Jump to content

Talk:British National Party/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Peer Review

A peer review has been undertaken of this article, I think the points raised are valid and need careful discussion and implementation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Employment Difficulties

Perhaps we could have a section on BNP members being sacked as a result of their political activities. Some have been sacked simply for membership- in one case for being a councillor- while others such as a teacher face being struck off for specific activities, such as posting on stormfront during work hours.--Streona (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good way to scare potential members away from the party, especially in tough economic times. We've already identified several jobs BNP members are barred from, isn't that enough?--MartinUK (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Theunhappymitten (talk)theunhappymitten why would you want to scare of members wikipedia is not a tool used to change peoples politics it is used to educate people on a none bias bases ...

I had not really seen it like that- I was trying to be conciliatory, but why not? Or should we keep it shtum and get them sacked once they join? Is that kind? Why not just be NPOV ? --Streona (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the news item was the teacher was simply viewing the BNP website during work hours. Sounds like his political (human) rights being violated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7627055.stm

So I see steonas point this section could detail incidences of BNP members human rights being infringed.

Yes. There are several aspects here.

  1. Right to join a trade union, or the right of the union to expel BNP members.
  2. BNP members sacked for their party membership.
  3. BNP members being sacked for specific actions.
  4. Services from which the bnp are specifically banned.

I will look into this and sand box it. Whether or not we support "BNP human rights" or not, we can keep it factual and NPOV--Streona (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not a case of supporting them this is irrelevant. Your points except maybe 3. which is ambiguous, are all human rights violations. It would be a POV to ommit "human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are human rights issues. The courts have not necessarily agreed that there have been violations. I will try to look out some facts and leave the reader judge.--Streona (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Sterona calls himself an "anti fascist" yet he's more than prepeared to use Fascist tatics on wikipedia. tutut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.39.82 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

This section transcribed directly from the peer review for discussion.

British National Party

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.

Lead
  • Per WP:LEAD the lead is too long - it should be no more than four paragraphs but is currently six
  • Be consistent about numbers - spell out numbers 10 or less so giving them the eighth largest share of the vote (however they only contested English seats, and came 5th [fifth] in these
  • I think that controversial claims about a living person need a cite, even in the lead, so Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic; ...
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
References
  • There are quite a few dead links, see here Not sure if these can be found on the Internet Archive or not.
  • Avoid direct external links in the article, use inline citations instead (so fix for example the long quotation starting In a speech to local party activists in Burnley in March 2006, he said: "We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it's the thing they can understand. ..." which has only an EL and no refs as such.
  • Article needs more references, for one example of many, see the Racial policies section As the party now states on its website: "The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ..." is a long direct quote without a cite. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Refs should be in numerical order, so fix The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right[13][14][15][12] ...
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair[25],[26][27] ...
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Refs for books and journals are formatted inconsistently too - they should all follow WP:CITE
  • There are several citation needed tags which need to be fixed.
General and MOS points
  • There are three dab links - see here
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower (Nick Griffin picture). Any chance for more images?
  • Why is the British National Party (1960) not mentioned or linked in this article?
NPOV

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, a few good points are raised here. I'll work on a new lead (probably in the sandbox first) when I get some time, if nobody else does it first. The 'The British National Party believes in telling the truth, even if it is sometimes uncomfortable to hear ...' section is included on every article on their website, as a sort of general mantra and philosophy, so that's easy to source. John Tyndall isn't living now, but a POV claim like that still needs a cite.--MartinUK (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ref. rewriting intro. See previous discussions and attempts which can be found via Talk:British National Party/Archive 9#Postive proposals Emeraude (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote "The broken refs are mostly to BNP sites, .... AND this indicates that the policies cited have changed since the broken links." Not at all. The fact is that the BNP's webmaster left or was expelled and the whole site was later remade. It cannot and should not be taken to say that the things referred to have changed at all. It just does not follow. User:Emeraude (User talk:Emeraude) 14:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In that live links are needed to be provided, to allow for verification having the links there which are dead is tottaly pointless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Even though you know perfectly well that the links were live when posted...... You will have checked them out at the time, surely, or you would have been most vehement in demanding their removal then. The task, and it's a difficult one, is to find alternate sources for the information that has been removed from the BNP's website. I have tracked down a few in the past and another editor whose name escapes me has done this for several references using a web archive service. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of this process could take this on. Emeraude (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Armed forces membership

According to this section, members of fascist and communist organisations are banned from membership of the British armed forces. The source given was THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY (here) but a detailed search in this document for 'fascist', 'communist' and similar words draws a complete blank. The regs do state that service personnel may not engage in overt political activity for any party (indeed, a serving soldier etc may not be an MP). Perhaps someone can find the exact reference and cite it properly. Meanwhile, I have removed the section. Emeraude (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall when I was in the Navy being told this, but this would be OR--Streona (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comfirmation of Far-Right, as opposed to just Authoritarian.

Looking at this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright is it really right to say the BNP are far-right/extreme right? I don't know if this has already been debated. TJ, 1926 GMT 29/09/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.166.248 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting website, but there are a large number of good-quality references asserting the party is far-right, listed in the first sentence of the introduction. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Political compass is NOT a reliable tool. This has been discussed here before (sorry, but I can't be bothered to search through pages of archives for a reference) and it was felt that political compass is flawed and thus useless. I write as a graduate and postgraduate student of political science - the concept is simplistic and unhelpful. Emeraude (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
here --h2g2bob (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article keeps getting longer and longer

NPA please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Despite some editors attempt to have balanced discussion on cleaning up the article. It appears to be growing by the minute.

If the biased POV pushers such as streona emaurade think that they are keeping the pressure on the BNP and somehow winning a battle against them, they are mistaken. They are actually helping them along this article is the joke of wiki. It has so many citations especialy for the info box contents. When compared with other parties whose political stance is unsourced or taken directly from the parties themselves. Why is the BNP the only party not allowed to say what it is with out 20 BBC citations to back it up. Its as if people in their effort to hammer the BNP are just unaware of how the article looks.

If you don't get what I'm saying and stubbornly refuse to write a balanced article you are giving the BNP more publicity then you believe. Do you honestly think anyone but brainwashed saps would not see that lack of neutrality and obvious agenda by people who hate and fear this party.

Might I suggest this article as another referance point for neutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord

notice it dosen't have 20 thousand citations calling it fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added two extra sections in an attempt to make the article more empathetic to the BNP (Councillors Achievements and BNP Difficulties with Employment). Your point seems to be that the article is pro-BNP now, which should please the anon contributors to this talk page, whose only contributions are personal abuse. Most people in Britain (and most of the anon IP numbers do not appear to be from Britain) have the impression that the BNP are a vicious, racist party and would be surprised to find an article that does not reflect this. Who was it said- "You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig"? People reading the article will find a great deal of factual information and may make of it what they will. The discussion of attempts to "clean up" seem to be based on the idea of deletion rather than progress, but even so they, like the last unsigned contribution are lacking in specific details, apart from complaining that it is TOO well sourced. My understanding of the Lega Nord is that it IS fascist, but I'll put down my Searchlight and check the article.--Streona (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but the idea of opening fire on immigrants disturbs me somewhat.--Streona (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for all the citations, per WP:V is that in the past the article and elements of it have been highly contentious, with POV disputants challenging certain facts If you wish to make changes, go ahead, or even, go to the sandboxed version and produce a re-write...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia 58.168.3.132! And what is the weather like in Sydney? You would be the same 58.168.3.132 who thinks that I should leave my country because I approve of mixed-race marriages (see Talk:Nick Griffin‎). You would not have a POV agenda of explicit hardline racism and some atavistic nostalgia for the days of transportation by any chance then? Do you really expect the rest of us to as well? So the article does not suit your POV? Well, tough.--Streona (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your second personal attack in 48 hours Streona. No article should 'suit' anyone's POV, it should be neutral. The huge amount of references (mostly from anti-BNP sources) is off-putting to anyone reading this article, noticing the negative tone which has been identified by a peer review and comparing the article to those of other UK parties or other nationalist parties.

If you have read the number of personal attacks against me, you will realise this is nothing. I am attacking hardline racism. If you take that as personal, then perhaps you might need to consider your own views. As 58.168.3.132 has not been signed on as a user for 48 hours,how could I have attacked her or him in that period? If you would sign your posts I would be able to tell if you are the same person who expects me to leave my country becfause I am not a racist. Now that, is a personal attack, which is incredibly offensive. I am not saying the article is or should be POV - I am saying that the article is not supportive of racism, which seems to annoy a lot of people who are. No doubt a properly referenced article which backs up facts with more than mere assertions is off-putting to some people unused to a level of debate transcending that of a fist-fight.Welcome to wikipedia- keep it clean.--Streona (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow did you actually read what I wrote. I object to being called a hardline racist, I have no problem with mixed relationships but apparently you have an issue with homogenous relationships. Its in my belief its a person choice of freedom to pick a partner. However I don't agree with being forced(bombarded with propaganda) to mix or being labeled a racist if I object to it. In Australia we had an issue with the stolen generation and the belief the aborigines could be completely assimilated(to the aborigines benefit) in a matter of generations. This concept of forced assimilation is abhorrent. I feel a similar event is being forced on whites globally as their have been numerous multicultural displays advocating this. One example I can remember maybe a decade ago was a display in melbourne showing a line up of three faces that had been generated by morphing asian, black, caucasian faces etc to get picture. With the messages "This is the future face of Australia" and " A brown future" etc. The faces themselves could be best described as stock photos of maybe brazilian models with overall brown eyes brown hair brown skin and all identical. This struck me as something the germans would of done during the 1930-40s displaying the ideal "ayran" or somesuch. Only this display was displaying the ideal "multicultural citizen" and there was no diversity.

If you have an issue with this maybe you should leave my ancestral homeland of Britian and move to a non-democratic country like Cuba where you can advocate Heterosis to your hearts content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Lucy-marie took out "Fascism" and "Islamophobia" from the "Political Ideology" section of the infobox. There's no references for islamophobia, and that's not really an ideology anyway; but there are references for fascism. Could someone check those references and add it back if needed? --h2g2bob (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the Project_Fascism guidelines to determine if a party should be labeled fascist when it has not come to power. It has to meet 6 of the 7 criteria. It already fails 7.declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement. Does it pass the other points?

The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism#Scope are to decide which articles fall into the WikiProject's scope, rather than article content, but it's certainly good as a rule of thumb. I'd be happy to leave it out the infobox. There's lots of mentions of opposition by anti-fascist campaigns throughout the article, so some mention of the party at least being accused of fascism is required somewhere (possibly the lead, otherwise the history?). --h2g2bob (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia ! You can sign your edits with four tildes ~ although I prefer to click on the signing icon on the task bar above. --Streona (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:

  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. advocating propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
  6. advocating totalitarian systems.
  7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement.
  1. The BNP does exalt the nation, race and culture. It is not too keen on state apparatus it does not yet control, but would be if it could.
  2. The chairman has final say on policy and can expel any member of less than two years standing, without recourse to disciplinary procedures.
  3. The BNP stridently advocates free speech for itself, but would I suggest silence its opponents, such as Muslims and has in the recent past physically attacked its political opponents
  4. Social regulation is implicit in the advocacy of capital and corporal punishment and repression (in both senses) of homosexuality. Economic regulation would be very tight if a protectionist agenda is pursued.
  5. The "Solidarity" Union website advocates "One Big Union" which is central to syndicalism.
  6. I suggest that the necessity to forcibly racially categorise all the population by ethnic origin implies a degree of intrusion that is totalitarian.
  7. The BNP vehemnetly denies being fascist.

Can we discuss this, before unilaterally hitting the delete button again ?--Streona (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that the BNP would dominate state apparatus if it controlled it, or that it oppresses the free speech right of Muslims or its other opponents? Categorising people racially is not 'totalitarian' (forcing people to treat each other as identical regardless of their perceptions of racial distinctions might be)--MartinUK (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a mistake to concentrate on those guidelines, as we could debate those forever :) The guidelines are really for the scope of the Wikiproject - we really need to find someone saying that either the bnp is or isn't fascist who should know. This could be the case with the references already given, but I'm not familiar enough with them. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The references were debated ad nauseam when first posted. They are all acceptable under Wiki guidelines. If you're not familiar with them the answer is to assume good faith (Wiki policy) or, better still, read them. (They are available in libraries though probably easier to find in academic libraries than the local one; the journal articles are available online, though you may need a subscription through an academic institution to get them in full.) Note for people new to this topic: Lucy-Marie has consistently opposed any mention of the term fascist in connection with the BNP. She and other demanded citations to back up the description. When they were given, she and others then argued (and lost) against the use of these references! This is an old and dead debate.Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Standards Board for England found that it was permissible to call the BNP "Nazi" and actions for libel in this manner have failed.--Streona (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So what we ae not the Sandards Board for English.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we're not. But Streona's comment was about the Standards Board for England which you have clearly never heard of. Find out about it, and the relevance of the Streona's remark will be obvious. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my statement above; please admit your mistake. Please refrain from making unfounded accusations. Emeraude (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not the BBC either, but we still use them as a source.The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party. Case no. SBE10144.05 --Streona (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The source no matter how relevant anyone thinks it is cannot be used because it requires original research and interpretation. It says it "could" not "must" or "should" so that is ambiguous.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Streona said "could", not the source. Also, Streona has not suggested that it should be used as a reference in this article. But, since the reference (SBE10144.05) given by Streona is a misprint, how could you possibly comment on what it says? Have you tracked down the correct reference and read it? Emeraude (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly streona said it this is a pov statement. The board has not ruled that they can be called a nazi party. this is definately falls into WP:OR (ie putting A and B together to get a conclusion )If its not going to be used. Why are you bringing it up? The information is on the previous archive Emeraude.here

Please prove the source yourself, surley an online version must be avaliable of at least one of them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but wouldn't findings by this board be unpublished material. Also on streona discussion page he appears to be compiling information on the BNP and adding it to the article this would be original research, synthesis WP:SYN of sources is against wikipedia policy. Does anyone concur? (humbleAnon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Voluntaryslave asks for reasons why the sources would be inappropriate. Well citation 7, 8 and 9 are all prior 2005 the party is regarded as having changed direction at that time (due to the change in leadership earlier Im assuming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you say more about why you think 2005 is a key date (preferably with some sources that talk about a change of direction at that time). I would have thought the most significant date (and the last BNP change of leadership AFAIK) would be Griffin replacing Tyndall in 1999. However, given that we have a source (10) which explicitly argues for a continuity before and after Griffin became leader, I think it's reasonable to keep the pre-1999 sources in, unless there are other sources which explicitly say that the BNP stopped being a fascist party after 1999.

