Talk:British National Party/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

RS

Is this really RS? [[1]] Is this blog also RS?[[2]] and this [[3]] since when have blogs been RS? Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Voice of Change site appears to be used for info about itself, so that should be an RS, provided the criteria in WP:SELFPUB are not offended against. The second one probably isn't an RS, but the link it contains might be used as a substitute [4]. The third one is the blog of Lee John Barnes, who is a senior BNP member, so that may make it an RS, depending on how you think it fits with WP:SELFPUB. I'd say it is probably okay.
Steven, think you are doing a great job identifying these sourcing issues, which could help to tighten up a controversial article. It would make it easier to comment, though, if you also highlighted what wording the sources are used to support. Makes it slightly hard work otherwise. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK its just that there are a lot of sources to check (I fear that all of them need to be given the number of iffy sources found so far).Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature. is not stricley supported by the source (its rather more daming then this) [[5]]. (ref 18)Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The source actually says ""Racism"...is not a consequence of "false consciousness", economics, imperialism or the work of evil agitators, it is part of human nature." (p 18) Suggest use this wording or similar instead. --FormerIP (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that is the owrdking the source uses, so that should be reflected in the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6790067.ece seems to be broke.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Now working again. site must have been down.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete overhaul

As we are all aware this article is fequently desputed with some arguing that this article is very bias, factually incorrect and/or outdated. Furthermore many have also stated that the article seems to be excessively long with too many entries. I propose a complete overhaul be done to several sections to make this page neutral and less disputable.

Furthermore during this discussion please keep it civil, no idiotic comments like 'the bnp are just scum and deserve to be treated badly' etc, etc.

Sections that are particularly outdated and/or incorrect seem to be:

1) "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" - outdated because the last accusation occured in 2002 and since then the BNP has openly detested racial and political violence in all its forms "2009 Belfast Gypsy incident"

2) "Fascism" - This label seems to be used solely as a label rather than a literal analysis of the parties current policies and activities i.e. the Daily Mirror article mentioned in this section described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred" yet no up-to-date evidence based on their current manifesto or activities is given to make this claim anything more than an opinion. The same can be applied to The Guardian claim that the BNP is "a racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone". The other accusations all come from members of opposing political parties - which again makes it more of an opinion than a fact. As many others here have stated the fascism label seems to be more of a throw-back to the party's past rather than a literal analysis of the party's current policies and activities. Furthermore the Guardian article mentioned also backs up this claim when it states "It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now."

However due to numerous accusations from various media sources it would seem that wikipedia certainly needs to reflect these claims, however it should also make it clear that these are accusations, not facts or self-descriptions of the party. Thus the fascism label in the infobox needs to be removed as it is confusing.

3) Affiliations with the NDP (Germany) - I have tried to find some up-to-date examples of recent relations between the NDP & BNP but could not find any other than the 2002 event mentioned in the "Political parties" section. Since then it would seem that the two parties have no ties to each other. The infobox states that the two parties are affiliated (despite the "citation needed" mark) and I would suggest it needs to be removed from the list as it seems to be out-of-date.

4) "Association with violence" - This sections seems pretty trivial since firstly it quotes Griffin from as far back as 1986 and 1993 despite the fact that he has since openly stated on question time (october 2009) that 'he has changed his opinions since then'. More importantly though the article goes on to imply that the party has "associations with violence" simply because 5 of its members have past criminal convictions (some of which have nothing to do with politics at all). It seems a bit silly and I ask whoevers in charge of this article to treat the party as other political parties are treated, as many Labour and Tory party members would obviously have some past conviction as well yet it isn't implied that they are 'violent organizations'.

5) "whites-only, political party" - Due to the impending equalities commission judgement party membership has been frozen for several months and has agreed to admit non-whites. Therefore it is currently not a "whites only" party.

6) The second paragraph discusses BNP election results - this information should be confined to the appropriate section, not the introduction.

I hope these things can be amended fairly and without more references to outdated policies, POV's intepreted as facts and confusing contradictions.

~~Nathan, New Zealand~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The points listed as 'outdated' they should still be mentioned, but put in a current context e.g. in 1) saying "the party has been associated with with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups, but now states that it detested racial and political violence" would be a fair an accurate way to portray it. The history of a party is of merit as fact alone, but the history also has a large bearing on how the party is viewed currently by supports and opponents. On the controversial labels such as far right & fascist, this is not the place to debate validity of contradicting reliable sources. The article should state that they are used by some and that that party & others think that the use is inappropriate, and give the reasoning given in both sets of sources. Similarly on the "all white" point the fact that the policy exists & is under review and why should all be noted. None of these should have any value judgements implied but we should not restrict the coverage of sourcable views where the source is explicitly stated. On the inclusion in the introduction of results this is appropriate for a lead as elections results are a key point for political party see WP:lead. --Natet/c 10:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
we aolo (see abve) ave somke ourcing issues. There is also the issue of the actions of ex-members, if some one is not a member of the party does his action really have that much relevance (if they were carries out whilst not a member of the party?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The sourcing does need work, but it would make sense to me for the existing sourcing to be reviewed & the article corrected where necessary then to look at what the structure should be.
On the ex members, I'd say no, unless the individual or actions themselves are of note independently and/or were prominent members of the party, in which case mention as a former member, of that the incident involved them would be appropriate in the clear context of why they left and any continued associations. The level of detail would need to be proportionate, such as saying that former members formed another organisation or for example on the nail bombings; this was a notable event but the detail is limited to the BNPs comments on it and links to the full details. --Natet/c 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Saying it's a fact that the BNP is fascist because som liberal/leftist media/politicians said so is as ridiculous as saying it's a fact that the Labour Party is far-left because Nick Griffin said so. Parts of this article is a disgrace to the neutral encycopledia that Wikipedia is meant to be. -GabaG (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"The article should state that they are used by some and that that party & others think that the use is inappropriate, and give the reasoning given in both sets of sources." Then certainly you would agree that to state the bnp as "fascist" in the infobox implies to users that it is an undisputed fact when it is actually highly disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's use in the info box in debatable and potentially should be removed, but I don't think that a removing it will stick unless there is a consensus here to back it up. I don't have a firm opinion on it, primarily because you need to define a term first and we then stray dangerously close to original research, so the other option is to flag it in brakets as 'disputed' with the sources. --Natet/c 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Or alleged fascism?Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically the BNP IS a whites-only party until the freeze on new membership is lifted - if it is- after the court hearing in January 2010, since Judge Collins accepted (and this was not challenged by tghe BNP) that the existing members are a corps of white-only members.--Streona (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there is any call for a "complete overhaul" of the article. Agree with Nate that there are some sourcing issues - Slatersteven has begun some work which is adressing this.
The essence of the request seems to be "can we remove some material that casts the BNP in a poor light because it is out-dated". There are two points I would make.
Firstly, as has been said already, the article covers the history of the party, so provided it is put in proper contect, no information should be removed on the grounds that it is out-dated. We can't operate a memory hole.
Secondly, it may be acceptable to put information into proper context if the article currently wrongly represents something that was the case 20 years ago as being something that is the case now. However, this will require positive evidence in the form of a third-party RS making it clear that the relevant information is out-of-date. A user-generated claim that something is out-of-date will not do.
For example, in relation to relations between the BNP and the German NPD, Nathan says he can't find anything more recent than 2002. However, I googled and found this: http://www.f-d-v.de/fdv2009/. It's in German, but it's a website set up for an NPD music event and rally (see the contact details on the homepage) and it says: "After the band had finished, English BNP activist Nina Brown spoke about the success of the party at the local and European level...the last speech of the day came from BNP activist Mike Bell". --FormerIP (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If Nina Brown & Mike Bell are activists, then there not official representatives of the BNP in regards to it allegences.

"The essence of the request seems to be "can we remove some material that casts the BNP in a poor light because it is out-dated". All I would like to see happen is that is written fairly and not made 'to made to cast the bnp in the worst light possible' because some people have strong objections to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.211.178 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This does raise a very important point. when disscusing links to other groups are we disccusing official links, indirect links , informal links, or private (I.E. the examples above of members with no offical party standing)links?Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Just on a point of fact, they don't have no offical standing. Mike Bell is their Midlands chief and Tina Brown is a BNP parish councillor - which wouldn't make her very senior if she were in the Labour Party, but for the BNP makes her significant, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I'm satisfied with the changes made to this article as it is now much more up-to-date and factual. However I'm still concerned about the "fascism" label in the info-box because as many have stated the policies of the BNP do not match fascism's description. As the final article mentioned in the "fascism" section states 'theres nothing like that [fascism] now'. So to state the bnp as being fascist in the info-box implies that the fascist label is undisputed and 'official' - which its not.

