposts, or new excuses, it's the same one, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again: to make a change we need reliable third party references. The example has been used many times, a criminal might well continually deny their guilt, but if it is established in a reliable third party source (a court) we have no reason not to label them "Well known murderer" - our only obligation would be to mention in the text that they continue to deny it. That's where we are. I've put forward options for change, but they won't support consensus - are there any other options? Are there no books that write sympathetically of the BNP? None?--Red Deathy (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above there has been more than one excuse used to block reform on this page, consensus being one of them, this is completely untrue as can be seen above there are many that want this page reformed and two main users that are repeatedly refusing to allow this based upon their belief that the page is balanced enough and should remain as it is. Both of these users have labelled themselves as supporting ideologies that are opposed to the page subject, I have provided reliable third party sources not to remove the said label but to add to the page to create more balance, certain users have repeatedly refused to accept this, that’s where we are. There is no consensus over wiki policy on balance which could be used to change the page but some have refused to do this. There is no more that can be said on the matter and im sure it will continue to crop up until users decide to be fair and start allowing true balance on the article. This is a controversial topic and should provide true balance to keep everyone happy, that’s where we disagree.U6j65 (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No one dis[putes that teh BNP denies it is fascist, the question is are there reliable third party sources that agree with the BNP that it is not fascist, I've provided a suggested one below, but someone will need to check..--Red Deathy (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is the point several of us have been making for some time. With sources the question is open, but it is still not determined as we have to look at what those sources say, when they were published and generally look at issues of balance (which means balance between the sources by the way U6j65. Getting any source is progress however --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Snowded has rebuked your suggestion and i don’t have the time to buy or find a book just for Snowded to turn around and say its not acceptable or there’s no consensus, as i have said before I don’t deny there are third party sources that say the BNP is Fascist, i don’t disagree that the label should be up there, but to stop arguments in the future and make other wiki users happy I have been arguing that their should be a distinction on the info page between the ideologies that the BNP prophesises to support and those they do not rather than lumping them all together to make it out as if they all carry equal weight of significance. Again i have provided sources but it has been refused (although there is no consensus) i don’t want a continued argument but i still believe that this is a viable compromise.U6j65 (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not rebuking or for that matter rebutting Red's comment. I'm simply referencing what is needed to be done to comply with the editing rules around here. The BNP's claims are in the article and can be sourced from BNP material; the infobox is based on third party reliable sources. --Snowded ^TALK 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So you say.U6j65 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are unsourced ideologies and other stated 'facts' in the ideology box that are unsourced, strange how you dont have issue with those being included insnt it snowded.U6j65 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You may not have been paying attention to earlier comments. Its very unusual to have any references in the information box as the subject will be covered off in the body of the article. The only reason that Fascism has the links is because of the controversy. It may be time to remove the references and make them a hatnote on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Balance

I will answer the points on balance. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to balance every point of view equally. They are supposed to give proper weight to them. There is a BIG difference. For instance (yes this is an extreme example), on the article on thunder, we do not give the same weight to those who still believe it is caused by the sound of Thor's goats' hooves as they pull his chariot across the sky. My example is not intended to state either side is deserving more weight than the other. It is only to point out that there is no such thing as a balance requirement for every point of view. As a matter of fact, instituting such would violate NPOV. NPOV requires giving proper weight (not equal weight) to every "side" of a matter as citable by reliable sources. Hope the conversation can now diverge from the balance thingy into deciding what proper weight is. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New citations

I've read this one: Towards a 'civic' narrative: British national identity and the transformation of the British National Party. Halikiopoulou, Daphne. Political quarterly, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 583-592, Oct 2010. "In order to understand the relative rise of the extreme right in Britain, scholars have focused on a number of factors, including sociological, economic and political ones. In particular, Eatwell focuses on the party’s modernisation, including changes in its rhetoric, the abandonment of fascist ideals" This refers to:R. Eatwell, ‘The extreme right in Britain: the long road to ‘‘modernization’’ ’, in R. Eatwell and C. Mudde, eds, Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge, London, Routledge, 2004, pp. 62–79.

I don't think, in context the Halikiopoulou is enough to justify a change (it's an interesting article), but someone will need to see if they can take a look at the Eatwell.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did read Eatwell some time ago and from memory the theme is more closely attuned to the Copsley citation (which is also more recent) "Changing course or changing clothes?". However I don't have the book and memories are not reliable so if someone has it lets have a look and see what it says. The change in rhetoric is not disputed by any commentator as far as I can see. --Snowded ^TALK 10:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Resources on Infoboxes

Help:Infobox tells us: "An infobox is a fixed-format table designed to be added to the top right-hand corner of articles to consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." I can't find anything there or at WP:IBX to suggest that there are any policies as to what goes into an infobox, saving the MOS saying the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears." I think the key is "summarise", it should be a dependent entity. however, the lack of a general policy means we're on our own here. Basically that means that all the ideological statements should be attested to and referrenced within the article.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So just who are the scholars?

I've done some research into the background of the sources being provided that claim BNP are fundamentaly Fascist, and this is what I've found.