Certainly read source 10. You pretty much answered your own question. Source 10 atleast covers the party changes in ideology during this time the other sources don't because they are out of date. The party has enjoyed success since then so obviously something changed. This is the most up to date source on their ideology out of the 4 citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume by source 10, you mean Copsey, N."Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006", Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82. This article does not say that the BNP has changed ideology at all. Copsey makes the point that the BNP has altered some policies and attempted to soften its image. He answers the question in the title: they have changed clothes and not ideology. So, his opinion is that the earlier sources are also still valid. Incidentally, to claim that 'the party has enjoyed success since then' is rather exaggerating things. A handful of local councillors, no councils controlled or even close, no MPs, no MEPs. And fewer councillors than before I believe. But, even if they had made electoral progress it would not necessarily follow that this was down to some supposed change in ideology. Didn't the Nazis achieve massive electoral success just a short period after being a minor fringe group? Is anyone suggesting it was because they gave up fascism?! Emeraude (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I say it anything was wrong with 10 (It does say there is a change in ideology Copsey calls it "recalibration" its right there in the abstract. You seem to think i'm arguing for a POV.) I said 7, 8 and 9 are out of date. It has been asked are there any issues with the sources. As this is for the political Ideology section of the infobox, these three sources are out of date with the parties current ideology which should be sourced from the party anyway like it is with other parties. Why not a allegations of fascism section in the article? Why does the BNP party need to be told what it is and can't be believed from its own policy page. This is blatant POV, Look at the UK labour article ONE citation and its from themselves. Where are the 20 communism citations.(It pretty obvious they are communists too, Livingstone with chavez.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't say there was anything wrong with 10 and neither did I say that you did. I was asking if you were using it as evidence that the BNP had not only changed but had changed so far that the earlier sources were out of date. (And clarifying that we were talking about the same ref. 10 - there have been changes over the last few days.) To take up your points, firstly, you should be reading the article itself, not the abstract (the article is the source), but to stick with the abstract for a moment, it nowhere suggests that Copsey has changed his view that the BNP is a fascist party. For the benefit of those who can't access journals, here is what it actually says:
"Copsey questions whether the BNP has really transformed itself into a party of the national-populist right. At the outset, he offers some conceptual clarifications regarding fascism, national-populism and neo-fascism before discussing the nature of Griffin's 'modernization' project and the circumstances behind his decision to revamp the party's ideology. He then moves on to a critical examination of the party's new ideological position as revealed in its 2005 general election manifesto Rebuilding British Democracy. He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." (My emphasis)
Now, whichever way you read it, he's saying the BNP is still fascist! If anyone wants the abstract, it's here.Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You are simply HEARING WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. Your Anti-fascist POV pushing is shining through brighter then the sun. I DID NOT SAY THAT THE FASCIST TAG SHOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE OF 10 I SAID 7, 8 ,9 ARE OUT OF DATE. YOU ARE JUST REPEATING WHAT I SAY AND SEEM TO THINK IM ARGUING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TAG I'M NOT.. I'll repeat It was asked is there anything wrong with the sourcs given YES THEY ARE OUT OF DATE. There has been a change FACT wether this is a change from fascism to fascism whatever. There was still change in the partys direction, methods etc. This change is not covered in the old citations. They are in the past.
My "Anti-fascist POV pushing"? I refrain from complaining that I am not an anti-fascist POV pusher since quite clearly you are incapable of any reasonable discussion with anyone who says the BNP is fascist. No, read what I wrote and re-read what you wrote. 7,8 and 9 are not out of date - they are backed up by 10. If the BNP has changed, as you put it, "from

fascism to fascism" then it is fascist! Change "in the partys direction, methods etc." does not stop it being fascist. If there has been a signifcant change in its direction, methods etc. the place to mention this is in a suitable part of the article itself, NOT in the part of the infobox dealing with ideology, which, as you say, may have changed from fascist to fascist. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Emaurade you still don't get it (im starting to think there is something wrong) You are debating something that I'm not questioning. You are clearly incapable of being objective. A question was asked by voluntaryslave is there anything wrong with the citations yes i'll repeat it again 7 8 9 are out of date with the BNPs current political ideology which is relevent to the politcal ideology section in the infobox, 10 isn't. Please don't continue with this arguement its embarrasing just admit you have gone off on a tangent and give it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
No, you are not getting it. Voluntaryslave, as you say, asked what if anything was wrong with refs 7-10. It was replied that they were out of date. It was further said that the most recent, 10, said that things had changed. It doesn't say that; indeed it says the exact opposite as regards ideology though it does say there have been changes in presentation of policy and attempts to project a softer image. Therefore, in terms of ideology, according to 10, the earlier refs, including the same author's other cited reference, are still valid. It is not disputed that the BNP has attempted to change its image - in fact, that is the thrust of Copsey's argument in 10 - but image is not ideology. Emeraude (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Heres hoping you understood that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Standards Board case can be found here, under the heading "case 2"

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Standards%20Committee/20050720/Agenda/Item05.pdf

It is not on the SBE website but Buckinghamshire County Council are presumably trustworthy. As for my talk page- I use it to sandbox lengthy contributions before posting an edit. I realise that many of the most vocal editors on this talk page make little substantive contributions to wikipedia, but I do. My recent efforts regarding the BNP have been in order to find something positive to say about them, such as the case of Simone Clarke, being the latest. Is there a problem?--Streona (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid going over old ground again and again and again (see Archives ad nauseam): 1 The references in the infobox to the BNP being fascist are fully acceptable to Wikipedia. 2 If anyone wants to claim that the BNP somehow changed in 2004 or 2005 or whenever and is no longer fascist, they are guilty of POV or OR unless 3 they provide acceptable third party sources to the standard of the existing sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies. These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed - and the result has been zero. I read a number of academic political studies journals and have seen nothing of the sort. I don't read them all, so it's just possible I've missed something, but I doubt it. So there's the challenge: supply a reliable, independent, academic, third party, accessible source that says the BNP is not fascist. Until you do, there is no justification for removing 'fascism' from the infobox. Emeraude (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic. You yourself just showed your own biass with "BNP apologists". I can point to sevreal that I posted links to, but they were ignored.

Just put and leave it at, "Fascism (denied by bnp). Or is there a horrific chance that people might think the BNP are not fascist as a result? Your life and Sterona's would be over if that happended eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.131 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You do your argument no good by impugning my contributions and ascribing to me motives that I do not have. Your serious point though is an old one that has been more than adequately dealt with in the past. The infobox is a place for giving the briefest of details about the subject of an article. If there is some dispute, the place for that is in the article itself (which is the case). If there was dispute among reliable third party sources, then perhaps an infobox mention might be appropriate, but that it is disputed by the BNP does not fit into that category. Are you suggesting that, for example, in the infobox for a killer we should put "Murderer (denied by Fred Smith)" because he pleaded not guily? (Apologies to any Fred Smiths.) Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This may be getting a bit academic for some, but hey that's what its all about. Welcome to Wikipedia 79.71.218.131, First time caller? Of course we could just put down "dregs & scum". I'd be happy with that, but let's stick with it, shall we ?--Streona (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes anon its true if the BNP get any positive exposure streona will burst into flames. I can't wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Silly comment. Please stick to the issue, which is whether or not the BNP is fascist. If you have a reliable souirce to say it is not, then post it. Otherwise, your personal comments are merely a sidetrack.Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Emeraude there is an entire section above where you have argued over something which I did not dispute. Freudian sliping all over the place. Your hard to take seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

All this knockabout stuff is great up to a point, but its all a bit one-sided. People like Emeraude make serious points and substantive contributions to the actual article, moderated by some serious editors like LucyMarie and then there are anonymous people who become offensive and take the mick and these are all the pro-BNP POV editors. Why is this? I think some people can actually do better than this and raise the standard of debate here a bit. If you want to mix it with the banter and repartee, then I think you should also contribute in a serious way as well. --Streona (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

oh, yeah- and the spelling--Streona (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


REMOVE third position from ideologies

This is rediculous, it has already been proven by various non biass sources that third positionism isn't one of thier beliefs. We've been through this before. Take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.49 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by SineBot-->

There are no sources to back it up.Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.153 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading the intro on the third position article i dont see why theres much objection to the term, it is clearly the position held by the BNP. They are certainly not communists, they also hate capitalism... this is clear BNP policy (they want state owned energy companies and want to destroy supermarkets). Anyway some sources should be added next to the third position or it should be removed soon, no problem with it staying if correct sources are found. Its not as problematic as the fascist label. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead-linked references - a project

One problem with using websites as references is that they change or disappear over time. This is not a problem with printed resources - books, newspapers and journals are always available in libraries and archives. The problem is compounded in this article because the BNP completely revamped its website earlier this year following internal squabbles which resulted in the webmaster of the BNP's site leaving (or being expelled - depending on who says). Unfortunately, a large number of references in this article have now fallen foul of time, the vast majority of them from the BNP. Although all were live and perfectly correctly used at the time they were added, it may be that they now need to be updated. There are several ways this can be done I would suggest:

1 Find alternative sources for the points referenced (preferably paper resources).
2 Search web archive services to re-link the sources. This has been done by editors for some links already.
3 Delete whatever the referenced point is. (This is extremely drastic and a last resort only, especially as this could mean deleting things sympathetic to the BNP and leading to accusations of NPOV.)

I have gone through all the references and listed below those that appear to be dead. I will start to search for alternatives and invite other editors to do the same. Please strikethrough those you manage to sort out. I would suggest that in a few weeks' time we review the list and assess progress.

THE LIST

NOTE: Edits may cause these to be renumbered, so the reference numbers here refer to the version of the article dated 10:49, 2 October 2008, numbered version 242468527

  • 54
  • 73
  • 77
  • 82
  • 86
  • 87
  • 90
  • 93
  • 94
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 101
  • 102
  • 111
  • 138
  • 143
  • 149
  • 151
  • 163
  • 177
  • 181
  • 198
  • 204
  • 210
  • 211
  • 215
  • 216
  • 220
Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an issue with this reference: "Constitution of the British National Party. Retrieved on 2008-02-13" which is referred to 3 times. The URL is http://web.archive.org/web/20070629010001/http://www.bnp.org.uk/resources/constitution_8ed.pdf (8th edition) whereas the current one on the BNP site appears to be the 9th edition (http://www.bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf). Also the retrieved date is somewhat misleading since it's pointing to an archive.org URL which shows the file as of 2007. Perhaps both editions should be referenced, clearly labelling each one. Hubert80 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Opposition section

Paragraph 2 in the section "Opposition" reads as follows:

"Following pressure from Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, 198 the major parties stand candidates in seats that they are unlikely to win. This is designed to enhance the choice available to voters in the expectation that this will reduce the BNP vote. 199 '"

Some observations. Firstly, the reference 198 is a dead link to the CRE website (the CRE as such no longer existing), to a press release entitled "CRE Chair calls on Conservatives to see off the BNP", apparently at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, 2003. I have searched the CRE database of press statements and failed to find this. However this suggests that this press release does/did exist, but the link from there is to another item altogether (a PR for a speech to the CBI in Birmingham).

Secondly, regardless that the original PR is apparently unavailable, the assertion made here in Wikipedia is silly. The major parties have always stood candidates in seats they are unlikely to win - it's what elections are for!

Thirdly, the second sentence is almost as silly, but in any case is not backed up the reference given (an article by Trevor Phillips in the Observer).

My suggestion is to simply delete this paragraph. It really adds nothing to the assertion that the mainstream media and parties oppose the BNP. However, it might be an idea to move the final paragraph of the introduction to this section, which seems a more logical place for it. Comments?Emeraude (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian/Observer reference is worded quite weakly, and doesn't really support much - in the key paragraph says "early assessment" and only mentions the Conservative party (not all major parties). The other reference is very dead. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Redfearn v. Serco

In the Employment Tribunal Redfearn was represented by Lee Barnes LLB Hons (or "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" as Adrian Davies refers to him ) the BNP legal officer. Barnes contended that Redfearn was being racially discriminated against for his membership of the BNP as it was a whites-only racist organisation. Presumably if one were to assert otherwise one would be accusing Barnes of perjury (although not actually on oath) which would be potentially libellous. I found the case on Cloisters website, but you have to click on a further link to go to the case http://www.cloisters.com/info_case_profile.php?caseID=177&returl=search.php%3F%26amp%3Bkeywords%3Dserco - --Streona (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS that's "Streona LLB (Hons)"--Streona (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)LLB (Hons)

The above cannot be implemented as it is POV, due to use of the words Racist and the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister." It is also OR as Streona is stating that they are a law graduate, this may also consitute a COI.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing the point here. Is Streona asking for anything to be implemented? Or merely making a comment. Comments in talk are entittled to be POV and COI. Note that the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" is not Streona's, but a direct quote. The use of 'racist' is in no way POV - used correctly and accurately it is entirely neutral, but, in any case, Streona is simply reporting, not giving an opinion. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not just my opinion, but it was central to the argument advanced by Barnes according to the judgement. Redfearn claimed that he was a member of a whites only racist organisation and was sacked, but that had he been a member of a blacks-only allegedly racist organisation he would not have been and that therefore he was racially discrminated against. Thus the conclusion that the BNP are a whites-only racist organisation is the opinion of the BNPs own legal officer (or "Director of the BNP Legal Department" whatever that is)and he argued that in court. Thus if anyone says on this talk page that they are NOT a whites-only racist party they are accusing Lee Barnes and Arthur Redfearn of lying to the Employment Tribunal, which would be defamatory and potentially libellous which would never do. I have stated that I am a law graduate in order to take the mick out of Lee Barnes who is apt to style himself as LLB(Hons) and takes on cases which he often loses leaving the likes of the unfortunate Sharon Ebanks to pick up the tab. Its nothing to do with OR or COI; I am not a practising lawyer. I could append it to the article, as a direct quote from the judgement (who are presumably not POV), but I thought I would put in talk first in order to resolve the colourful - and often personally abusive- debate we have so enjoyed here. I would not suggest putting in the "Bonkers Bagel" reference here but it is on the Adrian Davies article and variously appears on Stormfront etc. --Streona (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)LLB(Hons)

How influential is an employment tribunal? For example, would this set a legal precedent? It could be useful to have secondary sources to give more context. As the tribunal hasn't come up with an answer yet, it's probably premature to add it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This post by streona doesn't make sense the BNP dosen't refer to itself as a racist party or hold itself out to be ( and when does any group want to refer to itself as racist to a court in this day and age ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It seems that the BNP's legal expert has argued before a tribunal that the party is a whites only party and that his client has suffered racial discrimination because he is a member of a whites only organisation. Seems like a potential case of shooting oneself in the foot. Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the racist part. Which is obviously a abit of POV thats been bolted on somewhere inbetween the original statement and streonas comment. Which I think lucy-marie was referring to. One thing needs to be made clear did he use that exact phrase? I can't see how it can be a libellous anyway they're have been plenty of cases when ethnic-only groups comprised of different ethnicities have claimed racial discrimination or have come to the aid of one of their own claiming racial discrimination. For instance recently your black police association has had individuals who wouldn't be classified as black claiming members have been discriminated. Hmm but interestingly you have just argued for a reason to remove the white-only part of the opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have lost the thread of the above argument in that 58.168.3.132 appears to be arguing with the previous post, which is also by 58.168.3.132.

Lee Barnes has certainly held out that the BNP are whites-only (Rustem et al. notwithstanding)although only the decision is available rather than the text of Barnes' submission, as this is the nub of the case for racial discrimination. The finding of "facts"contains the following "...Unison, amongst others, complained to R'schief executive that C's continued presence within the workforce was a significant cause for concern, bearing in mind the BNP's overt racist/fascist agenda". I doubt that Barnes said that but I think it implies that the chair of the Tribunal characterises the BNP in this way as part of its finding of fact, not just the opinion of Unison. I shall look for such a reference in the higher courts as well such as ASLEF v UK.--Streona (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

PC Stuart Janaway

The details of Janaway's resignation from Manchester Police do not belong here. I deleted them with the comment: "If he wasn't a member, it's not relevant)" but another editor has reinstated commenting: "yes it is!". Now, Janaway's story may belong somewhere, but not in a section titled BNP Difficulties with Employment which leads with the sentence "BNP members have suffered various difficulties in employment". As the text says, it was accepted that he was not a member. His inclusion can similarly not be justified under the subhead Organisations which ban BNP membership - he was not a member. In light of this, I have again deleted any reference to him. Emeraude (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel

This construction ("although the BNP rejects a foreign policy that would support Israel") seems pretty clumsy. I doubt a party that is overtly rascist/nationalistic would be pro any other country. So to go out of your way to tenuously suggest antisemitism, (without a citation I might add) seems a stretch. Not that simply not supporting Israel would be antisemitic of course. Plus "supports Israel" is biased, "would not be pro-Israeli" seems more fitting. Not to mention the relevance of such a specific issue in the intro; Israel and (all)Jewish people are not synonymous. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascist

Hello. I've noticed that the word fascist hasn't been used to describe the BNP in the article. Shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.108.101 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's alluded to in places. but stated and referenced specifically in the infobox. Emeraude (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys should look up the definition of facism, the BNP has no facist policies or tendancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.131.4 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes it has. Policies and tendencies. And history. And ambitions. That's why it's described as a fascist party. Emeraude (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

you can't use a party's past and previous ambitions as a moral weapon on them in the future. I noticed emmrulde you called everyone who dares say the BNP aren't the same as they used to be, "BNP apologists". Tut Tut! (xtheowlx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.172.158 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this ad nauseam.If there is any more to add then, fine. I did find the website of the "American Fascist Movement", who would probably classify the BNP as Nazis (they don't like them). However this classification has also proved unpopular with a certain sub section of wikipedia users - unregistered as ever.--Streona (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are they really fascist? If you read their manifesto, they have very left-wing policies mixed with far-right racial policies. More of a National Socialist party than a fascist party (Kentish)

Well, exactly. The fascism of pre-war Europe is probably pretty close to the policies the BNP uses today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

About Fascism

Can someone provide a good definition of Fascism?. This article seems to be taken Fascism as any way of White Nationalism, which is not true.Eros of Fire (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because several reliable sources label the BNP fascist, it is labelled as fascism here. We don't make the calls, we just report those that do. Regards, the skomorokh 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, i think it is a problem in most other articles on white nationalism. Is there a standard for inclusion or something I should know?Eros of Fire (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy with something as explicit as "Fascism is...". Eros of Fire (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem with Wikipedia's article on white nationalism generally. Wikipedia aspires to a neutral point of view, which in effect means a mainstream POV, and in most cases mainstream media have no interest in accurately reporting anything that can be simply labelled fascist/neo-Nazi/supremacist etc. The "standard for inclusion" is WP:WEIGHT, which warns against giving too much voice to minority viewpoints. The reason this article does not include a definition of fascism is because it would be out of place in an article about a British political party; similarly, our article on the Democratic Party (United States) does not include a definition of democracy. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You could start with Wikipedia's article on Fascsim, though as a political scientist I would have to say that it is pretty basic. Get into a good libray and make use of the index. (Better still, study political science or philosophy!) I would add that Fascism is NOT synonymous with white nationalism and need not even be racist, though most European and North American examples have been. Emeraude (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of fascist label

I do not know if these will be enough arguments to remove the fascist label from Ideology infobox section of this article, anyways, here I go:

  • BNP has not expressed any wish to create a totalitarian government on GB. If you can find a source where BNP accepts it is going to establish a totalitarian government, you are welcomed.
  • Fascism is not the same of White Nationalism.
  • The Media calls everyone from the right a fascist. I have read a lot of articles calling George W. Bush a fascist, even although he is a light-right neocon. If BNP is going to be declared a fascist by Wikipedia on these grounds, why not Bush. I think Wikipedia is not being fair with the BNP in this issue. I can bring lots of links of articles stating Bush is fascist if needed.
  • I think the meaning of Fascism has diluted with time.