~~Nathan, New Zealand~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Whites only

I am expecting my recent edit to be reverted. I know only news stories about the BNP. I came for a quick look at the article. It said "whites-only" with a reference. I accepted it but I looked at the reference purely out of short interest. It did not say "whites" only. I am open to the belief that the BNP may be some sort of racist group. I am not open to colourful misrepresentations of the facts. The reference said ethnic. That happens to be whites. I do my own thinking. Explain it to be whites where appropriate. In fact the reason I checked the reference is because an openly "whites-only" institution would have a 99.9% chance of being illegal in that country. ~ R.T.G 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Lo and behold within 3 mins. Thanks for making the wiki your political stage rodhullandemu, I have provided the only suitable compromise although I doubt very much the word ethnic "means nothing to" you. ~ R.T.G 22:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I know it's Friday evening, and late, but I was trying to assume good faith. Your edit summary didn't help me, neither did your edit. It is, of course, at least anecdotal and certainly commonly believed and reported, that the BNP are racist, to the point of excluding and discriminating against "non-whites". How far that is a true representation of their policies is a matter for reliable sources, and discussion here. Meanwhile, my political beliefs (a) have no bearing on the construction of defensible articles according to basic policies, (b) are left at the door when I log into this site and (c) are not up for speculation by you or anybody else. In short, were I to have to made this wiki "my political stage", I would not have achieved that which I have already achieved here. To answer your last point: the Racial Equality Commission in the UK has recently obtained a ruling against the BNP castigating its "whites-only" policy", IIRC, so unless and until that ruling is challenged in the High Court (in which I have spent many happy days), it is more than 99.9% illegal- it is 100% illegal. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The article differs with the source in a controversial manner, that is the end of the story "Rod", sorry. What you point out about the castigation restriction only shows that if they were openly "whites-only" they would be an illegal orginisation. This is not the case. There is no reasonable excuse to claim it is on Wikipedia without an unchallenged reliable source. The current source does not say "whites-only". It is at least improper for us to add that assumption. The best source you can hope for is one that says "the membership is all white", you know it and I know it. Allowing "whites-only" is only allowing people to think that racist institutions are perfectly acceptable in British society. They are probably all Klu Klux Klan... I do not appreciate care-less wording of controversial subjects. I prefer to do my own thinking, thanks for nothing. ~ R.T.G 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"The article differs with the source in a controversial manner"; sadly, that is only to be expected with such a controversial topic, and I defy you to find a truly neutral source where the BNP is concerned; we are dealing here with an organisation that of its very nature (unless you know otherwise) tends to polarise opinion one way or the other, and a "middle ground" is difficult to find- so it's up to you, I suppose, to find one. Meanwhile, those of us used to evaluating what reliable sources exist tend to put the differing arguments before our readers, and leave it up to them. Wikipedia is not in the business of forming public opinion, although it is inevitable that bias, conscious or not, might creep in. The merit of a sort-of democratic editorship, accompanied by multiple review processes, is that neutrality is assured as well as it can be. No one editor controls an article. Now, your option here is to leave your position as it is, but I am quite confident that some other editor is going to unearth a perfectly reliable source to support that the BNP is at least traditionally "whites-only". As a democrat, I cannot deny them their point of view, or a platform for it- however, sourcing is all; and as for your "They are probably all Klu Klux Klan" comment, I put you to strict proof of that. You are at liberty, of course, to "do your own thinking", but when you enter this website, you should be prepared to have that thinking challenged. Rodhullandemu 01:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Very briefly, RTG, the facts are...the BNP is a whites only party...the legality of this has recently been challenged in court...the leader of the BNP made an undertaking to attempt to change the party's consitution by the end of January 2010...so it is still a whites only party, but this may soon change...the facts I have just stated are so well documented that I would suggest it is not worth your effort to try to get into a discussion by disputing them. The source does not say "white", you are correct, it says "caucasian", which most people would accept as a synonym. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The source says "indigenous caucasian and defined ethnic groups eminating from" and is accurate. The article says "whites-only" and is not accurate. It is neither for us to be accurate or take sides. I think it is worth the effort, FormerIP. I do not like to oppose haters by being a hater. I might not manage to improve the article but I will find someone who prevents me and make sure they have been told that they are wrong. Nobody is perfect. We are responsible at some age to make these efforts. ~ R.T.G 01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"indigenous caucasian and defined ethnic groups eminating from" means "white", as far as I can see. Do you suppose it inlcudes anyone else? The article does not need to adopt the exact same wording as the source. You seem to be (literally) trying to argue that black is white. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It does not include so much as "white". Would you say they are pro-Polish immigration? Is there any reason we should make more of the BNP than it is? ~ R.T.G 01:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite possibly they do not have a policy of "all whites welcome". However, this would not be contradictory to "whites only". Take someone who doesn't like peppers so they exclude them from their diet. However, they don't eat meat, fish, dairy or cereals. They are on a "vegetables-only" diet, even though there are vegetables they exlude. No? --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
But these are on a peppers only diet. Let's say I am a vegetarian at heart and I come along and say "These folk are on a vegetable only diet!", the RodEmu comes along and says "No it's peppers only actually..." but I say "STFU Rod, I am telling people the way I see it rather than the way it is, everybody knows that peppers are vegetables". Have I been oppressive to Rod or to the peppers? These things don't always pan out as you might expect. ~ R.T.G 02:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Peppers are not vegetables; they are fruit. Rodhullandemu 10:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong if you are a fruit FraudHullandEmu, it is more worrying if you are supportive of racist hatred regardless of which side of that fence you are on. I prefer not to be led on controversial subjects. There is nothing to prevent the facts being laid out as they are, all the conclusions are included in that are they not? You want more than that? It reeks. ~ R.T.G 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you should take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Right now. Insults do not help and are not tolerated on this website. Rodhullandemu 15:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
RTG makes a habbit of levelling very weird personal attacks regarding the term "racist". In any case white seems a bit American sounding for some reason. They claim to let in "indigenous British and assimilated kindred groups", which basically means caucasians native to Europe, but especially Britain. Obvious it shouldn't say "ethnic-only" since in the UK, the term "ethnic" is used to refer to African and Asian peoples. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Its all by the by, it is like attempting to hold back time, the BNP is no longer a whites only party, and it should be changed now, it matters not..change it now or soon, but it is wrong and will be wrong in the future, the BNP is no longer a so called whites only party, no matter what peoples strongly held point of views are, is will have to be changed in the near future, I would change it now, but hey, screaming whites only whites only is no longer a reality which should be reflected in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Rod but your username contravenes the policy, that is the only "fraud" I was re-referring to because if you just want to be silly about the matter in question (BNP article), why should I not join in? I am suspicious that improvement to the article, in this one small easy adjustment, is unlikely no matter if it is correct and why wouldn't I be? Folk are just poking fun. This is a controversial subject and we should be viewing it from the moral ground. WP:NPOV. More than enough has been gone over to show the difference between "white-only" and true representation of the sources so fly away now and play your own silly buggers. Forget about another article then. Who cares. They were all bad any way we are only meting it out to them, right? Bah. Hatred born as the child of racism (is that not an insult?). Gluck ~ R.T.G 15:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If my username contravened our policy, I think somebody other than yourself might have complained between my first edit on 8 August 2007 and today. But they haven't. You are welcome to raise the issue, if it is one, at WP:UAA. I have no desire to be silly; "whites-only" is for the time being accepted and sourced; your preferred "ethnic", whilst also being too vague in my opinion to be useful, also happens to be used as a racist insult in some sections of British society, as in "Mustn't upset the ethnics, must we?", so I don't think it's a helpful term on that account alone. Rodhullandemu 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't appreciate have to call you Rod Hull and force myself not to imagine I am communicating with emu while he attacks the guest or the host but that is not the issue. "whites-only" is contrary to the source and you are not interested in improving the article from a neutral point of view. Others have agreed here that the source is contrary to this in a manner which may have implications but your obvious use of word "you" and tone make your posts entirely confrontational and personal to me. I know very little about the BNP. I certainly don't appreciate the sort of racism they are accused of. All I know is that this article is differing signifigantly with one of its sources and that it is easy to imagine a no-change policy on that being a result of racial fear and hatred or its encouragement. That sux. ~ R.T.G 16:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You are wasting your time mate, this article and similar articles are examples of some of the poorest that we have. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Whites only" and party conference.