Sources 2-5 in the info box are used to back up the claim BNp are ideologically fascist.

1)Source 1 David Renton is a historian and political activist. He is employed as an education officer by the Trades Union Congress in London, and is a member of the editorial boards of Labour Net UK, the London Socialist Historians' group and Revolutionary History. For the past two years, he has been working on a book-length history of Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League.

Enterprise interests Sources (SAME PERSON) 3 +4 Professor Copsey is interested in consultancy work on the far right. He has recently written a commissioned report on the English Defence League.. – Teeside University

5 Wood, C; Finlay - Surrey University British multicultural society is possible, and in doing so construct liberals and multiculturalists as also posing a threat to the country. The ways in which this represents a variety of conspiracy theory, and the implications of these constructions for social action, are discussed.

What do we see in common. Let's take each source as it comes. David Renton, is a socialist and an anti fascist historian. what weight does a man who belongs to the direct oposition hold in such an argument? This man is as useful as hitler writing aboutt he Jews. Hey, the Germans believed him.

source 2+3. a lecturer , at which univerity? Say it again? sorry, WHERE? Yes Teeside university. Damn good academic he must be. He is sources TWO AND THREE. He also writes about the EDL. looks like this bloke's got a grudge.

Finally. Wood. From surrey university. He wrote a book after the london bombings to justify multiculturalism. It doesn't get any more desperate than that. When will be get a normal historian without a left wwing bias? How about some right wing broadsheets? How about some center right columnists? These people views CANNOT in no daftness of the humanbrain equal WEIGHT. for a whole wikipedia article to based upon them. I request their replacing as large weight holding sources. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8554973/The-Smurfs-are-anti-Semitic-and-racist.html This guy just wrote a BOOK calling the smurfs fascists. Should we believe THAT? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The relibility of sources is dependent on the nature of the publication not on the political views of the writer. Facts are stubborn things. They do not defend on one's political views, but remain constant. TFD (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Copsey is a lecturer, and clearly an expert in the subject, unless you can find a reliable third party source indicating bias on his part, he is a reliable source. hitler on the Jews is contradicted by many reliable third party sources. --Red Deathy (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, the fact that he's a lecturer at a university that has a reputation worse than Stalin and Freedom in the same sentence, the fact that his stark left wing political views make NO difference on his research material, he should stay? I like the logic here people. Facts are ALWAYS open to interpretation. Science would never progress if "facts" never changed. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reputation worse than Stalin? "Teesside University was named as the Times Higher Education University of the Year at the sector’s biggest awards in London last night"Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 October 2009. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s how can I find a third source on him? He's so unknown already, no one will write an article here. This is the absurdity of the sources. These historians are little known and all have a huge political agenda! Why are they here! Find better sources! Alexandre8 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is determined by the reputation of the publisher, not the writer. Good publishers, e.g., academic publishers, use peer-review, which ensures the factual accuracy of articles and books. Writers however may and do present a range of opinions. Facts in science btw do not change. What changes is their interpretation. TFD (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done some pretty exhaustive literature searches, and there indeed isn't a lot of literature out there, we have pretty much cited everything available. Now, it's moot whether they publish/research the BNP because they are leftists, or whether they are leftists because they have published/researched on the BNP. The fact remains that they have been published in peer reviewed journals, and are published by third parties. For us to start critiquing them would be Original Research (WP:OR). We need to remember that Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about a survey of the available literature. Took me a while to get my head round that one. Finally, I'd point out that all Yorkshiremen are liars.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the thing Red Deathy, there isn't a lot of literature out there. And I would have thought that the question "are they lefties because they published it, or because they are lefties they published it" is quite easily solvable. I wouldn't imagine you'd dedicate years of your life researching a topic that isn't interesting for you. For clarification in your research what did you find? How hard did you have to look to find any sources on it. It seems to me that the person who brought the fascist label to the page in the first page happened to know of these sources, or looked extremely hard in order to get them to light. I stand by my opinion that they to not merit the ideology box. Hitler and Mussolini and Franco are fascists. They all killed people, it's a horrendus term to have to give someone, and I like the policy innocent until proven guilty. What exactly have the BNP done except exert a little bit of biggoted intolerance? Alexandre8 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to remember that the size of the literature is to a scale with the size/influence of the organisation. fascist does not mean mass murderer, it is a political ideology subject to definition. In my research I found a few similar articles (two of which I listed further up the talk page), and a couple of books published by BNP members which looked useful. I only interrogated a couple of databases, I could try harder, but it wouldn't merit the time. --Red Deathy (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There actually is lots of information out there. Use the key terms "fascism", "neo-fascsism", "far right", etc., in Google books or scholar and find numerous sources. The writers cross the political spectrum, and their conclusions are mirrored in textbooks and mainstream newspapers. And the BNP's pedigree traces right back to the British Union of Fascists. TFD (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my searches were restricted to the term 'British National Party', using a bibliographic database--Red Deathy (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"British National Party" returns 11,900 hits on Google books,[5] and 3,560 on Google scholar.[6] This probably understates the amount of literature, since much recent writing may be excluded. Google news archive returns 11,900 hits.[7] TFD (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)