Should it be enough?

While I would accept something like "BNP was fascist" (Tyndall was probably a true fascist), I do not think the 200 000 persons that voted BNP on 2005 are a bunch of hateful jobless bigots, indeed, I think Andrew Glover is just an example of the current face of the BNP. To Keep the "fascist" label on this article is just to follow the game of the mainstream media Eros of Fire (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop making things up. The media does not, as you claim, call everyone from the right a fascist. In fact, they rarely call anyone a fascist! Of course the BNP has not expressed a wish to create a totalitarian government. Its aim currently is to achieve power through the electoral system, so no way is it going to say "Vote for us and never ever vote again". The infobox refrences are cast iron, academic sources. Over and over again, those like you who claim the BNP is not fascist have been invited to provide a single contrary quality reference that it is not fascist - to no avail, quite simply because none exists, and, trust me on this, I've looked in the journals. (See the archives of this discussion page over the last two years.) I've also seen people say Bush is a fascist. They're wrong. There is no independent evidence to support this and that's why Wikipedia does not say Bush is a fascist. On the other hand, there is justification in the case of the BNP. "The meaning of Fascism has been diluted with time." yes, it has in some circles. That well-known anti-fascist George Orwell even said this 60 years, but that does not mean we cannot use it accurately and precisely. Emeraude (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK,. I wll search a high-quality reference that says BNP is not fascist. I hope there should be one! By the way, I am not making this up, I am presenting facts!Eros of Fire (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Good luck on what will be a fruitless journey. What you made up was this: "The Media calls everyone from the right a fascist". Perhaps you can find a high-quality reference for that as well. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I really doubt whether or not the BNP is a "fascist" party. There seems to be a determination to label the BNP as "fascist" because of the overt negativity associated with that label. The BNP has very-left wing policies, according to the manifesto and website, mixed with racial policies, normally associated with the far right and far left. Shouldn't the BNP be considered a nationalistic socialist party rather than fascist? Mussolini's fascism wasn't hallmarked with racism until much later, after links with Hitler developed. (Kentish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Nationalist Socialist Party is what the Nazis were called, im sure thered be some strong opposition to calling it that as well. I agree the term might be better than fascist, because despite the BNPs flaws and disgusting policies they do not fit the definition of "Fascism" on wiki. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
But that's a fault with Wikipedia's definition of fascist. It's used here in the BNP article as understood by political science academics, hence the citations given. I would be interested to know of these "cery-left wing policies" the BNP has,but, in any case, the fascist label concerns philosophy/ideology, not pragmatic policy, and in this regard the BNP ticks all the boxes for fascism. As fo "nationalistic socialist", is that National Socialism? Is that not fascist anymore??? Emeraude (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Emmeraude, you called us lot BNP apologists for saying the BNP isn't fascist. when a peer review was heald, the person agreed that fascism should be removed. Yet you put it back up.

Biass dummy- (chris) Signing anonymous edit by Special:Contributions/89.168.226.64 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008

This is a personal attack. I categorically did not say what you attribute to me. What I wrote, in connection with the not unreasonable request that references were needed to remove the fascism tag was that "These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed". You will notice the word 'and' because I have bolded it for you. Secondly, regardless of what the peer review said, it matters not one jot that "the person agreed" - what person? To repeat, countless references all acceptable to the rigourous standards of Wikipedia, say the BNP is fascist. In fact, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it could be argued that one is enough, but in any case there at least four given in the article. And there is still no citation to say the BNP is not not fascist - nil, zero, nought. Until you or someone else comes up with a reliable, third party, independent, academic reference there is nothing to debate. Emeraude (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well i am not a BNP apologist, i despise them just so people know my point of view but i dont feel there is much justification for keeping the term fascist. Whilst the BBC is meant to be unbiased its not like the organisation has no points of views be it on far right parties such as the BNP or climate change. Nobody could read this article and think its painting the BNP in a positive light, id support removing the fascist label as it is very controversial and debatable and for people to focus more on the article itself which is far from perfect. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
When we, the encyclopedia, label a group we need to be very careful to stick to terms that are not contentious. So I'd support removing "fascist" from the infobox. However to maintain NPOV we need to report on all significant points of view. So in the text of the article it's appropriate and even necessary to discuss the view that the group is fascist. In that discussion we can clearly attribute the views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, maybe after the bit saying "The BNP is rebuked and ostracized by mainstream politicians etc" something like and is labelled fascist by organisations and media such as the BBC etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. This has been discussed ad nauseam - see archives. The questions to ask are really evry simple. Are there reliable, independent third party sources that say the BNP is fascist? Yes. Are they cited in the infobox? Yes? Are there similar sources that say the BNP is not fascist? No. "We, the encyclopedia", did not label the BNP fascist: the sources did. "Fascist" is not contentious - it is used here (and in the sources) in a way clearly defined and understood by political scientists. Whether it is "labelled fascist by organisations and media such as the BBC" (why BBC particularly?) is totally irrelevant - it IS fascist and is so labelled by the academic sources that we cite. Emeraude (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's no one who has disputed the label then it probably isn't contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been disputed, but only with non-arguments such as "I don't think it should be there" or "It's sometimes used perjoratively" etc. No one has done what has has been repeatedly requested of the objectors - to provide sources that the BNP is NOT a fascist body. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which give the definition of Fascist and comparing that to the BNP policies do not fit in with the term (even if they have a hidden agenda and secretly are fascist which i accept they probably are). Whilst i hate the BNP my concern is the lack of balanced view on this article (both the term fascist and the article itself) simply helps the BNP as they claim they are treated unfairly by the mainstream media and websites such as this which is justified.
The BBC is a reliable source on many issues but when it comes to the BNP they do show bias. For example information by the Israeli government may be used on wikipedia but it doesnt mean that the Israeli government would be a valid and unbiased source when it comes to issues on Palestine. There are certain instances when even reliable sources are bias sadly.
Lack of balance just leads to more distrust and isolates their voters who feel the only source they can trust is the BNP itself and that is far more dangerous. This article could present the BNP in a far more neutral way whilst explaining their policies and showing just how radical, crazy and impossible their plans and leadership really are. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
As you say, there are plenty of sources giving a definition of fascism and some of them are even accurate! However, comparing those with the party's policies is not sufficient. The issue at stake is the party's idology - the two are not the same whether we are talking about the BNP, Labour or any other party. You have suggested that the BNP is secretly fascist which, in itself, means that looking at its public policies, as expressed for example in election manifestos, will not do. I'm still unsure what you're getting at with the BBC, but in any case the sources cited for the BNP's fascism are not the BBC or any other possibly biased media but reputable academics, so use of the term 'fascist' is definitely not unbalanced. In fact, as the article makes clear, the BNP denies its fascits nature, which I personally think may be taking balance a bit far the other way! As for your suggestion that the article could be rewritten in a way that would show "just how radical, crazy and impossible their plans and leadership really are" - surely to do that would in itself be tantamount to bias and original research. Emeraude (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If the definition of fascism is so debatable why should we take a few academics view on this? How does someone define the BNPs party's ideology apart from looking at their policies and the statements and actions of their leadership? i have yet to see such things which fit with many descriptions of the word fascist. Radical, right wing, extremists yes... but fascist is far more difficult to pin on them. Just because people fear they are fascist doesnt mean its right to label them as such. The BNP policies speak for themselves, their policies are so radical if laid out clearly it would be difficult for most to support. Its like an article on child abuse, after reading such things you are going to be against it even if it was presented in a very balanced way.
I would rather see some of the BNP policies listed and then explained in detail including implications and views of both sides than just have a negative article labelling them as fascist. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, their policies (from their elctoral manifesto and elsewhere) are listed and decsribed in the article. It would be wrong to label them all as "radical" (a term that is itself rather loaded). Support for the NHS? Funding for Special Schools? Hardly what is normally seen as hard core fascism, which is the problem with looking just at policies, and I repeat, this issue concerns the Ideology label in the infobox. Do not confuse the two.
There is a very good reason why we "should we take a few academics view on this". That is what encyclopaedias do. To do otherwise is to risk error, opinion, accusation of bias. I am happy to debate the fascism of the BNP with anyone, but not in an encyclopaedia! The task here is to write Wikipedia, and to support its contents with learned citations, as we have. Emeraude (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well i wasnt suggesting labelling them as radical thats for people to make up their own mind on but most would view them as such. I know their main policies are mentioned but it could go into more detail about the major ones rather than just mentioning it. To list it as fascist is opening up the article to claims of bias and is also just stating opinion, even if they are respected academics. Anyway i still think its place would be in the article next to the BNP disputing they are facsist rather than labelling them as such, which does seem to get questioned and rejected by different people. If in the future more seek to have the term removed from the list, it should be considered but im ok with it staying till then. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I gave the impression I thought you wanted to label them 'radical'. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and that although "Wikipedia is not paper" it is not necessary to give every bit of detail on any subject. This article is already too long and expanding on policies would make it even more unwieldy - that section has been longer in the past. It is open to any reader who wants to know more about BNP policies to go to the BNP website or other sources which are linked in the article, as is the case with other political parties. You are probably right that there should be fuller detail of 'fascism in the article, but that does not affect the tag in the infobox, which is supposed to give brief, not detailed, summary. As for respected academics, that it the whole point of an encyclopaedia - what we write is evidenced by the experts. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look I think we need to get something straight here. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source. I was told earlier, when I tried to suggest that the BNP should not be labelled as fascist, that the fascist label was "well-sourced". Under this logic, I could go onto the Global Warming article and write "imaginary" in the infobox, and pick out over a hundred sources on the internet claiming that it is a farce, and then say that it's fact. Fascism is NOT one of their policies. Since it is not one of their official policies, and there is a large section of their supporters who I wouldn't call "fascist", we shouldn't put that. Anyway, this is pretty irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to argue for the BNP on this one. The point is that a party has to go behind the banner of a fascist party to be labelled fascist. Continuing with ridiculous examples, I could go onto the Democratic Party (USA) article and write communist in the infobox and find another 100 sources off the internet all agreeing with me. That does not mean that it is true. Therefore, stating that the BNP is fascist in the INFOBOX is opinion. Wikipedians must know the difference between fact and opinion if we are to have a NPOV. There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it.

I think if you want a "single contrary quality reference" you ought to go to [1]. IT IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIANS TO "DECLARE" IF A PARTY IS FASCIST. Nor is it the job of "respected academics". So are you saying that their word counts as fact. Hitler went to University! How "respected" they are makes no difference to whether their opinion counts as fact. I'm not sure what "no independent evidence" means. The words "no" and "evidence" are easy to counter, just go to [2]. But now you're saying "independent". Well if that means independent from governments or official institutions then I believe my source provides evidence. If, however, you are talking about "unbiased", then I can't really see how you can hide behind you're four "respected acedemics". I'm not sure if the following article counts as "reliable" to some of you but here goes. [3].

On the subject of the BBC, I would say that yes, the BBC are a biased source on certain subjects. This should not be a problem if editors can differentiate between opinion and fact. Bias alone should not be problem, if care is taken and the other half of the story is coming from elsewhere.

I don't want to go into arguing why the BNP doesn't resemble fascism because it isn't remotely relevant to what we put in the infobox. However, how can you call giving Ghurkhas full citizenship "fascist". [4] (It's about half way down).

I havn't signed in but I'm User:HandGrenadePins --86.148.145.163 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't want a "single contrary quality reference". I said that no one has responded to the inviataion to provide even a "single contrary quality reference", and that is because there are none. Trust me (i.e. apply the Wikipedia principle of "good faith") - I have searched the literature and there are no reliable sources that contradict those cited in the Infobox. There are, however, many more that support them. Citing the BNP is clearly not acceptable in this respect, though its denial is of interest and is included.
The fact that sources exist does not mean they are accurate, reliable, honest, factual, accepted or anything. Your definition of my logic is in itself illogical: following your argument I could provide sources that fairies exist or that unicorns are alive and well, but do we want to put that in Wikipedia!?
The sites you link are totally unacceptable as reliable sources. Blogs and discussion forums are never acceptable as supporting evidence - by definition they are places where users post their own personal opinions. The best sources are always those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, regardless of the subject. Examples in this context would be Comparative Political Studies , Comparative European Politics, The Political Quarterly, etc., and I do research in these regularly.
As for what "independent" means, that is pretty obvious. It has nothning to do with being independent of government or official institutions. It means independent of the subject matter, i.e. the BNP is not an independent source on the BNP.
You wroye "There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it." No. The case for calling the BNP fascist, I repeat, is that academic sources apply the label. Anti-fascists oppose the BNP becaus it is facist; they don't call it fascist because they oppose it!
By the way, where is the evidence for your assertion that Hitler, a high school failure and twice rejected for the Academy of Arts, went to university? Emeraude (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
In what way is my definition "illogical"? You have failed to provide me with a reason why my description of your logic is "in itself illogical". Indeed, under your logic we could provide sources that claim fairies exist! I never stated that those sources are particularly "reliable" sources. All I used them for was to prove to you that a contrary opinion exists and should be treated with equal consideration. In what way would you say that something written in a blog is less "reliable" than something published in a journal. You are also suggesting that simply because these people are "respected", we must take their opinion above everyone else?
As already stated, this does not effect whether the sources are factual or opinionated. The truth is that these sources cannot be seen as pure fact. It is like people writing "The bible is entirely true", or "the bible is entirely false". Both are a matter of opinion and, however much people can support their arguments with facts, they remain opinions, and should not be stated as facts. The infobox cannot be filled with individual opinions on the topic matter, regardless of how "independent" the sources are. You have stated that the BNP is a bad source for their political orientations, yet if we did this for all political parties across the world we would find a large number of parties labelled "neo-liberal", "neo-conservative", "fascist", "communist" etc. It is not for "independent" people to decide what is placed on the official infobox.
Let us therefore be cautious when we think about writing unofficial and libelous comments on their infobox. I am not saying that the infobox should be biased in favour of the BNP; simply including White Nationalism, Far right and the like should not show any particular bias, whereas including unofficial labels which the party itself finds offensive is showing bias.

Oh, and if you want another reason not to class this as fascist, then read the following guidelines taken from the Wikipedia:WikiProject fascism page:

For purposes of this project, I propose the following criteria:

In the case of a movement which came to power, such a movement shall be called "fascist" if it fulfills all of the following criteria:

  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. using propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. engaging in syndicalist corporatism.
  6. implementing totalitarian systems.

In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:

  1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  3. advocating propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
  5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
  6. advocating totalitarian systems.
  7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement.

Obviously there will be many POV arguments, and much debate as to whether a particular person or movement is in fact "fascist" by the correct definition of the word. It should be noted for more specific fields, which are not one and the same as Fascism, such as Nazism has its own separate set of categorys. --HandGrenadePins (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines? Precisely. Not policy. And note the words "I propose the following criteria". This has been raised here before and it was shown that the BNP actually met the criteria. See archives. As to your earlier posting, in no way is Wikipedia in the business of wighing up opinions - it deals with demonstrated facts from reliable and expert sources - which is precisely why blogs and discussion forums are not accepted. Emeraude (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the large amount of debate and opposition to the facist label, wouldn't it be fair to remove the facist label as its clearly not a neutral stance. Besides if the BNP are facist then shouldn't the UK Labour party be considered very facist considering their discriminatory policies towards BNP members ie. leaked membership list & banning of BNP members joining the police force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invader Nat (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits to BNP difficulties with employment

The first paragraph in the section, BNP difficulties with employment, says:

"In the case of ASLEF v. United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights overturned an employment appeal tribunal finding awarding a BNP train driver damages for expulsion. It found that the union was entitled to do so, and that this was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

This is incorrect. The ECHR case was brought by ASLEF, not the BNP member, and concerned the right of unions to decide who could or could not be a member. The court was examining whether the UK government was infringing the Convention by allowing courts to punish unions for exercising this right, and found in favour of ASLEF. There was no question of the BNP member's human rights being breached. I will alter the wording to reflect this.