As I understand it from new reports "BNP conference backs ballot on non-white members". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2009-11-14.  Text " Politics " ignored (help); Text " guardian.co.uk " ignored (help) the BNP has not revoked its constitution- if it had done so, it would have no legal status; delegates agreed to ballot the membership in relation to a change in the constitution, and until this happens, the constitution remains in force. Therefore, I have reverted the recent edit that removed "whites only", etc. Doubtless I will be accused of bias here, but my only interest is in supporting what can be reliably sourced unless and until the BNP change their position. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are biased. Their constitution says one thing, you say another, someone points that out to you and you say, "ohhhh nonono"... that is where you are at. This ballot they are having may have a bearing on you, Rod(), but facts are facts and you are involved in bending them you.. are. ~ R.T.G 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
You've forgotten my advice about WP:CIVIL already? Shame on you. Rodhullandemu 19:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The old removed constitution is illegal and the bnp have accepted that illegality and have moved on, the constitution has been removed..or come this way in handcuffs.. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"which appears to restrict membership" to "whites", the particular quote from the Guardian article provided above. ~ R.T.G 19:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The old removed constitution is illegal and the bnp have accepted that illegality and have moved on, the constitution has been removed..or come this way in handcuffs.. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that? It was a closed meeting and all we know is what they've told the media or the media have assumed. Without a constitution in place, all their activities are ultra vires, so there must be something left. I don't think we can make assumptions until the BNP membership has been ballotted on proposed changes. However, I'm not prepared to remain here to be traduced, so you two do what you like with this article; I have proper work to do. Invent what you like. Rodhullandemu 19:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It is citable and commented on by the bnp leadership all over, I imagine that the constitution has been removed from the bnp website, membership is closed, its over. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"The so called whites only constitution has been declared illegal, this decision has been citably accepted by the bnp and the constitution has been withdrawn. full stop..Right now the bnp has no constitution, a new one is being written and will be voted on, the old so called whites only constitution has been removed it is illegal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's a mere formality now before the constitution is changed, and Asian-Brits and African-Brits will be flocking to join the BNP. But otherwise, you are correct that it's faulty to write that the BNP is "whites-only" at this point when that constitution has been discarded. -GabaG (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, for which I have yet to see a reliable source, anything the BNP does is unlawful. Since they are still operating, I doubt that very much. What is more likely from a legal point of view is that the Executive will propose an amendment to the constitution which, as numerous sources report, will be voted on by its membership. The Executive has no power to amend the constitution without such a plebiscite. However, if you wish to carry on speculating on law you know nothing about, you are all free so to do. Rodhullandemu 20:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This is quite clear, the constitution was declared illegal due the the white only membership policy, at court the bnp accepted the decision and closed membership under those white only conditions, so, as I see it, if acceptance under those illegal conditions is closed then it is wrong to describe them in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Then uder the correct section lets have something like. "At this time the BNP have suspended its constitution and recruitment until a new constitution can be agreed that is in keeping with the requirements of the law"?Slatersteven (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not quite what you say Offtoriorob2, the legality of their constitution was considered because it was racist. That statement does not include the specific words "white-only". Some tabloids have included them. I wonder if any Americans are watching in and wish to give credit to tabloids which run under the headings "The Sun" and "The Star" because the senationalism of those tabloids are the precise equation of what we are discussing here. The extra words added to facts as presented by The Sun and The Stars closest rivals. We are talking about the middle ground between The Times and The Sun, nothing more and nothing less. ~ R.T.G 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Did I just tell lies Rodhullandemu? ~ R.T.G 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
When you've passed some exams in administrative law and understand how the constitution of an organisation empowers it and can be questioned by English law, and the various legal remedies available, you can ask me questions. Until then, please don't bother me. I can always come back to this article later, when you've all lost interest, and make it defensible in encyclopedic terms. Rodhullandemu
You you you. Gaugeing your intelligence, "Rod", "I" do not have the option to beleive your confusion is sincere. Ever heard of lies? Simple as that. It stinks all over. Be a good boy and let them/you dig their/your own holes without the help of Wikipedia. ~ R.T.G 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, I'm really not interested in editors who sneer at me constantly and post whilst pissed. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support Rodhullandemu , keep the discussion on content not editors. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing fills a page up with more inconsequential babble than "you" and "yours" comments. We do not need a lawyer to tell us that the source does not say "whites-only" or to find that all sources which do say white-only are relying upon conjecture, however warranted. If that information is not available on Wikipedia, people should look elsewhere. One up for BNP recruitment, for instance (all shops get passing trade, don't they?). We have plenty of scope to provide the support for the conjecture, it is correct to do so, but we must provide the neutral point by point facts also to admonish ourselves and in turn, the casual reader. Now, it is not only silly for me but to much talk about one small word. This is one of the major reasons that schools could not rely on Wikipedia because neutrality is highly contentious even though it is rightfully a core principal. ~ R.T.G 12:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability not facts. Now is not one answer to say that "acording to X the BNP are an all white party {cite}". This (if we are dealing with conjecture or opinion) is the way it should be done, this is the correct way to do it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Once the constitution is formally changed then they are no longer (in terms of their rules, de fact may be a different matter) a whites only party. It is also notably that until forced by the courts they had a whites only constitution which should be in the body and the lede. In the meantime there is no valid reason above for replacing White with Caucasian in the text. Per WP:BRD that has been challenged and the should be agreed here. --Snowded TALK 14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, if the policy does change in the new / reformed constitution then it must point out this was because of court action. Caucasian is a term used far more in America than here in Britain, here black and white is acceptable and the media use whites only when talking about them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Should the article not still say what it said originally? This is a whites only party until the constitution is changed, then that fact must remain in the lead because they were forced to change by court action. I see any attempt to hide the whites only policy from the introduction as censorship. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that would be better --Snowded TALK 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. It is bizarre to change the entry until reality has changed.Vertovian (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
No it should follow the sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Bizarre to follow the sources accurately? ~ R.T.G 18:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read the sources, the BNP constitution has not been changed yet, they are simply agreed to put the change to their members in the next few months. There for the BNP is a white only party still until that point. We should clearly explain in the introduction this policy is being changed because of court action. I have restored the original wording so it is accurate. If that is to be changed, please provide a source saying they are officially no longer a racist party and the constitution has changed? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Snowded obviously hasn't read the source because he says that it is not OK to interchange "white" and "caucasian" and yet agrees that it is best to write in "white". Read the source before commenting on what it contains. ~ R.T.G 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those bothered about the use of the still current constitution to source "whites only" could easily just add one or more of the sources removed in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_National_Party&action=historysubmit&diff=295896963&oldid=295855565. 86.135.98.177 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added that ref and altered the words to say "Ethnically European" so as not to offend any white Arabs and Israelis who would not be accepted into the BNP under certain rules. ~ R.T.G 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is from the BNP website.. "The British National Party’s annual conference has given the green light for an amended party constitution containing changed admission criteria to be put to a vote by the general membership of the party, deputy leader and party press officer Simon Darby said tonight."

"The actual amended constitution was not submitted to the conference,” Mr Darby said. “That will be submitted to an EGM to be held before the end of this year or early January."

Its clear from this statement on their website [6] that the constitution has not yet been changed, people have not even seen the proposed change yet. There for this is still a whites only party and any change to the first sentence needs to be reverted. To say it was whites only until 2009 is incorrect and not backed up by sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP constitution,page 4, "SECTION 2: MEMBERSHIP

1) The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL. 2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them. 3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2"[7]. That is the full quote relating to ethnicity and membership. Where does it say "white-only"? I suggest improving the article. People assume bad faith. Keep it. ~ R.T.G 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this Talk page has had long-running debates over whether or not the BNP is or ever was "whites-only" Judge Collins at the Central London County Court appears to have had no problem whatsoever in construing it as such, based upon the quote from above. It is true that the BNP had been unable to instruct Counsel in order to argue otherwise, since The Leader was busy in Brussels or something, and nobody else could do it, but the fact is that they never challenged it. Griffin said on Question Time that he represented those who have been in Britain for the last 17,000 years. Since the last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago, I assume that he means the palaeolithic dudes from the Mindel-Reiss Interglacial Period, who were presumably white-only, but who knows (or indeed cares)?--Streona (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From [[8]] "The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is seeking an injunction against the BNP, asked the London County Court to instruct the party to accept members of every ethnicity in the interim.
The request was rejected by Judge Paul Collins, who said that the BNP had been in existence for more than 27 years and its membership policy should remain in place until the matter is properly heard by the court." Does not read like Judge Collins agrees that its all white, more like he has reseved judgement. Also "The judge noted the “absence of a long queue of black people who want to join the BNP”." Again harldey a ringing endorsement that the BNP are discriminating in their membership.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
They are quite clearly racially discriminitive as their primary goal is to exclude "non-white" citizenship. Notice the quotation "non-white" is accurate whilst the quotation "white-only" is sensationalism, wikt:sensationalism. Note that publications relying on sensationalism are usually discredited as unreliable sources because bending the truth alters it. But who cares how reliable Wikipedia is. There is consensus that reliability is prefered but not in places where it counts, such as here. One up for the vandals. I say throw the whole boat in ad replace the page with "racists" because to hell with informing people about things. If you want info on the BNP go join them Wikipedia is merely an anti racist slogan which you could make up yourself (have a go kids, blank the page and write whatever you want as long as you saw it beside Jordan when The Sun gives her the Celebrity 2 exclusive) ~ R.T.G 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying thnat the times is sensationalist? Are you saying that we should stick to wikipedias rules of Verifiabilty and reliablity or saying we should not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Which part did you think was unclear? I could find consensus to go jump off a roof. Tell that to the doctor putting the casts on. That is the only relevant thing to this "We are the times" blindne3ss, well get this Wikipedia is NOT The Times, The Guardian, The Sun, A Mirror, A Lucky Guess, A Crystal Ball, A Bag of Sweets or The Albert Hall. We do not play the latest tunes we just display information about them accurately. Copying tabloid sensationalism is a copyright violation of some porr reportalists artistic creations. Relying on it for sources is one thing. Relying on it for content is not as good as could be done, quite simply. Assomebody said previously a waste of time debating this. ~ R.T.G 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that using the time violates the rules os reliable sources, becasue they are not reliable? Or are you saying that quoting them is a clear coptright violation? Or that using them as a source is ciopyright violation? Now it is true that the accusation that they are an all whote party is just that, and accusation. It could also be said that under those circunstances we should (as I bleive I may have said aleady) that we should say that "according to X the BNP are all white".Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of saying "according to x BNP claims its values are...", when we can just say "BNP claims its values are..." which makes them appear no less racist, doesn't hide any of the policy against "non-white" and specifically does not over the whole paper say the quote "whites only". It's possible that people don't understand but it appears more like they are so much more interested in what The Times and The Guardian says that they forgot Wikipedia is capable of outdoing them. Or maybe I am just trying to pretend that the BNP are not a racist group in favour of whites. If the times are not accurate as they could be it should be no problem to exceed our programming. Should be more concerned with the nature of the article. It's beyond petty now but it still amounts to preventing improvement of the article. The possibility that this article could improve without that quote is considered unimaginable here, it would seem. ~ R.T.G 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian says the BNP is "the chippy" party this could mean that they are fast food retailers or carpenters. The Times says that Nick Griffin "may have a hoard of DVDs and videos of fascist heroes hidden in his Welsh border cellar next to old piles of Spearhead and The Rune...", now I am all for adding these two sources if anyone agrees. That second one actually says that Nick Griffiin "will not", "make Hitler hand movements" which is pretty riveting stuff. ~ R.T.G 21:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we not agreed that Judge Collins found that he BNP constitution does exclude "non-whites" (i.e is "whites-only" - it means the same) and has given them until the next hearing to rectify this, but has not placed an injunction in the interim as they have been so discriminating for 27 years and there is "no evidence of a queue of black people wanting to join"? The BNP however has frozen its membership to the Ice Age throwbacks that currently swell its ranks upon its own initiative. It is to be borne in mind that newspapers etc are only secondary sources and the Court's finding should be seen as a primary source. When the BNP have in fact changed their constitution then the article should be updated. --Streona (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Non-white" policy did not mean exactly "whites-only". The court found them to be contrary to a particular law. That law did not say anything about "whites-only". Judges closing comments are in the same boat as tabloid sensationalism. The judge draws words for effect which is rather more artistic than listing the facts which is what the solicitors, lawyers and barristers do during the hearing. The facts are available without 3rd party sources or conjecture [9] and they are no less racist than use of phrase "whites-only". The conjecture is being described as fact and the fact being described as conjecture here. If it were so unimportant, why all the fuss? The lead could use several alterations without altering the appearance of the BNP. Judges frequently say things like "You are disgusting" and we do not write "...is disgusting" we write "The judge said..." because obviously, disgusting or not, the judge was just speaking freely after a long and hard decision. etc blah "racist" is better than "whites-only" and should be used every time it can be proven to be more accurate or we should just go and join BNPs because all their fears would be true. ~ R.T.G 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The BNP have denied that they discriminiate on racial grounds, as such if they are going to be accused of something they should also be given the right to deny it. Secondly, they have agreed to amend their constitution, but have not accepted guilt (indead at this time we do not know how they intened to amend it) nor have they retracted their origional denile. However it mifght have been better if the HRC accusatio had been printed. By the way the link to hte origional statemtn is dead.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. The BNP deny many things that are asserted by reliable 3rd party sources. In this case the judge has given them time to change, but its pretty clear what will happen if they don't. In the mean time this article needs to reflect the current position --Snowded TALK 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you ever get off the 3rd party sources for one minute... look at the pdf 2 posts above... it is the BNP constitution from the horse mouth. Clearly discriminative on racial grounds regardless of individual claims to media that they are not. 3rd party sources are essential but if they are all saying "whites-only" and we have more accurate information... we should just have it displayed that they claim not to discriminate but contrary to their constitution and only use the direct quote "whites-only" to show that the media keep using that phrase. Their racist ideologies should not be obscured by that sort of editing. ~ R.T.G 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
what I am trying to do is arrive at some kind of compromise. Now given that they have stated that they do not not enough money to continue with hte case (or at least that is wha they claim [[10]] then they have not accepted (or repudiated the claim) that their membership policy is disciminatory. Nor is it prety clear what will happenn if they don't, because we do not know yet how they will change it, it is after all a question of wording. Nor do we know if (in the case of a second complaint from EHRC) if the BNP would fight it or not. We have a situation were they are being called 'All White (and all stations between)', but they niether deny nor accept this they just say they are not racsit (in this respect) the lead needs to refelct there fore that they are accused og being all white but beny that they are rascist. Also that thier consitution states whatever the constitutions states in this regard (and using the words within the constitution, not somes opinion of it).Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is currently incorrectly claiming that the BNP have given up their whites only policy. Please show me the source for this? it is incorrect because the party has not voted on it yet, for goodness sake the party members have not even seen the proposed change to the constitution, so how people can think its currently inforce i have no idea. At this moment in time it is still a Whites Only party and it should say so in the first sentence BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The articel should reflect the fact that they have been accused of this, but have denied that tghey are rascist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
So you have a constitution which in effect says that anyone with a black skin cannot join, but then you deny that you are racist? Interesting proposition. However back to the WIkipedia. In this case they have accepted that their constitution is illegal and the court case has been suspended pending their resolution of that with a constitutional change. The current wording makes that clear and is backed up by a third party source. So I agree that BW is not right to insist that the whites only should be put into their description. Their denial of racism may be appropriate at some stage in the body, but it is inappropriate here in the lede. The lede does not say that they are racist, it says that their constitution until 2009 denied membership to ethnic groups (their constitution) who in effect were not white (all of the reliable sources in the main British media). I suggest you self-revert and reach agreement here --Snowded TALK 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
“In effect” is an interpretation, use it as written, do not interpret it allow the reader to do that. As to the contradiction, of course it is, that is why it should be there. But allow the reader to determine why the contradiction exists; do not make up his mind for him. As I have already pointed out the BNP have not accepted that their construction is illegal, they have said that the costs are too great for them to fight the case, they have avoided admitting guilt (again allow the reader to figure that out for himself). Their denial of racism is linked directly and explicitly (its their reaction to discriminating on racial grounds (the basis of the case against them)) linked to the case. The accusation that they are ‘all white’ is just that an accusation (an accusation made by RS is not relevant its still an accusation) so why not just quote that their constitution says and allow the reader to make up his own mind?Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we should allow slaterstephen to continue his good work , which to me seems to be beneficial to the article and done with a degree of neutrality. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede is meant to be a summary of the main article. It is not neutral to take something which clear - taken to court for racial descrimination, had to change their constitution - and add lots of excuses/explanations to that. I can't remember off hand the wikipedia policy against that but there is one. I've made a change to keep it short, allowed caucasian not white but made the nature of the legal case clear. I think that is reasonable. --Snowded TALK 15:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is good to have a good read of the Wikipedia:Lead_section as it is being updated all the time, I read a report that over 80precent of people never get past the lede and the same percentage never click on a link to a citation, I suggest the lede as we have it now, has a couple of issues, I would suggest asking a neutral editor, with good writing skills rewriting the lede to a good article quality, as this tit for tat opinionated editing is a waste of time and energy, any comments? Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would support trying to get a neutral editor to rewrite the intro, although i do think its important that the court case leading them to need to change their constitution to stop it being a whites only party does belong in the introduction and should not be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that section is more or less OK now, It does not say all white (the main bone of contention), but what the BNP actualy say. But also says that they are having to change it becasue of the court case. But if a neutral ed removed it would we accept that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind a mention about the bnp were pushed and didn't jump to the new position, I found a link to an recent article about all those points of whether that are still a whites only party, i'll look for it....What I would like to suggest as a possibility, any involved editors could list the main points they thought should be in the article and that blind consensus could be used as a guideline for an experienced editor to attempt to include all positions in a neutral way...finding an editor would be a mission but a brave one could be found, if involved editors at least had the chance to comment as to their main desires for inclusion we might be able to find some consensus on a rewrite... Its just an idea...me I want a better more informative article that clearly allows people to find things out in a neutral way about the bnp, that is our work here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The wording put in by SlaterSteven as it is right this minute (diff[11]) is perfect but should include before "The chairman is Nick Griffin.." the fact that its constitutional goal is the emmigration of "non-white" thereby covering everything without even a hint of sensationalism or non-neutrality. I don't think as suggested the lead shoud be shortened after that because there is a lot of controversy and incidents around the BNP. Maybe it could be improved, I don't know, but there is lots of info leaving room for a big lead. ~ R.T.G 15:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thne perhaps you could do a revert as the 1RR rules stops me from doing it my self.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is that link from 16th oct . Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to revert, Steven, just to bring the "non-white" emmigration policy out in a way that isn't too repetitive with the second mention of it in the lead. I tried adding it now but probably easy to improve on that ~ R.T.G 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the BNP's denile should be there, even if only "The BNP have denied this accusation".Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Say whats in the source