In the same para, another editor has tagged the phrase "many have expelled them from the unions", asking that 'many' be specified (not unreasonable) and for a citation for the whole. The citation is really not necessary, since the following sentence on ASLEF effectively covers ths. As for many, I feel that altering this to some removes the need to specify, the ASLEF case again providing sufficient background along with the following paragraph about Unison. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we need to have such a section on difficulties with employment, or at least whether it needs to be as long and detailed as it is. I've trimmed it down slightly, but still, it's like saying we should have a section in the Christianity article on issues which have arisen in the past, such as the British Airways cross controversy, or a section in Religion as a whole which lists the people that claim to have been sacked/rejected on account of their religious beliefs. Gammondog (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right. The section is over long and detracts from the main thrust of the article. It was put in, I believe, to quell accusations that BNP members were portrayed negatively in the article and that they were never presented as victims, but there is far too much. Emeraude (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the section has become long- for which i am in a great part responsible. However given the subsequent furrre over the membership leak, this has become unexpectedly topical.--Streona (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Leak of membership details

I haven't yet found any reliable sources, but if this is true no doubt they'll be along soon. Please note I'm not affiliated with the BNP or their views, I'm just a wikipedian on the hunt for knowledge. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me.

I have already cited it as a reference. It's a rather better reference than a news article! 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Arpitt (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from above: "why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me." It is on the page now, but the second part of this comment is very telling. Yes, it's NEWS. But this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Better to wait and see how significant its is when the dust settles. Emeraude (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the user was probably referring to the In the News section on the Main page. Dreaded Walrus t c 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sky news is reporting that Merseyside police constable Steve Bettley mentioned in the BNP article has been suspended, the article will need to be updated shortly stating that. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No way. There is no justification for including a link to the membership list in the article. It's easy enough to find it online independently anyway, via wikileaks, many servers and mirrors, and even as a torrent. WKP is an encyclopaedia, and linking to the membership list does not come under encyclopaedic information. In addition, I feel it's morally wrong to promote the dissemination of such personal detail of so many people against their will and without their permission, no matter what one thinks of them. Centrepull (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed the membership list contains very private information on 1000s of people and shouldnt be linked. Any general reference to its location shouldnt really be accepted on the article page either in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Please notice: Someone is posting links to the BNP membership list in this page. I do not think it is good and may raise privacy concerns. Should this page be protected? Eros of Fire (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is now on Wikileaks so it's effectively in the public domain for good. You may as well put a link to it on the article. Here's the relevant page [link redacted Daniel (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.176.154 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That list is intelectal property of BNP. The fact someone posted it in a wiki does not make it public domain. It is like saying of I post a whole Harry Potter on wikipedia it becomes public domainEros of Fire (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source details where to find the list, we shouldn't link to it, for that simplest of reasons. Once that happens, though, it can be discussed. UK law would have no authority here, as WP is not under any UK jurisdiction. It would be a strictly internal decision on US law first, and our policies second. UK law is irrelevant. rootology (C)(T) 07:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be taking things too far, and other articles don't do the same. For example the Orkut article links to the site and does not need a "reliable source" to tell it where the site is, the same for Microsoft, Wictionary, etc. There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether to put up the link, but "needing a source" for something that is self verifiable should be part of the discussion. Besides which we would logically get into recursion, we would need a reliable source to say that the reliable source is reliable. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what would constitute a reliable source in this case Rootology? It's been online on for over 48 hours. Sheesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.209.122 (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The list is not relivant however. If we had a complete list of Labour party memebers would wouldn't link to that either.Geni 10:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property? This is obviously using the adjective in a rather specialised sense, isn't it ? Have you ever read Lee barnes "epic" poetry?--Streona (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some very strange expert legal opinions here, none fo whose providers will be getting my business. 1 Publishing anything, anywhere, does not place it in the public domain. If it's copyright, it's coyright. 2 Wikipedia may not be subject to English law, but its editors in Britain certainly are. (And any non-UK residents planning to visit ought to check their liability in this regard.) 3 "Intellectual property": I very much doubt that a list can be defined as such, though the database it came from is. 4 Quoting from copyright material for non-commercial academic purposes is specifically allowed (and, let's face it, Wikipedia could not exist otherwise).

Incidentally, now that the list is available online at Wikileaks, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin has declared that is genuine in several papers and on TV, it ought to be acceptable to say that X is/was a member of the BNP, citing the list and Griffin's statement of its provenance. But I would like a real legal expert to confirm this. Emeraude (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude's right. At the very least it requires someone higher in the Wikipedia food chain to make a decision on this as there seems to be a weakness in the decision making process at this level. It's a shame such a fairly straightforward issue is taking so long to resolve as the list obviously doesn't invade privacy as the data has been mirrored relentlessly for a couple of days now. Yesterday the UK cops were supposed to be scouring the lists to see if any of it's cohort were members so obviously they believe it's real. Like Emeraude said even the leader of the BNP has acknowledged it's validity so where on earth is the problem? Another factor to put in the mix. The controversy about the list has become part of the BNP's history. Because the leak has become a phenomena in it's very own right it should be seriously considered for inclusion. Take the http://bnpnearme.co.uk/ that appeared last night. It's a unique example of information activism. Perhaps these novel behaviors deserve a page entirely of their own?Irritant (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that whether it is legal to view Wikipedia in any particular country. I don't think viewing the list is illegal in the UK as long as you don't pass it on, but if we were to limit wikipedia to only what is legal in the UK, the United Arab Emirates, China, etc. there probably would not be much we could say about anything. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, says that he knows who leaked the full membership list of his far-Right organisation onto the internet...

Mr Griffin claimed that those responsible for posting the 12,000 names, along with a wealth of personal details, on Sunday night were extremists who felt that the line the party was taking under his leadership was too moderate..." Times: BNP leader Nick Griffin says he knows who leaked membership list. Nov 10, 2008[1]

"The list is essentially genuine, but has been slightly modified..." BNP Website: Membership List Leak – Urgent Update from BNP leader Nick Griffin. Nov 18, 2008 [2]

The list has been in the wild for four days. This seems an unreasonable amount of time for a decision to be made either way on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irritant (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "I don't think viewing the list is illegal in the UK.." Quite right, but that's not the point I was making. For the record, it is not illegal to read anything in the UK. The issue is the law of libel, i.e. writing things in the UK. This country is renowned for having very draconian libel laws (to the extent that foreign litigants have brought actions against foreign writers in London for books published in the US and not available here on the grounds that someone could order it via Amazon!). If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law. It is, and you are. Being anonymous gives a degree of freedom, but are you sure a litigant can't find out who you are if they really want to. The solution is to avoid writing anything that you can't defend in a court of law, but then that is what all Wikipedia editors should be doing anyway under the policies of providing reliable, referenced information. Emeraude (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law." If you live in Scotland, you are covered by Scots law as well as UK-wide legislation, but not specifically by English law except in unusual and/or near-unique cases. As far as I know (from a years' study of law, admittedly not much to go on), the information on the database is not anybody's intellectual property, as it is devoid of any creative or technical input which would render it so. It is not libellous to state that an individual is a member of a particular political party when this is in fact the case. However, distributing the information from the database is likely to breach the Data Protection Act, as the information both makes it possible to identify any included individual, and is not guaranteed to be used solely for legal purposes by someone coming across the relevant webpage.

Therefore, linking's not such a good idea, if only for caution's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.25.39 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (and for correcting me on not mentioning Scottish law). Are you sure though about the Data Protection Act? My understanding is that using information does not contravene the Act; the BNP has though almost certainly failed in its duties under the Act to protect the data it holds on individuals electronically. Emeraude (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify linking may not be a good idea for anyone in the UK juristiction, but that should not affect people outside the UK. Also, as far as the fact that it is on wikileaks goes that is in the public domain anyway, so I suspect someone could defend posting a link. This may not apply to the less well known copies. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please undo the last version of the article update. It included two links to the BNP members list. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the direct link to a hosted copy of the list. One of our important policies, WP:BLP, governs all aspects of how Wikipedia covers or mentions living persons. It isn't limited to articles, but also covers talk pages like this and even external links. It essentially says that we shouldn't link to sites that are aren't in the spirit of the BLP. The membership list contains the names and personal information about private, living people. If readers feel a compelling need to obtain the list, they can find one easily enough elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia that strives to respect living people and provide information which furthers the understanding of a topic. Linking to this list does neither, in my opinion. However, if there are other opinions those are welcome too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Will, would of done it myself but still not allowed to edit semi protected pages yet :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PC Steve Bettley

Can someone with the ability to edit the article mention that PC Steve Bettley has been suspended following the BNP members list leak.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7740817.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about that; an enquiry has started, that's all. For all we know, someone has signed him up to the BNP as a prank, and in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, my inclination is not to fan the flames, but then I've practised law in the UK and realise the pitfalls. If someone out of the jurisdiction thinks it's a proper use of an encyclopedia article, er, fine. --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I would not of mentioned it but there are details on the main article under the members list leak, stating that he was on the list. There should atleast be a general update stating he has been suspended pending the force learning all the facts. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he probably is a BNP member, but that's not the point. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about the BNP, not a current affairs headlines grabber. It is not appropriate to make any edits to any article based simply on response to the latest news item (however accurate it may be). Emeraude (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He could be suspended for weeks whilst the enquiry is ongoing. A suspension is still an important implication of the BNP members list leak which gets mentioned on the page. The issue is no longer "breaking news" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be mentioned: it's factual, cited and significant. If we ignore it, the credibility of this article, and thus WP, is diminished. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In what way? The Sun way or the Daily Express way? Let Wikinews deal with current events; we can, and should, afford to take a longer and wider view. --Rodhullandemu 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's been reported by the BBC, not the Sun; and if people come here for more background, having read that, and see we don't report it, then they know we only have half of the story. As for privacy, that cat is well out of the bag. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact he has been suspended is not gossip, a statement was given by the police force in question. In no way is it calling him a member of the BNP, it is simply saying he has been suspended whilst inquiries are ongoing. I agree with your tone when it comes to the gutter press, but these are reliable sources such as the BBC BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's worthwhile to say that a police officer has been suspended. I don't see any value in naming him. It's his job that is relevant, not his identity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "if people come here for more background...." "and see we don't report it". Precisely. They've come here for background, not to read the same news here that they've already seen reported in the Sun/Mail/Guardian/BBC. Let's concentrate on providing the background, i.e. an article that explains what the BNP is and why membership of the BNP being revealed might be embarrassing. In a year's time, this will be a complete non-event. Leave it to the news media and let an encyclopaedia be encyclopaedic. Emeraude (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The policemans name has been on the main article for over a day. It is listed under the BNP Memberslist leaks section. It states the police are looking into it, which is why it seems reasonable to add he has been suspended. If current news can not be updated or mentioned on wiki maybe the whole section on "Memberslist leak" should be deleted from the article. There are other parts of this article talking about employment troubles for BNP members. I dont see how its possible to view a police officer being suspended as unworth or not important enough to be included BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"maybe the whole section on "Memberslist leak" should be deleted" Actually, I'm inclined to agree, or at least reduce it to the bare mention that the membership list was lost/stolen and leaked and this has caused embarrassment for the BNP and its members. No need for more at this stage: wait and see what actually happens and concentrate then on what will be of lasting significance. I'm sure something will be, but exactly what is significant in the long term has yet to emerge. Emeraude (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the fact suspended has now been added, but i do not see the need to remove the police officers name, which is now fully in the public domain. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What value does the name add to readers interested in the BNP? He is not a public figure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Up to a point. This article is about the BNP; notable members thereof have their own articles, but mostly because they have achieved notability through choice or otherwise; this guy, even assuming that it all falls into place and the name on the list is that of the PC, and was placed there by him, is not notable. There are plenty of other websites for witch-hunts, but I don't think this is one of them; WP:BLP enjoins us to be conservative, and in the case of doubt, we should refrain from identifying individuals, if only for our own legal protection. We are not a scandal-sheet, and as I've already pointed out, Wikinews is better at dealing with short-term issues. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Well for one thing it will be easier to follow up on the outcome of the investigation if the name is included (which might clear him). If it was only the gutter press which were naming the man then i would agree with you. But this is mainstream press all across the United Kingdom, there is tons of information on wiki pages which may not seem important to most people but they still remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
He's also been named by his own employer, a police force. Somehow, I think that they will be fairly safe legal ground. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Merseyside Police on "safe legal ground"? Sorry, my experience working there says otherwise. And it goes back to 1974. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
[EC] Do you wish to declare an interest? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok i can live with the change that has been made, my main concern was the fact the officer had been suspended and it was not listed on the main page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's quite possible that in the following days several more people will be suspended or fired from their jobs. Just because we're legally allowed to say something doesn't mean we have to say it. This is an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[EC] Note to Rodhullandemu: Referring to edits as "good faith" doesn't give you a licence to revert them as you please, nor does the fact that some people argue on a talk against the inclusion of a piece of cited information make it OK for you to repeatedly remove that information from the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is Rodhullandemu, the officers name had been on the main page for over a day and there was no consensus to remove it in the first place, infact nobody had even objected to it being on there (from what i saw) until i mentioned he had been suspended. There are certainly no legal issues with including the name, its fully in the public domain and again any change would not of declared him a BNP member, simply said he had been suspended whilst being investigated. If this issue was put to a vote for the time being there would be no consensus either way, but as its 1am and most normal people with any interest on this subject should probably be in bed we can wait and see what happens during the day and whats agreed. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As I suggested might happen, the next wave of revelations is coming out. "Former Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members on BNP list". If we want to "name names", then these politicians, already public figures, would be better candidates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
And I didn't originally remove the name in any case. --Rodhullandemu 08:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who deleted the name originally, but I deleted it recently.[5] We don't need to get this right today. Let's be cautious and see how this develops. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems silly not to have something that is on the [Front page of the Sun Newspaper] complete with his photographs of him. They would certainly had their legal team clear it. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I bet the Sun routinely prints pictures of people on their front page who are not mentioned in Wikipedia. They have different standards and a different purpose than we do. This isn't a legal decision, it's an editorial decision. This is just one incident in the history of the BNP. It may turn out to be pivotal or it may be a nine-day scandal, only time will tell. While our main job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, we also have to use discretion and judgment. If we're going to report on the elected members of government, then we ought to scrimp on space elsewhere. This policeman is a "nobody", thrust into fame. Other people, like the sports announcer and these party members, are apparently public figures. While the policeman's story is getting lots of press at the moment because he's the first to get suspended, I doubt he'll be the last. Let's see how this story develops and summarise the material with the weight it deserves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
These are not just reports, like the ones on former Labour / Conservative members found in the gutter press. The specific issue of this police officer has been reported by the entire news media, including reliable sources used as sources on 1000s of wikipages. It is also not against the rules for "former members" of political parties to be members of the BNP, it is against the rules for a member of the police force. I do not see the danger of including his name which is fully in the public domain, wikipedia will certainly be the least of his and his families worries. There are no legal implications because the changes were not saying he "is" a BNP member, simply saying he has been suspended until the inquiry is completed which was a statement by a spokesman for the police force in question.
I do not understand why you seem so concerned to keep his name off the main article, it will make no difference to the person in question but as a couple of you feel strongly about this issue and in fairness to the guys family i accept the article can be left as it is until further details arise, such as the outcome of the inquiry. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we're so focused on this one person among the 12,000 names on the list. I don't have a problem with the name, per se. It's the amount of space we're devoting that is bothersome. I've been around Wikipedia for a few years and I've seen how articles evolve, including this one. This isn't a topic we can easily split off into a new article, ("2008 British National Party membership list leak"?) so it's best to keep it short enough to fit in the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've added the name but shortened the text. While I think this guy is a minor factor in all of this, he is the first one to be suspended which may make him the "poster boy" for this incident. Let's see how it goes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks that seems a good compromise and it fits in well with the section. Only other thing would be to include a source for the actual suspension as the other link was the day before. Either the BBC link i posted above or another reliable source. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bruns, et al.

In accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies and verifiability, we should not add to the article anyone from the leaked list unless they have also been mentioned in secondary sources such as the media. A list such as this may contain errors or coincidentally shared names, or have other issues which make it a problematic primary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no grounds to name people on this article who were on the BNP members list that have not been the subject of huge media attention by the national press and whos names are clearly in the public domain (like the PC / radio DJ). The BNP members list is a gross invasion of privacy and should not be linked to on this website, i dont understand the need for the informal mediation, theres no justification for including the list. It should be pointed out for those who do not realise, the list contains not just names, but addresses, phone numbers and in somecases even lists minors. There has been no major debate on this page about including the list or linking to it, the consensus is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Linking to the list is quite another matter. Whether or not we approve of the content of any information in the public domain is irrelevant, the list exists and we must not pretend that it doesn't. JaneVannin (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The list has to be mentioned and the effects of the leaked list has to be clear but there is no grounds for an actual link to a list which grossly invades peoples privacy. This would be the case if 10000s of names, addresses or phone numbers of any political party were placed on the internet. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There are grounds for it's link - the list is the primary source for the part of the article which refers to it. As such it is normal to have a referring link. But, in either case, grounds or no, it's inclusion as a link is clearly something which - as you rightly say - needs debating here so that consensus can be reached. JaneVannin (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The list is a primary source for itself only and has no bearing on its leaking per se, which is the principal topic of that section. That it has been leaked is adequately sourced by reliable secondary sources, as are the effects it has had on some people on it. That is the extent to which this article should go, on the basis of WP:BLP, which here trumps most, if not all, other policies. --Rodhullandemu 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rodhullandemu. I've already given a complete explanation above, under #Protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI:
  • Cohen, Noam (2008-11-24). "Link by link: In Britain, Outwitting Strict Laws Against Libel". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-11-24. A small computer file appeared on the Internet last week, purporting to list the 13,000 members of the racist, far-right British National Party. ... A host for the list is Wikileaks, a site that has become a home for orphaned material, ... (After much debate, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is unrelated to Wikileaks, has not linked to the material.)
I have no doubt that the WP article will be read by many people, including those involved directly or indirectly and even the press. Let's make sure we get it right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its funny looking at the graph showing article traffic and the huge spike that took place on the 19th with over 50,000 viewing the page. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/British_National_Party BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's typical of topics which hit the news. The average last month was about 1000 views per day, so it's still running four times normal. I see some press accounts that mention other people, at least by occupation, and it'd be worthwhile to list those briefly. Something like, "Other people on the list have included a vicar, a prison guard, members of the Labour and and Conversative Parties, ..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Be careful! You mean former members don't you? And, if you study the list, most of the sensitive occupations are actually prefixed with ex- or retired. Personally, I see no point in listing occupations at all. The signficant point about this episode is that the List was lost/found/stolen/leaked and not the detail of what it actually contains. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those of us familiar with Redwatch will know that much of the material the fascist-right publish on their opponents is wrong or out of date. The problem with this list is that there may be people on it quite innocently or even with similar names. One of them even has my name - but its a different address. If people can be directed to another site fine, but I do not think wikipedia should underwrite the truth of this list without further verification. As far as I am aware I do not know of any attacks on BNP alleged members, but I understand that BNP sympathisers have threatened the host of the bnpmembership.blogspot and they have taken down the list If I can source this I can post it on the article. It is available elsewhere--Streona (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarify Abbreviations

In the introductory paragraph to Section 1: History, the first instance of the abbreviation NF should be clarified as NF(National Front). I would have made this minor edit myself had I the privilege level to do so. I suggest that someone with such privilege make this change to make the text clearer for those of us not already familiar with UK party abbreviations. Godhner (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads-up; I switched the sections around but didn't address the link successions. And don't worry about "privilege levels"; you will be able to edit semi-protected pages once your account is four days old and had made ten edits. Regards, the skomorokh 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

I think Streona and Emeraude should be banned from editing this article. They have very specific opinions about the BNP and they are using it as a way to push their liberal anti-white agendas.

I do not know what you have against white people, or why you think they can not have their own nations just like asians and africans do, but please keep your hatred out from the wiki. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BNP Eros of Fire (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All editors have specific opinions, that's why they edit. That's why WP:V exists, if you have reliable third party verifiable sources to back up your views, we will need to see them. Also, I'd suggest jurisdiction shopping isn't going to help, this isn't a BLP matter, since it is about an organisation, and the organisation doesn't have human rights to be observed. You give a list of articles citing the BNP using fascist as a opeerjorative term against opponents, I'm afraid they aren't admissible, not just because they aren't third party reliable verifiable references, but because it requires OR to read them as a claim that the BNP isn't a fascist organisation.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the comments you make Red Deathy, however on the issue of fascist label surely it should be the case for alot of evidence and sources being provided to prove that is their ideology rather than having to prove they are not. At the moment the sources for this controversial issue are seriously lacking. As i mentioned above 3 are out of date (atleast 1 written before Nick griffin even took power, which ofcourse makes a difference.. Germany changed after Hitler took power, someone taking control of a party has similiar changes) and one is to a website which requires membership and a fee (from what i could see). Im also concerned about the actual sources and if they are neutral enough to declare such ideology on others. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, you would need a verifiable source to say they are out of date, otherwise it's OR. Also, I know at least one dates from 2007, I know, I added it in response to just this point. The 2007 article is from a peer reviewed academic journal. References do not have to be neutral, merely reliable and uncontradicted.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worthy explain that they do not consider themselves fascists. That it the only thing I want... is that too much?Eros of Fire (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there are 4 sources currently. 1 from 1996, 1 from 1999 and 1 from 2000 now Nick Griffin only took power in 1999 so i think its not Original Research to say these are outdated. On the 2007 one as i said before, that requires membership and looks as if you have to pay a fee something that almost no one can access should not be treated as a reliable source. Also to claim that sources dont have to be neutral seems wrong to me. It should be mentioned within the article that many consider them to be fascists and such sources would be fine, the trouble here is its being put in the parties info box making it sound like this is their actual ideology, and not what some people just label them as. Im sure the BNP have called the labour party communist, that doesnt justify us including it in Labours ideology surely? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You can go to your local library and ask them to obtain the articles for you if you want, WP:V merely demands it be published (and properly cited), just because you have to put effort into it doesn't mean it isn't valid. Non- neutral sources. If anti-fascists cnsider that an organisation is fascist, that is within WP:V to mention, but academic resources are better, definitely. The BNP may call the labour party communist, but the balance of reliable third party published sources would say something different. The case here is that all the reliable third party publihed sources editors have found state the BNP is fascist and non have been found to invalidate that claim. Out of date: Yes, Nick Griffin arrived in 1999, but unless you have a source saying he stopped the BNP being fascist (reliable third party published source) then it OR to claim this invalidates the previous citations. We are evidence based, not opinion based.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but the duty of proof is on those seeking to label the BNP fascist not the other way around. I am sorry but they are out of date sources, Griffin has claimed to of changed the party even those that disagree hes truely done it admit hes tried to make it look that way. The two sides are never going to agree on this issue, we need neutral 3rd party opinions to help decide if it should remain. Even if deep down they are fascist which i accept is probably the case, it doesnt justify labelling them as such because its what their political enemies have described them as. Sure say they are considered fascist by the vast majority of the British public and most political parties / figures but there is a big difference to that and labelling it as an ideology in their info box which is simply POV and biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The proof has been provided by four different citations, one of which comes from after Griffin's leadership. What Griffin claims needs to be supported by third party reliable published sources. WP:V and [WP:OR]] are clear in this matter. Go to your local library, or pay to access the Copesy article, if you like.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this needs to be taken higher. The sources need to verified independently of people involved with this article and as such WP:RS is the place to take, these sources. I though doubt this will satisfy both sides. If this fails then formal mediation or a form of arbitration could be necessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is a policy page, which sets out what I've been saying here for some while, that these are reliable sources (from peer reviewed academic journals). All we need to have them called out of date, or out of line with reliable consensus is reliable third party sources stating a cotnrary position, which hasn't happened. Until then its WP:OR to say they're out of date (and saying that you need to pay for an article is a valid reason to reject it).--Red Deathy (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you not agree though that this has gone mad and the contributors on this page on both side are unable to adequately discuss this. This debate needs extrapolating and being discussed by nobody involved with the discussions so far. This to prevent the discussion page being gridlocked permanently.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe I am adequately discussing this - I reiterate the policy of WP:V and await the production of new sources for us to take things forward. Whenever a new name comes forward to question the fascism tag, I point out what is required. What if mediation prudced the status quo, do you think the attempts to remove the fascism label would cease? I'm afraid patient explanation of policy, and encouragement to editors to go out and find reliable, third party published material is the best that can be done, for now.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry but i dont know if the current sources are verifiable and from a neutral point of view as required. Those in favour of the use of the term fascist dont even seem to accept the fact that parties change over time and especially as new leaders come to power. Labour certainly cant be described as the left wing party it was just a couple of decades ago. Which is why the fact people simply dismiss that 3 of the 4 sources are OUT OF DATE and one is a source which requires subscription is unacceptable. If the BNP is widely regarded as Fascist then please provide sources. Its the job of those who support the term to PROVE it belongs there in their ideology, not to prove a negative.
Mediation is the best step, even if it results in the current term remaining in their ideology box atleast there will be clear justification for it remaining, unlike now when it has been strongly contested by many people over the months and the sources clearly lack the required standard. If the BNP ever did come to power then i think they would be fascist and radically destroy British democracy, but its just wrong to use a couple of sources which "claim" they are something, especially when those sources are far from neutral or up to date. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Teh sources are verifiable, because citations are given, and they can be read to see if they say what they are purported to say. Many come from respectable publishing houses, or peer reviewed journals. While some are now old, no reliable third party published source has been produced to say they are out of date - it is only eduitors' opinion (at the minute). No-one is being asked to prove a negative, far from it, you're being asked for a positive, that is to prove that someone has gone to print saying the BNP are not a fascist organisation. That's all it takes. Again, sources do not need to be from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia must, but sources from opponents, that come in a reliable published format, still count. These sources, hwoever, are academic. One source, is all it takes, that says the BNP is not fascist, one source, published by a third party.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

COPIED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICE BOARD WHEN THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED

Broadly the [Copsey] paper talks about attempts to rebrand the party, that this is just a branding exercise and does not represent any real change to their view. and concludes with "Griffin's ideological revamp underpins the party's normalization in the eyes of the thousands of Britons who vote for it, making it even more difficult to pin the 'fascist' or 'Nazi' label on the well-groomed bespoke suits of Britain's latest generation of neo-fascist extremists." --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie is correct when she says the discussion has gone mad. Common sense is bound up with Wikipedia policy and, if it comes to that, the normal standards of academic study and reasearch. It is madness to say that one has not read and will not read the cited articles/books and then to carry on contradicting them. It's as valid as me saying that the film I have not seen is terrible - i.e. opinion and prejudice based in ignorance. If anyone who has read the citations wants to suggest they do not say what is claimed of them, then that is grounds for debate. If they are not prepeared to read them, the only decent thing to do is to admit to ignorance of the subject and withdraw.
Let us remember that a year ago a group of editors (including as I recall Lucy-Marie) objected to any mention of fascism because there were no references. I found many references and put in 3 or 4 (I could have included many more). Objectors then changed tack: they were out-of-date; the BNP had changed X years ago (no agreement on how many years); etc etc. However, no one - repeat no one - has provided any evidence from any reliable source that the BNP has changed, that the earlier sources are significantly dated, that the later ones are inaccurate or, more importantly, that the BNP is not fascist. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I've been in the fortunate position of having accesss to academic journals online, but if I hadn't it would be an easy enough matter to request them in any local library or find them in a larger library. There is no excuse for not doing this.
I would recommend readers to at least study the reference for Copsey, N. "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006", Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82. An abstract 'without need for a subscription is here and for those who still refuse to look it up I will provide some key sentences:
"At the outset, [Copsey]] offers some conceptual clarifications regarding fascism, national-populism and neo-fascism before discussing the nature of Griffin's 'modernization' project and the circumstances behind his decision to revamp the party's ideology. He then moves on to a critical examination of the party's new ideological position as revealed in its 2005 general election manifesto..... He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." Emeraude (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It will not allow me to view that site right now, thanks for posting the paragraph. Can you please give me the full name of the author and who he is? Whats his political affiliation, previous record. A link on the author would be useful thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Nigel Copsey? He's an accepted academic authority on the far-right and fascism in England. You can read more about him here As for his political affliation? what of it? Do you think that if he's revealed as a member of the labour party, that's going to negate his sources? His material is printed in accepted PR journals, what wikipedia accepts as the gold standard of sources, so if you are planning to go down that road - I'd think on, it's likely to get a sharp response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have just read some brief information on Dr Nigel Copsey, im still rather concerned that someone who makes a profit from writing books on this subject is considered neutral and everything he writes must be correct. Should we take the fact there are writers like Alex Jones as serious sources and start labelling orgaanisations ideology based on his point of view on the new world order? Please provide the other sources mentioned on this issue. At the moment we simply have two different sources which get used twice. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:V, by definition people make money from publishing material (though academics make very little from their publications' sales) and we must refer to published material. We wouldn't use Alex Jones because he doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals, hold an academic post, attend academic conferences or be a member of academic societies, all of which scrutinise their members work. Further, we take the weighting of a source based on the published consensus, thus currently we have no reliable, third party pubished sources that state the BNP aren't fascist, and one peer reviewed, redcent source, which says it has, and which cites (and is in turn cited by) other articles that maintain the same.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually we have two - my second link is to a different peer reviewed article by a different author. This was a two minute search on my part, if people are that interested I can find an hour tomorrow to have a proper look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"makes a profit" I'm sure any other current or former academics will join me in a quick chuckle at the idea of "making a profit" off dry academic readers. The last book I wrote, (which was fairly successful, If I do say so myself), It worked out at about 97p an hour. Seriously you are barking up the wrong tree - it's a combination of factors - Accepted Academic = yes, Cited as an expert in this area = yes, published in reliable mainstream academic sources = yes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" I am sorry but i still dont consider the current sources to meet that required standard. I dont have a problem with them being described as fascist throughout the article, as i said before i believe if they came to power they would be a fascist regime. I just dont like the way a couple of sources are acceptable enough to justify declaring a parties ideology as something, especially as they deny the claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Where are we going to go with this? If I provide twenty peer reviewed academic sources - are you going to ask for 30? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably yes, i do not think its right for 3rd parties to label an organisations ideology when it is clearly up for debate and does depend on ones point of view and the actual definition of the term. Considering at the moment wikipedias definition of fascist doesnt define the BNP. Im not the one starting the debates demanding change on this matter, im just stating my point of view as i think this should be more balanced. Changing the sources to some more up to date ones (after 2000) would certainly remove some of the criticism of its inclusion but i would rather remove it and avoid all the different people that come here questioning the ideology list so people can worry about the rest of the article which has problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
i do not think its right for 3rd parties to label an organisations ideology - that's the core of what we do here, if you don't like that you are in the wrong place - independent actor X makes an analysis of subject Y, we assess the value of that analysis and how it should be used and we report that analysis. That's the start and end of it. So clearly we wouldn't say "The BNP is a fascist party", we'd say "Academics studying right-wing extremism argue that the organisation is still fascist and has strategically masked its core ideology behind the deployment of ‘moderate’ language" - gosh look folks, another peer reviewed academic source for you to use and a quote to boot, and it's from 2008! How lucky we are that so many of the top level sources we use here are available to include in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Then please add them and remove the out of date ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Only you claim that the old sources are out of date. What the sources do show is that, according to academic opinion, the BNP was and is a fascist party, and that that assessment has been stable for more than a decade. There is no need to flood the article with references, but I would suggest to keep 2 or 3, including one of the older books, and an newer academic reference. I think the Copsey one on the evolution is particularly suitable, and it's easily verifiable online with a proper library subscription or a small fee. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Im not the only one questioning the use of the term fascist in the ideology list of their info box. There are many comments by different people above that disagree with such use of the term. Im sure those that dont think it should be described as such would also view such information as out of date. You dont have to flood the article with sources, however i would of thought even those that strongly believe the term is justified would understand that the most up to date and easily verifiable sources are clearly more important than 3 from before or within a year of Nick Griffin taking over and one that can only be viewed with membership to a site. As a source mentioned above used to justify the term fascist shows, the BNP have tried to change their image in recent years. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point, but what we are discussing here isn't an exceptional claim - it is not exceptional that parties have ideologies, it's not outlandish that they might be fascist, everyone accepts they *were* (at teh very least) fascist, and so it doesn't demand truly otustanding references to prove it (incidentally, Copsey's 2007 article is that sort of gold dust, an article directly related to assessing whether the BNP is fascist (rather than assuming it, or asserting it out of hand) that we could only dream of on otehr articles, it is a very high quality source. It is the quality of the soruce that amtters, and its relative weighting within the academic discussion (if a gereat many reliable, third party published sources existed saying the BNP are not fascist, then it *ouwld* be an exceptional claim, to date, though, none have been produced).--Red Deathy (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I had another look this morning, if there is an academic discourse around the BNP being labelled a fascist party, I can't find it. There is an ongoing debate about the use of the words fascist/extreme right - but it's a parallel debate in the literature. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, it is the only party whose infobox does not match the official statements of the party. That is not fair. I am moving fascism from the infobox to the main body. It makes more sense.Eros of Fire (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to make sense to the rest of us, there is no consensus to remove that from the infobox. --Cameron Scott (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
See.... it is the only party whose infobox does not match its official policies. The BZO and Vlaams Belang have similar positions, but they do not get any fascist label in their infobox. You really think that is fair??Eros of Fire (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So if I find the references to add it to those infoboxes - where are we going then? The colour is wrong? it makes the articles bum look big? I came to this uninvolved and became involved in the last couple of days. The consensus here back by policy and multiple reliable sources is that it stays in. If someone can provide some high quality independent sources that dispute the fact that the mainstream academic opinion is that the BNP is a party with a fascist ideology - let's see them because "it's not fair!" isn't an argument that goes anywhere at wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
But the infobox is for official policies, at least it looks like in every single party less the BNP. The references can go in the introduction. Fill the article with the word fascist if you want!!!! I just say it is not fair it is the only party whose ideology in the infobox does not match the official policy. The NPD is by far more extreme and it does not get that label! Tell me... WHY SHOULD IT SPECIFICALLY GO IN THE INFOBOX?Eros of Fire (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's get a few things straight - I don't respond to passive aggressive questioning - if you'd like to ask the question again but this time by not shouting (and typing in all caps is considered shouting on the internet), I might consider answering it but I'm not a dog, so please don't think shouting at me like I am a dog is going to get a response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Eros has ben told before that there is a significant difference in meaning between "policy" and "ideology". I and other editors that say fascism must go in have never said it is BNP policy - it isn't. It's the ideology. Whatever faults other Wiki articles may have is totally irrelevant to this one; it might suit Eros's argument were he to go to the NPD and similar articles and suggest that fascism be added to the infoboxes there. Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eros of Fire on his User page lists the BNP as one of the organisations Eros defines as "white resistance against white extinction." Has the white population of the world declined then? --Streona (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would have see colonialism: Global European population explosion. To decline in colonial powers. Followed by China and India's population explosion for instance. Basic history that is a fairly ignorant comment you have posted Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should also add Western birthrates drop contributing further to a decline. Thats fairly well know. Aswell as increased immigration or better known as mass immigration. Also this an article titled "Whites outnumbered in a generation as immigrants change face of US" So it is something that has been covered by the mainstream media (for all of you who need a Multicult stamp of approval on your information). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4535138.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