"The footage of dozens of "gay" demonstrators flaunting their perversion in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive" is what the source says. Mr Griffin does not use the word disgusting he uses the word repulsive. The source for Northen Ireland says they are trying to infiltrate the Ulster loylaists, not assimilate them. Do not alter what sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the text should be accurate and match the sources. His comments are just as damaging anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it ironic that (in the discusion about all white) concearn is expressed that if we do not tell 'THE TRUTH!' then it will help BNP recruitment, but if we alter what RS attribute to Mr Griffin then (when people check the source) this will not help. The Artcile must reflect what sources say, and those sources must be in accordance with Wikiedias rules. If not then the page (and the project) is damadged, and will not be coniderd reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agreed that the text should be accurate and match the sources. The trouble is for some people they will always see this as an unfair article which is anti BNP, but the problem is theres nothing good to say about this sick party. Theres only really negative things, its nice the article is as balanced as it is :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if your opinions are so strong along those lines it would be better not to edit the article, there are many people with opinions opposite to yours. The article is an awful opinionated attack. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I always try to avoid making any changes to this article because i do have very strong feelings about this party, ive always made that very clear in most posts on this talk page.
However the bit about them being a whites only party belongs in the lead, after reading the sources and the BNP website it is clear the current policy of them being a whites only party remains. They have simply voted to put the proposed change to their membership, the change it self has not been made. The lead sentence should clearly state this is a whites only party as it did originally. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you need to move on, those days are over, the party is also no longer anti semite and that is not in the lede, the party is moving mainstream and all the other mainstream political parties have recently woken up, excessive immigration is an issue that a lot of people are bothered about, and Gordon Brown very recently said that people that are bothered about it should not be attacked as racists. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, and would they have changed the constitution if the EOC had not taken them to court? OK your comment above represents the BNP public face, but this article needs to reflect reality not be an apologia. --Snowded TALK 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw a report (quoting griffin) that said the bnp was in the process of affecting similar changes to its constitution with or without the equalities ruling, the opinionated editing from a collection of openly anti bnp editors here does nothing to the bnp but reflects negatively on the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article as it is now is worthless, no one could possibly read it, it doesn't do what it says on the tin, it is not a neutral encyclopedic article about the bnp. It is my opinion and the opinion of many respected commentators, that it is opinionated articles like this that fail to reflect the reality of the situation and by cause and effect of failing to honestly reflect opinions and positions that this misrepresentation is actually attracting people to the party. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Post hoc rationalisation is a wonderful thing. Amending the article to reflect BNP positions is hardly NPOV. Focusing on facts is the best way to improve the article whether editors are pro or anti. At the moment I think its pretty fair but could do with improvement --Snowded TALK 16:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well excuse me if I disagree, as one of the editors that is anti the bnp you would say that, what is it about the irish troubles editors editing this article, I don't get it? why is that? Is it an IRA thing? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Many editors have interests across articles relating to Britain and Ireland, I don't see any transfer of Troubles issues here so I think its just a similar pool of editors. If you disagree then fine, but it remains simple, you have to provide sources (and that means reliable third party sources not the BNP Web site, or OR based on your reading) to support any edit. --Snowded TALK 13:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP will never be mainstream, especially whilst Griffin is leader. I am anti mass immigration, the labour government over the past 10 years have done huge damage to England by allowing out of control immigration however that does not mean its right for the BNP to have a whites only policy which still exists because the constitution has not yet been changed. Its a disgusting party that will see its support radically fall when labour is out of power.

This article could do with some improving. If we clearly listed all the main BNP policies we would show just how silly it is. Its economic policy is a joke, they would start a trade war which completely destroys British exports costing millions of jobs. Their policy on crime is just to bring back hangings and floggings. Their defence policy is to annoy our most important ally by kicking American troops out of Britain, running away from a few terrorists in Afghanistan and withdrawing from NATO. This party is a joke, however the article doesnt say all of that. Its pretty fair considering how badly this party could be described. If you can suggest examples of where bias can be removed please do, claiming the whole thing is just unfair solves nothing. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Griffin was yesterday five to one to be elected member of parliament for Barking at the next election, there are a lot of sitting members of parliament right now that would be happy with similar odds of re-election, I realize that there are half a dozen or so regular experienced editors here that can not disguise there dislike of the bnp and the editing to the article is reflected in that point of view. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion that I point out the issues is a bit naive, I occasionally attempt to improve the article and repeatedly find good faith edits reverted by editors that have strongly held declared positions against the subject of the article. Could someone enlighten me to the reason that editors that edit the troubles article are also editing this article, as I said, is it an IRA thing? Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BNP, IRA, PLO etc etc. One must have patients, to try an get such articles to NPOV. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Patience good day, not patients.... to be honest...a monk could not have enough patience to edit here, you good day are also involved in the troubles editing, please comment as to the reason the editors involed in those articles are involved here, should I ask Elonka to add this article as troubled related conditions as so many of the editors involved in those disputes are editing here? Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, this article doesn't fall under Troubles related. It's the 'trigger finger effect' that occurs in these articles. We all must get into the practice of bringing our 'changes' to the talkpages 'first'. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good day, I like you, a loyal friend. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Lmao well the whole thing would be a complete joke if this was somehow considered "troubles related". The fact some of the editors involved in this article are involved in others which may relate to the troubles means nothings. Griffin will never sit in the British parliament, if he appears to be doing well which is unlikely then Labour, Lib Dem, Greens, UKIP and Conservative voters will engage in tatical voting to ensure Griffin does not get in. I understand some of your changes may be reverted, if you spot something then suggest it here and we can seek to improve it.

We need specifics of where the article can be improved. The only thing people usually mention is the fascist and whites only label. Whilst some of the editors here may dislike the BNP i do not think thats reflected in their edits. I think its helpful if people know each others POV on the talk page, it makes it easier to judge if the edits are balanced or not. If you can point us to unfair edits which remain in the article, then please do BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, again your understanding of British politics is different to mine, and I again suggest that there is a connection to this article and the editors from the troubles, I don't understand why and no one is saying? Your suggestion that tactical voting will take place in Barking is a joke, and there is nothing to support your opinion at all. As for specifics regarding this worthless article that no one could or will ever read, I will not waste my time with individual specifics as you desire. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You suggest there is a connection but you do not know why? Many of us comment on the UK article or Wales article, does that mean we should rule those as troubles related too? Its just fact that people bump into each other on articles related to a specific country, there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Well it may be a joke because the mainstream parties would not even need to use such methods to ensure Griffin loses, but if it becomes desperate and it looks like Griffin may win more votes than labour i do not know why you think its impossible that the lib dem candidate may drop out asking his supporters to back labours candidate.. Stranger things have happened!
Well the fact you consider it a waste of time to suggest problems with the article here goes to show there is not such a clear bias of problems. Otherwise you could easily list this, that and the other which you think are problems and we can discuss them. I will support changes that improve the article and make it clearer / more accurate aslong as its not censorship to hide this party and Griffins dark side.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I will not waste my time commenting as you request when it appears that there is a group of editors editing here that have been seen to edit articles related to the irish troubles, I will first look at those issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