HAHA is this discussion a joke? Users Streona and Emeraude have every right to edit this article because everyone is equal on wikipedia and we are not fascist, no matter what their opinions are. Also Eros of Fire, you might want to clarify their opinions as I'm sure your wrong. As long as they edit the article by following WP:V, WP:R and WP:NPOV they can edit. Also I would like to see some proof that they are violating these policies before we discuss if they should be banned Ijanderson (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So if the white population is in decline due to falling birth rates in what way is the British National Party likely to make any significant contribution ? I would have thought lager-swilling oafs were probably going to restrict their own reproductive potential rather than promote the genesis of hordes of Fascist mini-mes. Perhaps thats how evolution works. That said, I have nothing against the rest of the white population reproducing. Some of my best friends- including my parents and most of my family - are white and none of them have ever felt the need to join the BNP.--Streona (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Intermarriage is also a big cause of a declining white population. And I'd like to see a source for your assertion that BNP supporters consume more alcohol than supporters of other ideologies - I'd be happy to guess that they use less illegal drugs however. In any case - [6] notes that "The results of research studies are conflicting and have shown both positive and negative effects of alcohol on fertility and fecundity".--MartinUK (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but every act of miscegenation (which results in procreation)will self-evidently result in an equal diminution of one other race at the same time. As for alcohol and fecundity I was thinking partially of former BNP councillor Luke Smith, whose details have unfortunately been deleted from the article, who after getting drunk and bottling a senior BNP colleague at one of their RWB festivals went on to hang himself in front of an Indian restaurant, thus depriving the white race of his potential progeny. Point is how are the BNP relevant to reversing a declining birth-rate? There is insufficient love in the World, Martin and I think this may be the crux of our problems.--Streona (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This has gone a bit off-topic, but - most countries with a white majority have increasing non-white communities and increasing intermarriage. No countries with a non-white majority have significant or growing white communities, and very few have any sizeable ethnic minorities at all. If things continue on their current trajectory the number of white people will continue to drop.

As for the birth rate, I think their ideas include: increasing the number of jobs available, thus helping people to feel economically secure enough to raise children; providing financial incentives to raise children, and raise them well; promoting the family unit, thus increasing the percentage of the current generation who can contribute positively to the next one; discouraging intermarriage--MartinUK (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis had a breeding program too called Lebensborn. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And the topic was...?"--Streona (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats how you'd expect a normal country to behave MartinUK. Well, thats how all western countries used to behave.

Streona you'd have to clarify your last comments relevance to MartinUK's comment i am afraid it doesn't make sense on its own. Martin made no mention of breeding. I'd also refer you to Godwin's law also Reductio ad Hitlerum

The bit about the Nazis breeding camp was by me, forgot to sign it. The things said about trying to increase the white population sounded alot like Hitlers sort of policies to me. It was meant as a joke although i wouldnt be surprised if the BNP wanted to do something similar :) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone talked about the BNP supporters names going on the internet? Jim Hanratty (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's covered in the article if you read it and was discussed here (probably now in archive). Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to add a bit to that leaked Members list section. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-named-on-bnp-list-back-at-work-1520016.html two people on the list have now been cleared and returned to work. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reference to Godwin's Law (yet again) but I am not sure of the relevance, The topic at the head of the paragraph is whether of not Emeraude and I should be allowed to edit wikipedia. I suggest that the person who queries this has a racist agenda since s/he says so on their user page and their name is suggestive of a KKK symbol.I have not, in this section mentioned Hitler or Nazis but in a discussion as to whther or not an organisation is the intellectual (in the loosest sense) heir of Hitler, Godwin's Law is hardly applicable is it? Likewise any discussion of, say the SS, is going to have innumerable reductiones ad Hitlerae in it due to the subject matter.--Streona (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh streona Britishwatch cleared that up a few comments ago its ^ up there. I'm amazed you manage to fit the KKK, Nazi, hitler, SS into one paragraph and have impressed me with your incoherant argument. Perhaps this is is why people think you shouldn't edit this article and don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, if you are going to refer to previously stated four things ad nauseam.

Again I'd refer you to both the Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum article perhaps you should read them.

You'll have to explain the bit about an Eros of fire being suggestive of a KKK symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe a Cross of Fire is a KKK symbol. I have not introduced the Nazi reference here anyway, but you can read the wiki article on Godwin's Law, wherein it says "The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable." Obviously it will be more probable in a discussion about Fascism or alleged Fascism than in a discussion about bird watching. Now forgive me for taking this a tad personally but the topic ar the top of this increasingly futile (and it started off futile)paragraph was upon the question as to whether or not Emeraude and I should be censored by someone who is a self-confessed white-racialist. Now you say that I am not supposed to even have an opinion on that either. You can see where this is going in the Reductio ad Godwin department can't you? Because that's just what Hitler would have done. (You see what I've done there?)Or Nick Griffin in expelling "Ramblin'Sid Rumpo" Colin Auty from the BNP for opposing him in an internal party"election".--Streona (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to inform you that an Eros especially the Eros that the user was referring to is a Heart with an arrow going through it and I believe it is related to Greek myth. As you can see on the user's page. The user's page was devoted to fantasy and Greek mythos wiki. It is not as you say a burning cross symbolic of the KKK.
At a certain date this user changed his/her page to reflect his/her views which seem to correspond with the dicussion on this page getting heated. I'd have to say you probaley just witnessed a individual being radicalized by your opinions. You see it may seem perfectly normal for you to say things like British people don't exist or to constantly refer to white Brits with racist language and think nothing of it. But some People would regard it as vilification or at least racist and insulting.
I refer you to Godwins law and the reductio ad hitlerum because Godwins law is the tendency for discussion to break down into talking about Nazis and Hitler its the common denominator sort of stuff because a person lacks significant knowledge of other regimes or history. They are unable to express their point of view in an intelligent way. This is where you get the absolutely absurd recent situation of your Antifascist friends calling jews Nazi.
I also refer you to the reductio ad hitlerum because of the slippery slope affect for instance of making vague connection to two groups and then suddenly concluding the current group is a genocidal totalitarian regime which is what a person does when he insinuates that a group are Nazi's. An example " The nazi's had cars. BNP members have cars. They must be polluting the planet (and thinking of commiting mass murder aswell)" ignorant of the fact that many people connected to green groups may use cars. Just an example. Maybe not the best.
Further more I'd like to say your arguement of an SS page in logically wrong. The BNP are not Nazi's, SS, etc they are the BNP so you'd expect discussion to revolve around them. You would hardly expect discussion on the SS page to be about the BNP. Likewise the British are not Germans or specifically ww2 Germans. They aren't destined if the BNP come to power to make the mistakes of a different people. Unless you are lumping the two people and nations into one "White" group and assume because one is white like the other they will do the same thing.
And i did laugh when you started up the reductio ad hitlerum yet again. I've read through the archives. You do it alot.

The state that the BNP would create if they gained power would be Nazi but would be called something else - such as "British Democracy". This is implicit in their policies. They find it convenient to disguise this for political opportunism but it does not alter the objectve position. The BNP "discourage" inter-racial marriages. They attribute all the nation's problems to a particular ethnic minority -presently "Muslims". They would "encourage" ethnic minorities to leave the country and those that did not would be denied any benefits or social housing - or jobs. Where would they live? In Camps? If people fought back -as they would - the BNP government could declare a "state of emergency" suspending all democratic rights. The Nazis claimed that the concentration camps were humanely run - no doubt many BNP members still claim to believe this. The racial nation state would be glorified. Dissent within the BNP is interpreted as treachery.These similarities with the policies are not examples of a logical fallacy - they are examples of similar policies in the same way that Arsenal are similar to Spurs not because they drive cars but because they are football teams. Don't worry though - it ain't never going to happen.--Streona (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Collected references for people to sort and add as they see fit

For easy of reading, I've had a look at the sources discussed above and collated them here.


  • "Academics studying right-wing extremism argue that the organisation is still fascist and has strategically masked its core ideology behind the deployment of ‘moderate’ language" [3]
  • Article describing the party as neo-fascist [4]
  • "The neo-Nazi grimace continues to peer out menacingly from under the party’s telegenic neo-populist mask for anyone who takes the trouble to look closely" [5]
  • The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections. [6]
  • "Griffin's ideological revamp underpins the party's normalization in the eyes of the thousands of Britons who vote for it, making it even more difficult to pin the 'fascist' or 'Nazi' label on the well-groomed bespoke suits of Britain's latest generation of neo-fascist extremists." [7]
  • "First, there are neo-fascist parties such as Forza Nuova and Movimento Sociale Fiamma Tricolori in Italy, the German People’s Union (Deutsche Volksunion, DVU) and the British National Party which espouse fascist or neo-fascist ideology." [8]
  • "The threat of neo-fascist political groups such as the British National Party (BNP) or the National Front (NF) marching into Bradford sparked fury" [9]


  1. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5186806.ece
  2. ^ http://bnp.org.uk/2008/11/membership-list-leak-%e2%80%93-urgent-update-from-bnp-leader-nick-griffin/
  3. ^ Wood, C (December 2008). "British National Party representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition". British Journal of Social Psychology. 47 (4). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjsp/2008/00000047/00000004/art00009. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |location= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  4. ^ Hino, Ario (2007-04-01). "The Extreme Right in Western Europe: Success or Failure?". Acta Politica. 42 (1). http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/pal/ap/2007/00000042/00000001/art00008: Palgrave Macmillan: 110-114(5). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |location= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  5. ^ Griffin, Roger (2005). "Changing rooms? Review of Nigel Copsey, Contemporary British Fascism: The British National Party and the quest for legitimacy". Patterns of Prejudice (39): 75–77.
  6. ^ Renton, David (2005-03-01). "'A day to make history'? The 2004 elections and the British National Party". Patterns of Prejudice. 1 (39). http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713722453. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |location= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  7. ^ Copsey, N (2007). "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006". Patterns of Prejudice. 41 (1). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  8. ^ Zaslove, Andrej (2007-01-03). "Alpine Populism, Padania and Beyond: a Response to Duncan McDonnell". Politics. 27 (1). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  9. ^ Yasmin, Hussain (2005). "Citizenship, Ethnicity and Identity". Sociology. 39 (3). http://soc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/3/407: 407–425. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |location= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

The BBC and the BNP

The BNP estimates that it has 100 councillors, the BBC estimates only 56. It is a sad reflection on Britain in 2009 that most people would now believe the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.197.233 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think more people would believe the BBC than the BNP, however its a sad reflection of the country that there is not a single clear list of how many councillors every single party or group has. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that the BNP claims it has 100 councillors. Before the 2007 local elections it had said that it hoped to double its number of councillors to around 100, but only gained one extra. There were a number of losses subsequently (resigned, disqualified, changed party etc) so the number was probably considerably below 50 for the 2008 local elections. The Wiki article United Kingdom local elections, 2008 says that the BNP gained 10 councillors, making a new total of 37. So the BBC figure is also suspect or, most likely, an old source. Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Found the BBC source here, from 4 May 2008. What it actually says is "The BBC estimates that as of the May 2008 elections outcome, the party has seen 56 councillors elected - however thanks to differing interpretations of defections, splits and at least one exclusion, it's rather difficult to come up with an exact figure." Note what I have marked in bold: I take this to mean that there had been 56 over the years, not 56 at any one time. If I'm right, then the second sentence in the article needs to be changed. Emeraude (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This source suggests there are 57 sitting BNP councillors - it does acknowledge that its figures could be slightly off, but the total of 57 suggests that the BBC meant 56 as a current figure, not a cumulative historical one. Barnabypage (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps we should just put how they did in that election rather than mentioning the total number of councillors different sources think they have. I dont really think that it deserves a mention in the second sentence. Other party articles dont start out by saying how many councillors they have in the second sentence, it should be further down the article somewhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right about shifting it down. Let's see, though, whether anyone else agrees with my reading of the source. Meanwhile, I'll try to track down some reliable figures from the journals. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-councillors.php this seems like an accurate list although i dont think an attack site is probably a good source to include on the article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I'd describe it as an attack site, but there needs to be a more reliable source as you say. That says 55, dated June 2008 - I'm sure there have been changes since. Incidentally, after the June 2004 elections "twenty-one BNP councillors were elected, a net increase of four." (Danny Reilly: "Review of Contemporary British Fascism: the British National Party and the quest for legitimacy" in Race & Class 2006; 48; 104).Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
How about we remove the bit about the BNP claiming they have 100 and simply put the BNP have around 50 councillors (sourcing the BBC and that hopenothate site) and say the exact number is unclear because of several resignations or suspensions etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've moved the detail from the introduction and placed it further down witout the claims 100 bit. I don't think that's a controversial edit. However, I notice that elsewhere in the article there are other mentions of councillors and local elections that might also benefit from a definite figure. There's also a whole paragraph on the 2006 elections, obviously dated now with local elections being held every year. Emeraude (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very ironic who you BNP supporters say you support freedom of speech, and yet you want to ban people you don't agree with you from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.255.104 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it? People are blocked on every other article on wikipedia. Numerous people are banned, blocked and censored. For things like "sock pupperty" or being vexatious or vandalising articles. Also benefiting or having personal interest in editing an article or displaying an extremely biased POV. Sometimes simply because of their opinion. I'd say your comment is ironic Also how do you know they are BNP supporters.

It's not ironic to want to ban people if you are a fascist.--Streona (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-semitism, the tone of the article

I've just come to this article by accident, and it feels really lop-sided to me, especially in the heading paragraphs. The BNP is not best known as an anti-semitic party, and I've never, ever, heard this referred to in public or on the TV. It might be true, but the heavy loading of this one issue unbalances the whole article. The focus of the BNP is and always has been on opposition to immigration; that's what it campaigns on, that's what it is attacked for. It's unfair to portray them in terms which few ordinary people would recognise from TV coverage, surely? The article should present the party calmly, and in terms that members would consider fair, as well as the rest of us. I'll make some edits, but it sounds as if an edit war is in progress and they may be reverted.

One other point... I know some people hate the BNP with an extraordinary passion that (in honesty) I don't quite understand. Political hate is a nasty business, whoever the victim is. But ... this article needs to have the tone of an encyclopedia, not a diatribe. It feels too much like that latter at the moment. It is good that statements are referenced; but that's not enough by itself. I know someone will probably scream at me, but please don't. I don't care about the subject of the article. I do care that it's fair and reasonable. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger i agree. I am one of those people who hate the BNP with a passion because they would destroy this country if they came to power, but this article is biased and clearly pushing a negative point of view against them, which i do have a problem with as it should be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that; I wrote somewhat nervously, as I don't really want to start a fight. I'm a non-combatant on this one, myself, only came across the article by mis-clicking in google, thought "yuk!" and then thought "hang on... I don't recognise the BNP that I see on TV in all this."
Now I've been looking at the article, and I think I see a problem which might be addressed simply. Imagine that you or I came from Mars, and wanted to know about the BNP, as it saw itself. We would learn very little from this page, I think; only the opinions of those opposed to it. This conceals the subject. Imagine if we went to the page on the UK parliament and it consisted mainly of a list of frauds perpetrated by sitting MP's, with the constant insinuation that the institution was worthless (although, on reflection, that might be a useful, if long, page!!) That's what we have at the moment. Most of it has to go somewhere more appropriate, as we can't sensibly add balancing material.
The page is also far too long to be read, and much of it consists of smears (true or false). There are lots of personal attacks on Nick Griffin (and indeed other figures) which may not belong here. Do we have an article on him? -- If so, they belong there, surely (with a link).
What we need, I think, is a page for "Criticisms of the BNP." This would allow us to put much of the page content -- which is plainly derived from anti-BNP literature -- where it is appropriate to have all this detail, and indeed as much as we like (subject to the law of libel). There would then be a short section in this page with the same title, and a link to the long detailed page. As it stands, the same stuff appears in several sections, which is always a bit of a giveaway.
We probably need several sub-pages, actually. Perhaps we should pattern this one along the lines of the pages for all the UK politial parties. Pick whichever party we like most, and follow that pattern, perhaps?
These are just my proposals, and I'd welcome some feedback. I won't do anything much for a day or two, and let's see what people think. We've got to break this up, because of length, anyway. It's truly horrible to edit this page, at the moment. (I bet all the edits are happening on the summary!!!) Anyone like to offer suggestions on how? Let's have some suggestions, and work something out. It's probably a multi-pass effort anyway. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just seen the Peer review of this article; points made look sound to me, especially the one about too much in header. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is now officially pro-BNP viewpoint, and needs amending back to an accurate, sourced, neutral version.

Previous:

The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right and whites-only political party in the United Kingdom.

New:

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

They are whites only by their own admission, why has this been removed? It is not described as far-right by its opponents, it is described as far right by every mainstream source going, to suggest it is only their opponents view is advancing the BNP's fringe view that they are not far right.

Previous:

It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation

Why has this been removed?

Previous:

The BNP is rebuked and ostracized by mainstream politicians, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair, and current Labour Party Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

New:

The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians and TV and mass media journalists of all other parties.

Does. Not. Make. Sense. Also it is more relevant to show that the leaders of all three major parties criticise the BNP, not remove their names.

Addition:

Some press comment at the time displayed unease with the idea of prosecuting the leader of a legal political party for statements made in private, and they were in the end acquitted. It is thought that the BNP has been heavily penetrated by the British police and intelligence services.

Other than the acquittal, which was covered in the previous version, get that unsourced crap out of the article.

Previous:

Examples of more direct action against the BNP include obstruction of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.

New:

Members of the BNP have also complained of intimidation and violence. BNP events are routinely met with counter demonstrations, which often become violent. Examples of this "direct action" against the BNP include obstruction and initimidation of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.

The Scotsman source already cited does not support the new text, quite the opposite. It confirms that a stall was blockaded, but the BNP regarded the blockade as "friendly banter". So get rid of the unsourced pro-BNP crap, and back to the previous version please.

This editor needs to be watched carefully, those edits are clearly pro-BNP not NPOV. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. You ask why I removed various things from the leader paragraph. Many of them were true, but... we have to get that paragraph down to something short, to the point, and representative. That's good editing, whatever the subject. The same items are mostly in the body, I think, so I felt able to shorten here. I don't myself care much what Gordon and call-me-Dave agree on; the agreement is much wider than this, and includes *everyone*. Doesn't it? Brevity, you know, so I said "everyone".
I reworded "far right" because it is a PoV (it may be true, but it is not their own view of themselves, thus controversial), and not a neutral term. The term is used widely, tho; thus I indicated who uses it.
"The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians and TV and mass media journalists of all other parties." OK, I'll have another go. Let me know what you think.
You also complain that I mentioned that the BNP is the target of intimdation. Is this disputed? I thought that "direct action" and "anti-racist work" were well understood to mean this, and therefore there was weasel-wording here which I tried to get around. I didn't check the existing ref (there are so many) -- will do and reword, then. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
About "far-right", we've been through this a 100 times - multiple gold-plated (peer reviewed articles) reliable sources describe them as "far-right", that's all we are interested in. Wikipedia is based on verification not truth, so if multiple reliable sources describe object X as Y, then that's what we stated with adding weasel phrases such as "some people feel". If you can provide multiple reliable mainstream sources that state that the BNP is not a part of the far-right - let's see them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. But... if you have had to discuss it 100 times, that surely tells us that this is PoV? Let's not do this. The BNP doesn't identify itself in such terms; its enemies so describe it. That's fact; 10,000 claims by its foes are not "reliable references" on a matter of opinion. It is certainly a far-right party; that is not the issue. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We've been through it a 100 times because we get new editors who don't understand what NPOV means and how we apply it to articles. The top level of reliable sources here - that of peer reviewed grade A academic journals describe them as far-right, so that's how we describe them. Our own views on this would be original research. If you can find mainstream academic journals who disagree with that perspective, please provide them here so we can discuss them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I do not find in the NPOV policy the statement that the political views of academics should be treated as NPOV. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I can only agree the article has been edited to add weasel words and phrases and to try hide unpleasant (but NPOV) facts.--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Whlst i agree with Roger the article is currently biased i agree the current changes have pushed it into the wrong direction and made it biased in favour of the BNP. It must be neutral and if the fact its a white only party is clearly sourced it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph and i agree with some of the other concerns raised about the changes.
This article is about the BNP not about what sort of image they try to put out through their media broadcasts. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but the problem at the moment is the quantity of anti-BNP polemic in the article. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You feel it's anti-BNP polemic to mention in the lead that it's the only majority UK party to allow party membership on the basis of race? That's seems an obvious and important fact for a lead to mention. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that. The article contains endless polemic, I said; do you dispute that? The reason why that particular statement shouldn't go in the header is that there isn't room for all the "obvious and important fact"s in the header. It has to contain a few key points, and that isn't one of them. Indeed I'd never even heard of it before I came to this article.
Well I disagree (and it seems others do) the fact that it's white-only makes it unique in British politics apart from parties like the national front. It certainly makes it unique as a mainstream party. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed it totally belongs in the opening sentence - http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ they say they only have white membership so it is clearly accurate, id like that link added as a ref too if others agree. Nothing better than hearing it from the horses mouth as they say. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"the whites-only British National Party", "the BNP should remain an all-white party" (amongst other quotes), "we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members" were already at the end of the sentence. The BNP's whites only membership policy is one of their key defining features, it has to be in the introduction. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sugestion

Given that the arguement over the BNP aparently being a fascist movement. I suggest (again) that it be put in brakets 'Denied by BNP' OR 'disputed' with a link to this wikipedia article that argues over the definitions of fascism. I think this would be fair and make this article look a little less biass (which it very much is).

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.21.230 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See archive for discussion of this point ad nauseam - it has been rejected time and again for very good and valid reasons. To summarise: the infobox is the place is to give brief data; any debate over that data belongs in the article. The "Fascism" tag is clearly and reliably referenced. There are no references that the BNP is not fascist, despite repeated requests. What the BNP says about itself is not reliable in this sense and would be blatant POV. The BNP saying it is not fascist equates to a criminal pleading guilty; we would not put "Murderer (denied by XXXX)". Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah right Emmurald the last time this article had a peer review fascism was removed, but you put it back on calling those who say they aren't fascists 'BNP appolgists' It wasn't rejected, but only stopped, by you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask the few who can edit this article to add a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? As a glance at this discussion alone shows it most certainly is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.70.151 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please could you give suggestions on how to improve the article and make it more neutral. I agree this article isnt neutral, but i am struggling to see what could be done to improve it apart from deleting everything and starting again. Make the suggestions and if they are valid they can be included, and if someone refused to allow it to be added we can stick the disputed sign up. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


We can't though, the moment we dare hange it Emmeruld will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Make a suggestion about the general content (not how its described in the info box) and we will see if theres any support. If its a valid suggestion im sure Emmeruld wont block the alteration, this article is in major need of a cleanup so any improvements should be welcomed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what the anonymous rants above refer to, but seeing as I have been personally attacked let's be clear about a few things: The citations attesting to the BNP's fascism are cast iron and there are no references - despite repeated requests - to the contrary!! None!! So the description stays until some reliable sources say otherwise, regardless of any opinions given in peer reviews. Incidentally, once again please read what I wrote: I categorically did NOT describe people who oppose the use of "fascism" as "BNP apologists". What I wrote was that sources for a change in BNP ideology "have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed" (see Archive 11). If you can't read what I wrote, and refuse to understand it, then you are hardly capable of engaging in meaningful debate. As to the peer review, which was conducted by Ruhrfisch and posted on 22 September 2008, he nowhere even mentions "fascism"; nor did he remove it. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to BritishWatcher, I agree that there is scope for improving this article. At the moment, many sections are unnecessarily long (e.g. BNP difficulties with employment), rambling and of dubious significance. Funnily enough, the main reason seems to be that editors have gone too far out of their way to be "fair" to the BNP, resulting in far too much detail being included. My own position is clear: I am opposed to the BNP because of its fascist nature and I make no secret of this. I'm not an activist though; I don't even always vote. I am concerned that all articles in Wikipedia are accurate and even-handed. As a graduate and one-time teacher of political science I am fully aware of the nature of bias, which is partly why I have never added or removed substantive content to this article: most of my edits have been removal of mindless vandalism, updating or finding of references, removal of unreferenced claims, copyediting to improve readability, punctuation, garmmar, etc.. I will support all suggested edits to improve the article that have genuine consensus, backed up with reliable sources, and my history in this page supports that. There have been efforts to do so in the past, but they have come to nothing because the "BNP apologists" always seem to leave the debate when they see what a consensus looks like! Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Emeraude, you must then agree that this article needs a, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? A look at this discussion shows it definately is disputed. Please add this now, Britwatcher, in the name of even handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.146.148 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I don't agree. I don't see anything in the article that can be disputed from a "neutrality" viewpoint. My point is to do with the quality of the article, which I have said suffers because a previous excessive attempt to make it appear neutral. Quite simply, the article is too long in many sections but earlier attempts to address this (see archives passim) have been resisted by people objecting that removing text would cast the BNP in a less sympathetic light; others have added whole chunks (e.g. to employment, policies and other sections) with the same laudable but unnecessary intent.Emeraude (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I would ask is to add (denied by BNP) to the Fascist part of the infobox. That is all. That should make it neutral. Eros of Fire (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That's been suggested before and rejected. The function of an infobox is to provide brief, succinct info. The denial or debate belongs quite correcetly in the article.Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Even if the liberal-controlled MSM say otherwise, FASCISM IS NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE PARTY AND THAT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR!!!! Please stop pushing agendas in wikipedia.Eros of Fire (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. Fascism is not the official policy of the party. It is its ideology and is listed as such. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain "HOW" it is its ideology, please?Eros of Fire (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I can, but I won't. If you want to know why the BNP's ideology is fascist you only have to follow the references that are cited. It is not my job to explain them to you. Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
ummm a couple of problems with the actual sources currently listed. 3 are books which we should not be expected to go out and buy or look at in a library. If those are the dates they were written (1996, 1999 and 2000), then all 3 are out of date, two must of been written before Nick Griffin took power, and one less than a year later. Which just leaves source number 10 from 2007, which appears to require membership to view and sounds like it costs money BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Complete and utter nonsense. The sources are all valid; when Griffin took over is totally irrelevant; the sources are still cited by later writers; they are all available. And if you're too ignorant to go to a library or bookshop........!!! Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And if you really need something newer, how about "The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." (Source: DAVID RENTON "‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party" in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005 p26) But you'll have to go to a library to check that as well. Emeraude (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions on how this article can be neutral -assuming that it isn't - that do not involve whether or not it has a Fascism tag? I have not seen any yet. Maybe that's because it is already neutral, but that as a result some people do not like what they see i.e. that the BNP is a very nasty organisation with ends and goals that are morally unacceptable to people who do not see non-white people as inferior or with any less rights in the UK as those with the same skin colour as the BNP membership.--Streona (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You both have expressed a deep hatred toward this party, and I think you should not be allowed to edit this article. YOU CLEARLY ARE PUSHING POV!!! YOU JUST HATE THIS PARTY! GET OVER THAT!Eros of Fire (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I too despise the BNP and everything it stands for, i have made that very clear. However i do think this article is biased against them which is clearly wrong. The trouble is i dont know how it could be improved at all because as said by Streona its simply telling the truth. Eros please make suggestions on how to improve the article if you think they are pushing their POV. Apart from the fascist issue which i still think should be removed, especially as most of the sources are outdated and by non neutral sources i cant see anything thats inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How can you say that? You have admitted above that you have read none of the sources and implied that you won't, but on this evidence you are able to claim that the references are outdated and by non-neutral sources!! Unbelievable!! Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have not read any of those books and i certainly do not intend to. However for you to simply dismiss the fact some of these are out of date and one unavailable shows there is a problem. Please can you give me a link to the author / authors of these books so i can read about the people just so i am reading about the correct person. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The BNP are not necessarily Fascist, there just racists that enjoy judging people on the colour of there skin. There mostly small minded and petty, many are prone to acts of violence and most are rather unintelligent persons. It is no wonder most people in the army are BNP thugs. Why don't we include that in the article eh? (Eros of fire you have no right to go around on this talk page telling other people there way of thinking is wrong while at the same time defending you own opinions from attack. Your a hypocrite).Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Go drop dead, I do not care about that. THE ONLY hypocrital PEOPLE I KNOW ARE THE LIBERALS LIKE YOU. I am not pushing my POV, I am just requiring the Fascism label to be removed from the infobox. That is hypocrital for you?Eros of Fire (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