White or caucasian, they're interchangeable. Anyways, I'm considering request full protection for this article. PS: recommend 'deleting' whites and/or caucasian, until ya'll can reach a settlement. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We do not need full protection at this stage, if it is locked then it must use the original wording which states the BNP is a whites only party. Their constitution has not been changed from the articles ive seen. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is locked it should be locked to the origional page before this debate began. It should also be understood that this would not be an indorsment of that version. However is it not also true that were there is a conflict the information should be left out untill the dispute is resilved?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steven the article is not locked, but it has been placed under a one revert per day per person editing restriction, please watch out not to violate that as immediate block could be applied, you are of course free to improve and add whatever content you like, cited of course. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One revert rule

See, there is an issue, please be aware all editors involved in editing this article and the related troubles articles that this article is subject to a one revert condition, please take care and use the talkpage for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK i want an explanation for this misleading suggestion that this is Troubles related. If there is not an explanation on this page i will be taking it to the Admin noticeboards. This is getting crazy. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you come here editing with your troubles related mates then you should expect to get affiliated to the troubles editing conditions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made a post on the Admins noticeboard Here. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider this to be troubles related myself but the explaination to the confusion may be the relation of "skinheads" to Protestant militant youth groups during the 80s and the relationship between skinheads and Nationalist front type groups from which the BNP are spawned and are/were strictly anti-Irish Nationalist. Today if a load of young kids kick some other ones about usually they are football fans or gang members. In the 80s they were usually skinheads with Doctor Martin shoes... this was before runners were very comfortabe and expensive. Is that right or are they just making things up? ~ R.T.G 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I am in tow minds. The BNP has a policy on Ireland, so could fall within the scope of the 1RR rule. But the dispute in question is not. I would say that unless the irelnad issue become a bone of contention then we should not have the 1RR ireland rule here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a "Troubles" related article, unless that is concidered to cover every article related to the British Isles.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is absolutely crazy! a one revert rule might help but this is not related to the troubles! --Natet/c 11:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested clarification here:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles --Natet/c 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Hopley

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Gavin Hopley, a 19-year-old white man who was mugged and kicked to death by Asian Muslims" to "Gavin Hopley, a 19-year-old white man who was mugged and kicked to death by Pakistani British Muslims" [1][2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampyyy (talkcontribs) 10:36, 19 November 2009

I do not see where either of those two references, [12] [13] describe the attackers as Pakistani British. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
... and the reference that is already there [14] includes "a white teenager killed by a gang of Bengali men", Bengal being some distance from Pakistan. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Not done As per the conversation above. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The sources say "following an attack involving up to eight Asian men in Oldham", "were set upon by a gang of Asians carrying sticks" and "killed by a gang of Bengali men", the last one being about the admission of five Bengali men who were imprisoned for the murder. The first source does mention "Asian" and "the Muslim faith." but only in relation to a different incident, "In the wake of the Donald trial, community leaders have been left casting around for scapegoats. Ashraf Anjum, president of Glasgow’s central mosque, blames the fact that young Asians are turning their backs on the Muslim faith." To figure how that relates "Asian Muslims" to Gavin Hopely, you will just have to research it or look the incident up on another website, sorry. This article is not currently open to correcting factual errors. ~ R.T.G 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Do the Article milestones need updating?

I was just wondering, should we add that on the 16th of November 2009 this article became "The Troubles related"? Its quite a major development in this article's history. Such a wonderful accomplishment. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me fair to list it as a molestone. Perhaps a Barn Star is also deserved?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Lol yes a barn star would be good too. The milestone section should say...
November 16, 2009 The Troubles-Related nominee Listed
Current Status: The Troubles-Related Article
Looks good to me. If only there was a formal process to apply for the status. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need to apply, we have it. Now lets be proud.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
What on earth!?! The only link I can find to the BNP & The Troubles in the article is the very last link where they are accused of trying to infiltrate loyalist paramilitaries, some what tenuous as this is well after hight of The Troubles the article even says that racism is more of an issue then sectarianism. Is this tag on Mo Mowlam's page? They are otherwise at probably LESS involved with then than most national British political parties, I can only assume it seems to be a gross misunderstanding --Natet/c 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have requested clarification here:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles --Natet/c 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Political party 'or' political party

In the opening sentence, it shouldn't be capitalized; as it's not named 'Political party'. Examples: We capitalize, Republican party, Labour party, Conservative party. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I have removed these citations from the lede, they did not support the comments, feel free to use them for other comments, if required..[3][4] Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Tweakin the article

I am up for getting together and working down the article and just removing the poorly cited and excessively opinionated content, section by section...one section a day..day by day, nothing is perfect but together lets try to improve the article, so it is at least easy to read and informative. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest changes here first. Verbal chat 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
A large amount of sourced info was deleted under the summary of "tweak", etc. I'm going to restore it pending a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, well, it maybe was cited but it wasn't needed in the lede, and although there was no apparent consensus, there was no strength of opposition either. It was a good faith edit to improve the article, it removed the excess and the opinion from the lede. It was a good edit and you should have a good excuse to revert it. Off2riorob (talk)
If it doens't belong in the lede then move it elsewhere. Text that's in a wrong section should be moved to the right section, not deleted.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I appreciate your comments there, move don't delete, I am always thinking, it is there in the archive if you want it, and that what I removed was actually so badly written that it wasn't worthwhile moving it anywhere, but you are right, thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It is best to propose first in order to not lead to these sorts of misunderstandings. Not minor changes or "tweaks", but removal of content or references, or reorderings, should be discussed first. Verbal chat 13:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the key problem here was the edit summary implying that it was minor changes not major ones and a clearer summary would probably keep people calmer. While asking for consensus for large changes is not essential, on a controversial article which is being actively discussed it is also not unreasonable. --Natet/c 14:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"BNP signs its first non-white member..."

Now the BNP's got its first so-called "non-white" member according to The Independent (according to BNP "the first ethnic minority member of the BNP"): [15]. -GabaG (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, membership is closed, it says that. Please be aware this is not a tabloid chip paper, and these sort of opinionated talk page red herrings do not help us improve the article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
lol agreed its best to wait for a reliable source like the BBC before we add it to the article, but its first non white member would indeed be noteworthy for the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
other sources, [[16]] (a noted bastion of truth). It does however say htat he is about to join, not that he has. We also have [[17]], which I have objected to as a blog, but others seem to think is relaible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that this one person is notable, if the bnp gets a gathering of non white supporters or after the new non white constitution there was a surge in similar memberships then we could add it to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
except that all they need is one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this one? I don't get your point stephen? Off2riorob (talk)16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
My point is that all they need to do is sign up one non-white member, and this bloke looks like he's the one that they want (Nah, Nah, Nah).Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I see, for me, one token member will not make any difference really except in a headline grabbing way. Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There were Jewish fascists in Mussolini's Italy. They all died in death camps. Perhaps Rajinder will take advantage of the BNPs offer to give "generous cash incentives" to go back to Lahore. They are going to love him there.--Streona (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the lede

I attempted to improve Off2robrio's change to the lede by making it proportionate. The fact that something is cited does not make it appropriate, the lede summarises the main article. Praising the leader and over long accounts of election success are not appropriate. This has now simply been restored without any attempt to move towards an agreement which to my mind is edit waring and not in the spirt (maybe not the letter) of the 1RR restriction or WP:BRD. I suggest self reversion. --Snowded TALK 14:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what exactly is the content that you are talking about? Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The dakenham and barking results are important, those results were a watershed in the raising of the bnp's support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I also fail to see how you attempted to improve my edit, you simply reverted it all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as your comments regarding 1RR goes, I have one revert in the last 24hours, the rest of my edits are additions. The additions that you reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to not like any good faith attempts to improve the article, I removed the section in a vain attempt to improve it, I went to the library to read books and make change and you didn't like it, I was the one who removed the section, under a bit of protest, you object to the new section so I fail to see what your issue is, the section that I self reverted to was in the lede for a long time I have simply self reverted to re add it, you want only things you like in the article, it is upsetting when I take my time to improve the article and you simply reject it, what a waste of time.Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you calm down a bit and look at what has happened. You inserted to paragraphs in the lede, I amended both to something that might be acceptable on the basis that it was excessive and in one case NPOV concerns apply. , you have simply restored your changes. That means WP:BRD really comes into effect. You are not making further changes in an attempt to reach a compromise, you are simply inserting the original material which might be considered a 1RR failure and is certainly a failure to abide by the spirt of WP:BRD. I also suggest you strike several of the comments in the last paragraph, deal with the content stop attacking other editors --Snowded TALK 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You deleted 95 percent of my additions, some of my edits you reverted completely, as I said I have one revert. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You really don;t get this do you. I considered your changes excessive but left both changes there in part. I could have simply reverted everything and said "take to talk" given reasons here. Instead I tried to improve it and you have simply restored your position. To make it clear (i) all other years in the election results section have maybe one small sentence, you made that over elaborate. The additions on the leader would only be verifiable by seeing out the books concerned and in any case were excessive. To say be has increased professionalism is one thing, the rest was over the top. Now again, I suggest you revert. --Snowded TALK 14:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll should just go straight to discussing. Avoid the bold edits, which will avoid the reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Its an alternative GoodDay, but having taken the bold edit option, Off2riorob then either has to accept a progressive series of edits or bring things to the talk page rather than restoring his original edits which are contested. --Snowded TALK 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Recommend a reversion to before all that. Then work it out, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, giving him/her a chance to do it him/herself before raising the issue. --Snowded TALK 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Asd I said, I have one revert. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see what you have issues with, the party under griffin has raised its profile, and I add some very important election results which were a watershed in the increase in popularity, and I went to the library and researched some points and added them, the 2001 riots were another watershed for the party and it is considered to be another of the reasons for the parties increased popularity, imo it was a lot better and more neutral and better written. You came along accused me of OR and reverted my edit and removed the important dagenham and barking results as you thought it was excessive, I reverted some of your edit and replaced the section that I removed to rewrite a better lede, when you removed it I replaced the section that was there until a couple of days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears the WP:THIRD route, may be required. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What exactly does Snowded want removing? Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Assuming you mean 'removed', I haven't checked. The article content isn't my concern, cooling friction between 2 editors, is. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm relaxed GoodDay, just trying to get this right, although I do sense you have your old spoon out again. --Snowded TALK 16:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob - You made two changes originally. One on Griffin which I cut in half to something proportionate to the lede and clearly true. The second was to include 2006 election results which also made sense, but again it was excessive providing detail which is elsewhere in the article. The lede is meant to summarise things, I also removed this text: The BNP support has increased measurably in recent years especially since the rioting in the summer of 2001 by groups of Asian and white people, the party created links within the white communities and with it's policies of anti immigration and British jobs for British people, gained the support of white voters unhappy with the racial tensions. This is not supported by references and is OR at best, POV at worst. It ascribes reasons for things without citation and those reasons would be contested anyway. Now again, no one wants an edit war here, it was a bold edit and you would not prepared to accept a modification so it should be removed and taken to the talk page. --Snowded TALK 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed that, it is gone, I went to the library and the comments were from the books I cited, there is nothing OR about those contents at all, actually that is the most upsetting, I went to the library and did some reading and what a waste of time, you accused me of OR and took it out, I spent a couple of hours there, what a waste of time, the 2001 riots are worthy of a mention in the lede, , it is not taken to the talk page it is gone completely, and as it is such a waste of my time, hey, anyone can say ..thats excessive and remove an addition. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong in para phrasing this book? D.Renton 2003 Explaining the success of the British National Party. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What a joke, we have this now...Under Griffin's leadership the parties media profile has changed. Has it? really? OK..thanks, that explains a lot.I will tell them that at work tomorrow, hey did you know.....Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I think any qualification of the statement that Griffin is the leader of the party in the lede is inappropriate. In an effort to compromise I left in the increase in media presence which is true and for which there is some argument for it to be in the lede. As far as I can see Renton is an article not a book and I'm not inclined to pay $25 to access it on line (maybe someone else can check it out there may be useful material there). I have no idea why you put a whole body of text back in which you had originally removed (and the removal had not been disputed). I still think the 2006 sentence is too long for the lede but its not a major issue so I will leave that to other editors--Snowded TALK 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
twenty five dollars, you could always waste your time and go to the library. Forget about it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Please just attempt to justify the changes you'd like to make here to the lead, and try to achieve consensus. This isn't helping. Verbal chat 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I would point out that many of the early sources in this article are from articles you have to pay to view, and these are considerd RS. The fact you have to pay to view a source does not render it non-RS. So it cannot be removed for that reason.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, not challenging it as a RS, but that doesn't mean the paraphrase is correct, hence the request for someone with access to check it out. --Snowded TALK 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a good informative neutral written edit, did you like it Slaterstephen? Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. I do not think we need how many seats they took in Dagnam or Vietnam I do think that the growthy of the part could be there (but may need trimming). Aslo some of youe changes do not appear sourced "The BNP support has increased measurably in recent years especially since the rioting in the summer of 2001 by groups of Asian and white people, the party created links within the white communities and with it's policies of anti immigration and British jobs for British people, gained the support of white voters unhappy with the racial tensions." or example (this also seems a bit NPOV). But if you can find a source for this (and trim the whole section a bit) it should be OK, but not really needed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Those comments are all para phrased from Renton 2003, the dagenham results were a major point in the bnp's growth, I don't think it is in any way pov, it is a simple reflection of what happened, I won't waste my time any more. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK I was not sure if the passage I qouted was backed up by the Renton source (which seemed to be for the effect of Mr Griffin on the parties press). If (as you say) its backed up by the Renton source then fine (though I still think it needs a bit of trimming). As to Dagnam, its civerd by the statemtn they doubled their seats we do not need to know how many in the lead, save that for the body.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Those 11 seats in Dagenham was a major turning points for the party, and is a useful addition to the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, but its appropriate from the main body, its excessive detail on the lede, and its 2006 three years ago. Maybe if that sort of thing is going in then the normal reversals after a sudden surge in BNP presence (a historical pattern) should also be put there to prevent a misleading impression. At the moment is implies steady growth and I am not sure that is sustained by the sources --Snowded TALK 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It was a major change in the bnp history, this first time the party was brought to most peoples attention, people were amazed that they got eleven seats there, actually Bark and dag is one of the bnp's major centers of powerbase and is the council where griffin will stand at the upcoming election, I would say the Bark and Dag is worthy of keeping in the lede, these eleven seats was a pivotal moment in the parties history. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are a couple of links from 2006 from the BBC, worth a read to see how those results were reported, [18] .. [19] [20] Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but every other year has a short paragraph, its a matter of proportion and proper balance with the main body of the article. --Snowded TALK 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems balanced to me, have a read of the links and see the importance that reporters gave to the doubling of support. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this the same comment we are both talking about? .. " In the 2006 English local elections the party doubled its number of seats in England and took 11 seats on the Barking and Dagenham council." ? Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes and the key fact is (from the sources youi provided) that "the party doubled its number of seats in England" and only one of your sources seems to say that the Dag/Bark result was significant in and of itself, and then only in connection with their support in London.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, hence by editing it down to the "doubled" which is significant and the resultant entry proportionate --Snowded TALK 20:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I would say the comment does not require trimming at all, it is not excessive to me at all I would say if you really wanted to then I would prefer this.. In 2006 ther bnp won eleven council seats in dag and bark, but as I say, I can see no real need to trim it at all, if you insist I will ask for a RFC about the addition. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it just dag and barking you don't want to be mentioned, it is going to be impossible for me to get any consensus for anything, imo insisting on removing dag and bark is beyond my understanding and if you insist I will ask for external opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Not in the lead no. Mention details in the body of the article. You have provided no source to back up your claim that the Bag/Bark results are more significant then the overall gains made by the BNP in that year. We are trying to keep info creep out of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not info creep at all, it is very relevant detail, that was a watershed in the history of the bnp. I fail to see what your issues are, eleven council seats, it is one of the biggest days in the history of the party, it is not in need of censorship is it, dag and barking, see nothing happens. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well three of us are now pointing out that you need a source to say that Dag and Bark are especially significant, at the moment you are arguing the case, but that is OR. The source says that they doubled their seats, that has a source, is significant and is also the right sort of length for the lede. You added a long sentence in, several editors want a shorter one. That is surely a a consensus. --Snowded TALK 21:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You are asking me for a source to say that the bnp winning eleven seats in one council local election is especially notable? The comment is not long or excessive either, if you find it really a big issue, I fail to see why at all, would you mind if I ask for an independent comment in this instance, it seems like a kind of censorship to want to remove all mention the location of one of the biggest days in the history of the party. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Try and get it right, everyone agrees the doubling is significant but the rest (as is pointed below) is your synthesis and not appropriate. I suggest you lay off accusations of censorship as well its not helpful, neither is it correct. --Snowded TALK 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I am lookin for more links to show the importance of the results, in the bbc link I gave you already...Barking and Dagenham is the first council in the country to have the BNP as the second-biggest party Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No one is saying do not have it in the article, we are saying it should not be in the lead, this is not censorship. but if that is what you bleive then by all means take it further.Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is up to date and reveals how really relevant Dag and bark is, since that day in 2006 when the bnp won eleven seats it has been at the center of the parties following, from the Jewish chronicle BNP 'will take its first council' at next election. The British National Party is poised to win control of its first council in Britain to add to its success in the European elections earlier this year. The Labour Party high command has been told that activists in east London believe Barking and Dagenham Council may well fall to the neo-fascist party in local elections next year. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

From the globalpost How Britain's all-white party gained its following. The British National Party claims opposition status in the council of the London borough Barking and Dagenham. The dockside community of 170,000, where populist disenchantment with immigration, Islam and established political parties combined to give the all-white BNP its first major electoral breakthrough. In 2006, the party seized 12 of 51 council seats, making the government body the only one in Great Britain where the BNP is the formal opposition. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle source does not say the result was important, that’s your interpretation of what it says, you are crossing very far over the line of synthesis here. I also now believe that this raises serious doubts about information that you have ‘paraphrased’ from RS. Your globalpost source reported they got 12 not 11 as in the other sources, not very reliable. So did they win 11 or 12? untill we have this fact worked out this must be left out. Slatersteven (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The correct figure is 12, and not 11. The source of the difference is that the Returning Officer made a mistake in the Eastbury ward and Jeffrey Steed's vote of 1,102 was mistakenly written down as 102 - which moved him from the top to the bottom of the poll. Hence only 11 councillors were actually declared elected in May 2006, but Jeffrey Steed then went to the High Court to get the result of his election rectified. That change was made at the end of July 2006 without a further election. Any source counting the number of BNP councillors in Barking and Dagenham in May would count 11 but that was not the result of the election. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK article needs checking over this then. Is Globalpost RS by the way?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to BNP constitution

I've again changed the wording of the first para because it should not present the party as having a former policy of restricting membership on racial grounds. This is incorrect and no source was provided.