NPOV

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

Use of the term fascist is reliably sourced, i agree this page is hardly neutral but its like trying to paint the Nazis in WW2 as the good guys. If you can make suggestions on how to improve the article to make it seem fairer, u should suggest it here and see if theres an agreement. There is only 1 possible thing i could think might be added as a good thing for the BNP and thats their support for allowing the Ghurkas to get British citizenship and stay in this country. Im sure Griffin has said he supports that, but i cant find their actual policy committment on it, otherwise i would of added it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Use of the term fascist is, as BritishWatcher says, reliably sourced. But we need to get away from any suggestion that you can only be fascist if you say you are fascist. What next? You can only be a war criminal if you say you're a war criminal? You can only be racist if you say you're racist? You can only be tall if you say you're tall? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Things are described as they are, not as the subjects would wish them to be seen! Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is completely stupid. A war criminal is a war criminal because of what they did; someone who is tall is "tall" because that is what we call that size. Someone is a "fascist" because we choose to use a historical reference - and often do so because it elicits a certain, programmed response that is attributable not to the BNP or anything the party has done, but to the things from the past which were conjured up. And how do they apply to the present? Does the BNP want to disband the parliamentary system, and appoint their leader as Führer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The entire BNP article by wikipedia is and example of falsely categorizing an organization by using selective extreme examples without any balance,  for instance the BNP has currently 63 candidates for the European Parliament.  Did wilkipedia or the rather the leftist who write for it and who have established its rules  do a comprehensive interviews on those 63 before and gain a spectrum of their views , attempt  to catogorize those views and address the party as say " currently amongst the    BNP political candidates for the European Parlaiment x percentage have the view of thus and y percentage feel this way and z percentage express this view", NO they cherry pick the worst examples of extremism they can find, over a twenty year period including non BNP members and those who were removed for extremism  and present it in the worst light.Then they use the term far right??   A political party that is going to nationalize the banks and the public transport system and Improve funding for the National Heath system and stop development on green belts  can be called several things, but one of them is NOT "far right".  They also want to re establish the right of free speech in the UK.. You could label them Nationalist   In the US they would be called socialist or left center   but far right is unfair.Then you try to smear the leadership by presenting something Griffin said eleven years ago all the while insinuating dark motives behind the statement and refusing to use more current material to give balance.  I will give you an example they represent Nick Griffin view as published in the Rune in 98 as an example of how he feels now but fail to print ANY of the many subsequent articles in which Mr Griffin has explained his views then and now  Also his 98 conviction for publishing material likely to incite racial violence is a monument not to Griffins venality but to communist style censorship of free speech and the laws that made that conviction possible in the UK over something as trivial as an uncaptioned cartoon are widely condemned by civil libertarians all over the globe.  I will note you did not mention any of that in your so called unbiased article. I dare you to present that ENTIRE case complete for public scrutiny now.  You won't because people would see what a bunch of anti free speech facsists You people at wikipedia are!!  The whole WIKIpedia publication IS AS ONE SIDED AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT AND ESCAPE ACTION FOR LIABLE.    You are a bunch of socialist Globalists masquerading as objective writers while publishing propoganda. and unlike you I am not afraid to sign my name  John Bambey  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.255.137 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)<!
The problem here is that "fascist" is a potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory term, so it can be used to push agendas (in this case, the liberal one), breaking the NPOV. For a true fascist party, see National Front. They accept they are fascist. The BNP itself denies they are fascist, I read it somewhere in the official web site, I will put a link when a find it.Eros of Fire (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Just about any word you use is "potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory", but so what? If I say that William the Conqueror was a bastard, I am not being insulting. If I say that Margaret Thatcher was a fascist bastard, I'm wrong on both counts. I repeat, this is an encyclopaedia; we are grown-up enough to use words accurately and precisely with their real meaning, and backed up from reliable academic sources. Incidentally, I don't think you'll find that the NF accepts (publicly) that it's fascist. And there's no need to link the BNP's denial; it's already mentioned in the article. Emeraude (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
To quote from Wikipedia's own article "Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race." The BNP is pro-democracy, and Griffin has never talked about making himself dictator of the U.K., and it's next to impossible any member of the BNP would go for it. "Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of social Darwinist and militarist views that violence between these groups is natural and a part of evolution and a perpetual conflict." The BNP is the only party in the U.K. that is against it's involvement in Iraq. They also do not support violence against other races (I'll try to find a link later, but I remember reading about how racial conflict actually dropped in certain areas where the BNP got elected... pretty sure it was Stoke on Trent, but I'll need to double check), their main policy regarding non-ethnic European immigrants being voluntary reparation. In other words, according to Wikipedia itself, the BNP is not fascist. The supposed sources of the BNP being fascist are either blatantly false or laughably biased to the point of absurdity (I'm looking at you, UAF). I looked through the footnotes and couldn't find a single link to any reputable (see: non-biased third party sources) that made a convincing well researched/documented argument that the BNP was fascist. I'm new to Wikipedia, so if anyone wants to tell me about references that aren't in the footnotes I'd be happy to look at those as well. Until then, the fascism label needs to be removed - immediately (I'd do it myself but I'm not auto-confirmed yet). --LeGooberman007 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
References 7-14 are used for the Fascist tag - those are all peer-reviewed journals/books by established academics who printing in mainstream academic journals of note. Can you please outline what is wrong *specifically* with each of those references? In terms of sourcing for wikipedia, peer reviewed mainstream academic journals are considered the highest level of sourcing. Can you outline why you don't consider those sources to be reputable?--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Reference 7 - Unable to view, even after signing up on the site. A quick look at the abstract seems to say it has to do with the BNP's vote share in the 2004 elections, not whether or not the BNP is fascist. Links for references 11 and 13 are broken and 14 has nothing to do with the BNP supposedly being fascist(indeed, 14 actually seems to show that the current government of the U.K. is fascist, rather than the BNP). The rest either don't have links or come with hefty price tags just to view them. I may be wrong about this, but aren't references supposed to be easily viewable? --LeGooberman007 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
sorry I meant 7-13. As for your other question, They have to be accessible by *someone* - while it would be nice that academic journals were open access it doesn't look like it's going to happen soon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As for the broken links - something odd with the wikicode on this page, no matter how many times I correct the links, random characters are being inserted at the end of the links. Anyone know what's causing it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
So we're just supposed to take it on faith that the person who sourced them isn't posting completely biased non-objective crap passed off as "academic research?" Especially if they know the rest of us don't have access to said articles. Seems a bit stupid to me, even if it's in a "mainstream" academic journal that doesn't mean it's without fault, especially when it comes to politics. It's quite easy to show how the BNP isn't fascist, but I have yet to see one iota of proof that it is. About the only thing that would lean towards fascism is Griffin's decision to enhance the position of party chairman (solidifying his position), and even that can be said to be purely to avoid fractures and splits within the BNP given that it's a relatively fledgling party (in its current state) that's only reached the mainstream recently due to Griffin's reforms. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you can ask people who do have access to check or your can ask the person who added them to cite the material. I actually became involved with this article (I have no particular interest in the BNP) for that very reason, because someone asked me to check the academic journals that were being used to cite the fascist claim. I checked them and in the course of doing so, adding 3 or 4 others that I came across while doing that research. If you can provide mainstream sources that dispute that the BNP is not seen as a fascist organisation, please provide them. I didn't come across any such references while looking into this matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How can I find out who added them? And what happens if/when they are either unavailable or will not cite it? You can't find any "reputable" sources that say they aren't fascist, while I can't seem to find any that do. Once again, I suggest that the fascist label is removed until there is definite proof that the BNP are fascist (the burden of proof being on the people making the claim, not the ones opposing it). Personally, I think the actions of the BNP under Griffin prove they're not fascist, as I can't seem to find a single example of their supposed 'fascist' behavior anywhere. Standing candidates in democratic elections? Peacefully disagreeing with how members of their perfectly legit and legal party are fascistly banned from holding certain jobs (which is illegal and should be challenged, mind you), and trying to get the bans revoked through legal non-violent channels? How... fascist of them. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is you are getting into original research. Wikipedia is about verification *not* truth - so all we do is report what source X said about entity Y. In this situation, there are multiple reliable sources (in this case peer reviewed academic articles) that describe the BNP as fascist. So that's what we do, we report what those reliable sources have said. Our *own* analysis of what we think BNP action X,Y or Z means for the party means nothing here and cannot be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, but once again - how can I get a hold of these articles. I'm not sure how to find out who added them, and even then, if the arguments \in these articles describing the BNP as fascist are faulty (or the authors are proven to be biased), does that even matter? Or is it merely the fact that the BNP is being called fascist by people in mainstream academic journals enough for them to be labeled fascist on Wikipedia? It seems like what you're saying is that if enough "reliable" (who defines reliable?) people say something is true, then Wikipedia will go along with them, regardless of whether or not they're right. Which, quite frankly, would be downright stupid. --LeGooberman007 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a project here that assists with access, I'll try and dig it up for you. As for the Or is it merely the fact that the BNP is being called fascist by people in mainstream academic journals enough for them to be labeled fascist on Wikipedia? - pretty much, yes. If it was a single academic source, then we could argue the toss about it, but once you get into eight or nine. When I went looking, I found with no trouble many more articles that did the same (I didn't see the point of adding them as there were already 7 references to that fact). It seems like what you're saying is that if enough "reliable" (who defines reliable?) people say something is true, then Wikipedia will go along with them, regardless of whether or not they're right. that's is entirely it - which is why I said we deal with verification not truth. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being brutal to the header

Currently reads:

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]
The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.
According to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."[17] The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[18]
The BNP has focused on criticism of Islam, and has said that it does not consider the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions to have a significantly detrimental or threatening effect, although it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[19] The party does however have members with Jewish ancestry. The BNP has been known to work with extremist Hindu and Sikh groups opposing Islam,[20] and has actively tried to win Jewish votes.[21]
The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]
Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

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

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and is currently opposing Islam and trying to recruit Jewish members. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]
The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.
The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]
Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

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

There may be justification for shortening it, but the popular vote must remain in the opening paragraph as must the fact they are a far right party and if its a white only party that information is needed although im still slightly unsure about that claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Easy to source to multiple reliable sources and I will do so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind if we say that it only gets 0.7% of the vote; but remember we have only a few lines, before we violate the whole idea of a summary. I felt this was probably covered by saying that it has no MP's and a few councillors. Do we need more? And... won't any statistic we give just change anyway?
Re "multiple reliable sources" -- can we be careful here. This article is drowning in references to frankly low-grade sources, often from the BNP's enemies. That isn't a "reliable source." One unbiased source is worth a million others. We have too many statements with clusters of reference notes on them; can't these be combined into one reference, with multiple links? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The BNP's "enemies"? What information and what sources are you specifically talking about? Rather than a meaningless vague statement, be specific. I can provide references from virtually every British newspaper describing them as "far right", are they "opponents" or "enemies"? Is there a media conspiracy to paint the BNP in a bad light? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The popular vote is from the 2005 election so will only change every 4 years. As for sources i think for the white only bit we should add this as well http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ It basically says they have a white only policy but it doesnt make them racist. That source ok to be added cameron? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
We have to be careful about those sorts of sources but it should be ok here - in a subject about the article and because it's only making a claim about them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Roger but that suggested introduction is simply too one sided. Whilst the current introduction is long, it is more balanced than that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

If the BNP's coverage in reliable sources is generally negative, then it logically follows that the article will be too. That's the whole point of neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I like Roger's shorter version. I think it is balanced, and is about the right length - the previous one certainly has far too much trivial detail.
I would like to suggest a couple of changes. The "periodically achieved success in local council elections" is a bit vague - perhaps it could be replaced with "has [NUMBER] of local councillors"?
Also the "Currently the BNP is making electoral progress," is time-dependent (meaning the page may go out of date). It's also about something very recent: a slightly longer view of the last few years may be more statistically significant.
On the popular vote issue: I'm not too worried about it being 4 years out of date - it's a small price to pay for an unbiased source, which can be used to compare the size of the BNP with the other small uk political parties. Besides, it can be updated within about a year anyway :) --h2g2bob (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I like some aspects of it. However it leaves out their whites only membership policy, and attempts to portray them as a right wing party unjustly smeared as "far right" by opponents. That is not neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't be if it said that, I agree. I didn't intend that, and didn't think I said it. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"The party is described as far-right by its opponents" may be semi-ambiguous, but the way most people would read it is that they aren't far-right, but their opponents say they are. Their most vociferous opponents describe them as (neo-)Nazi and racist, not far right. I offered you quotes from virtually every mainstream newspaper earlier describing the BNP as "far right", are they all "opponents" of the BNP? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to take your last point first, according to the **Wikipedia article**, yes, they ARE all opponents of the BNP!!!! Everyone is, pretty much; all the politicians, and all the journalists, as far as I can tell.  :-) That's why we need to take special care not to just repeat newspaper slander. But I see your point about phrasing. Um. We do NOT want to say that they are not far-right (we don't want to express any opinion). But since the phrase is a demonisation phrase -- can you think of a context in which it is used as a term of praise? I can't --, it would be better avoided as a statement of fact. Perhaps there is nothing for it than to use it, tho (can't think of alternative wording that avoids both problems). But it is a bad way to introduce the party, because they don't think of themselves like that (unlike Nazis, Mussolini, etc). Roger Pearse (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but no. That's the BNP conspiracy theory version, there's a media conspiracy to only portray the BNP in a negative light, I'm honestly surprised they don't claim it's all ZOG's fault!! There is no way a neutral encyclopedia could possibly assert that every newspaper in the UK is an "opponent" of the BNP. I do not see "far-right" as negative, otherwise "centre-right" and "centre-left" and so forth would also have to seen as negative. I see "far-right" as an accurate statement of the party's politicial position, based on their own policies and actions, as I am sure the multitude of sources using the term do as well. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, I missed the whites-only going missing. That's a pretty important bit that really must be re-added. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with shorting the lead but that's too important to lose. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Bob for your thoughts. If people feel really strong that whites-only is important, put it in. But I never heard of it on the TV, so it's probably not important enough for the header; surely it's sort of implicit in their policies, tho? That is why I chopped it from the leader anyway; stuff that can be considered duplicate has to go. You will have seen today's speech by Peter Hain about how the BNP is making progress (there have been several labour announcements of this sort lately), which was in my mind when I wrote those words about progress. If people will keep the stats up to date, then let's have them. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Roger the BNPs TV broadcasts only say what they want them to say not things which would disturb alot of people. It says they only have white members on their website there for its a very important bit of information and has to be included in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I never watch BNP TV broadcasts. I was thinking of BBC reporting. I just didn't see that something no-one has ever heard of is an item that someone coming new to the subject needs to hear in the first couple of sentences. Obviously others feel differently. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to shorten the lead, this is the paragraph to amend:

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

Everything after "legislation" is just a re-hash of "whites only", and would be better in the main article covering their whites only membership policy in detail". Put the half-sentence remaining at the end of the previous paragraph, assuming it can be sourced? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's all good *data* but not for the leader. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Would someone mind making the change please? I suggest the wording added to the end of the previous paragraph is "It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, including the Race Relations Act sourced by this book and the BNP's manifesto (the second one gives the explicit pledge to repeal the RRA). 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes please make the change to Roger's version, it reads better.--Imminent Fall of Western Civilisation (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Rogers version is unacceptable because it misses out too many points which can not be glossed over or hidden alltogether. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that their stated ambition for an all-white (or at least virtually all-white) Britain should be mentioned. How about:

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

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

The second point is definitely fair enough - how about "The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party in the United Kingdom, of which only white people can be full members". While I think of it, how about a change to "In the late 2000s it has opposed Islam and the wave of Eastern European immigration especially strongly, and actively recruited Jewish members." as this emphasises that they aren't purely whites V everybody else.--MartinUK (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
But why do we want to use "which only white people can be full members" when "white only" is more concise and to the point? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Because they have an Ethnic Liasion Committee (or something similar) and people such as Lawrence Rustem and Sharif Gawad have stood for them. The defintion of 'white' has evolved throughout their history - the anti-Semitism is gone, and I'm sure those of Irish descent were less accepted in the past than now. Still, 'white only' isn't so bad if the anti-Eastern-European-immigration aspect is also in the intro.
The BNP's position is that Sharif Gawad is white. Not sure if/how they rationalise Rustem's ethnicity.FrFintonStack (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Caution on using the BNP as a source

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

I agree we should be careful about using the BNP as a source but in http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ they admit they only have white membership. Sure they try to defend that position with their usual crap but the fact their own website says they only have white members seems like a very strong source for the white only bit which till i saw that page id always doubted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd never heard it either. It's one reason why I'm nervous about the prominence the article gives to it.
Just a thought, guys... are we quite sure that people who hate and loathe the BNP as much as some people here seem to do should be editing this article at all? Is it quite ethical for haters to write the articles on the object hated? Is it going to produce NPOV articles? You see, I don't quite see how we can avoid distilling that feeling into our edits. It seems a funny old thing to do. (The same would apply to a BNP-er, of course). Roger Pearse (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It is possible for people with strong views to get balanced articles, the trouble is those that come here and say its biased do not make suggestions to see if we can reach agreement. If you can highlight the sentences which you have problems with we can discuss them. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not hate or loathe the BNP. I do however understand that the NPOV policy does not compel us to write about the BNP in a sympathetic light. While the article may have its faults in regard to excessive coverage of some aspects of the BNP's activities, I do not believe that attempting to change the most indisputable facts is a worthwhile use of anyone's time. However, your comments are largely irrelevant to the point I was making, which was the unreliability of the BNP as a source for many things. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should write with sympathy. The problem at the moment is those who can only write with antipathy. This is producing a crap article. Roger Pearse (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any sources you want to discuss or challenge? attempts to poison the well by making this about editors rather than content is not really the way to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC
So the BNP's articles are not 'reliable', yet the Times, the Independent and the Guardian are. What a joke.--Imminent Fall of Western Civilisation (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
They are more trusted sources than the BNP themseles when talking about the BNP yes. Although the BBC or other media organisations would be better than newspapers in my opinion. lol @ your name by the way, very imaginative. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Well those sources meet our reliable sources policies on a number of points, including (but not limited to): 1) independent of the subject 2) have a history of reliability and fact-checking 3) Have editoral oversight 4) have clearly named authors for articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

culturally or ethnically British

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

BNP sources

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party/Archive_11&oldid=1251792708"