You can see from the report here: [21] that the party chairman has agreed in court to "use all reasonable endevours" to get the party's constitution changed. That hasn't been done yet - when it has, then this should be reflected, but not before. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its also trtue that they have agreed to suspend all new applications untill the new constitution is agreed. So as such the 11th edition consitution, and all membershi-p criteria are in limbo. So at this time it can be argued they do not restrict membership, as they are not allowing anyone to join.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
But WP doesn't report things on the basis that they are arguable, it reports only verifiable facts. The article could legitmately say exactly what you do: "they have agreed to suspend all new applications untill the new constitution is agreed". Membership is supended, but this does not warrant implying that the membership criteria has changed. In theory, Nick Griffin could fail to get his proposed change through. --FormerIP (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if he does fail as you say, the old constitution is illegal and will not be replaced, membership is closed under those conditions. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[[22]] they have agreed to change it and have accpeted (for whatever reason) that the membership restrictions (as they stood) were illegal. WP is also not about predicting the future.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Membership is not closed, there is a temporary suspension. If and when that ends, we are not currently in a position to guess as what the situation will be. --FormerIP (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Membership is closed under the old constitution, the white only one, the white only bit is illegal, I think the problem people have is that they want easy clear cut reasons to dislike the party and they seem to be upset to lose one of the main points they had to dislike the party, and that they can no longer point the finger and go..whites only racist they are at a loss, people seem upset that the party can no longer be called white only? Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
So it is closed for now. That is what suspension means, it is at this time no longer in operation. As such (and at this time, the future is an undiscovered constituency) they are not allowed, and have suspended, their membership rules.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I am only guessing, but I would say the unveiling of the new constitution is going to be a high profile event, with the new constitution being much more moderate and mainstream in a move to attract increased support from middle england. That is how politics works, the new constitution will be seen and reported as a break from the old party, something along the lines of the new labour re branding and the tory new not nasty party. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that is one of the things that concerns Ms Chakrabarti.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that all the opposition parties are a bit bothered about the possibilities of a rise in support for the bnp. Also under what is rumored to be the new moderate constitution we will of course have to re-evaluate the article stand point as regards the parties status as fascist and far right and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Steven: they haven't actually suspended their membership rules, they have decided not to accept new members at the current time. The rules themselves remain in place. This is the central point: the article currently implies that they are ex-rules, but this is a WP:SYN misrepresentation. The article should state verifiable facts, not a creative interpretation of those facts settled upon by editors. --FormerIP (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well we have this [[23]]states the constitution, not just membership admittance, has been suspended.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's at least sourced. However, you just broke 1RR. Assuming you feel bound by this, I'm asking you to self-revert. --FormerIP (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Err I thought it was under a 1RR a day rule. I have only edited the section on the ruling twice today[[24]]. One addition of a source [[25]] and one changing of your added passage[[26]]. As far as I was aware the 1RR rule did not mean you could not revert, but that you could revert only once. Indead you have edited this section as many times as I have today.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yea, it seems fine to me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I was confusing you with Snowded, Steven. However, looking at your history, you are technically in breach. [27] [28] --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that, they are edits to totally different material in a way of improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's immaterial, Rob. They are both edits which remove material added by other editors (= revert). --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
One did not remove material, it added it. Now if you beilive that I have breached the 1RR rule this is not the place to dicsue the mater, I susgest that you take it thru hte appropriate channles.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The first one [29] removed "and took 11 seats on the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham council", the second one [30] removed "The constitution has been suspended following the court case, pending agreement on new membership rules". I don't really want to take anything through proper chanels, Steven, I'd just like to see the second chunk of text you removed restored, since it was a POV edit, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
PS It may not be my business, but you really ought to also self-revert here: [31] --FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The first was done yesterday, not today (though true it was within the last 24 hours). As to my second edit changed "Memberships is currently closed to all new members pending a decision by the party about changes to it's consitution." to "The constitution has been suspended following the court case, pending agreement on new membership rules ", I did not delete that text, in keeping with what the source said. Are you actualy susgersting that we can only alter material once a day?, the 1RR rule is to stop edit warring, not editing. However as I have said this is not the place to discuse it, should you wish to then we should take this elsewere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Steven, 1RR means you may only revert (essentially, that means "remove text from or re-insert deleted text into") the article once in a 24h period. It doesn't matter that your edits may have been quality edits made in good faith. Your last two edits broke the 1RR rule. I don't want to report you for it, because you would probably get a ban, which I don't think is warranted. I'd like you just to revert, which you ought to, because I think your version and my version here [32] are both supported by the source, except yours is slightly more fovourable to the BNP. Rather than debate that, I'm asking you just to stick within the rules. --FormerIP (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have said all I will say on the matter here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you are splitting hairs Formerip, the version slater tweaked to has since been tweaked be me to an ever better version, I would only tweak it again if slater reverted, I suggest moving on and looking to see if there are any more edits you would like to add to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
FormerIP's edit.

Memberships is currently closed to all new members pending a decision by the party about changes to it's consitution

what we have now.

The constitution has been suspended and new membership applications are not being accepted pending agreement on a new constitution

It just looks like it has been tweaked to me and it looks better now, I fail to see as FormerIP suggests that the new version is more favorable to the bnp? Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the nature of the BNP is not defined by its "whites only" or not "whites only" status. The nature of it as it sees itself is that it exists to promote the interests of "indigenous populations" at the expense of those who have immigrated since the second ice age but one. The chief method for doing so is in encouraging the second group to leave (despite the land bridge having been overwhelmed by the English Channel and the North Sea).It will now be open to non-white ie those who have immigrated in more historic times, to join with the existing BNP membership in encouraging themselves and their relatives to leave. It does not make the BNP in essence a different party, es[pecially since the rights of new members is and will be extremely circumscribed. The present furore is an irrelevence.--Streona (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article British National Party, along with other articles relating to The Troubles

How does this article relate to "the troubles"? I see no grounds that this is correct, and no reasonable doubt either. Verbal chat 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see this section for the first raising of the issue Talk:British_National_Party#Say_whats_in_the_source Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question. Unless it is answered this will be taken to the community. It is probably Elonka that should answer. Verbal chat 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why are you asking here if you only want an answer from elonka? Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Because we are supposed to try to arrive at some kind of consensus before we take this further. Almost all the edds on this page (from all sides of the debate, and even the corners) have disagreed with a unilateral desision.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to answer yourself, but Elonka's reasoning would be interesting. So far she has stated she has a "doubt", but not justified this doubt or elaborated in any way. I'm following normal procedure by posting here. I have no interest or involvement in the troubles, yet I'm familiar with the topic outside of wikipedia - and the BNP has nothing to do with it. If Elonka does not justify this action it will likely be reversed. Verbal chat 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Try this, have a look through the history and see how many of the editors that edit troubles articles can you count. There is clearly a connection and the 1RR condition will in any case not do this article any harm at all. IMO. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The response on the clarification request page goes out of its way to not clarify the requested information. It simply says to "hash it out". So hash away... I do not consider this article troubles related. Just because some editors who also are involved in troubles articles are here does not justify it being labelled as troubles related. There is a mention of Ireland in the article although all UK political parties have policies on Ireland. It is very clear that the dispute that erupted was not over or related to the contents about Ireland. There for this should be delisted as its not a troubles related article. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you are a troubles editor, aren't you? Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There was clearly a collection of troubles editors editing this subject in a negative way, and when I asked why it turned you that there is a connection and the bnp is disliked by one or other of the groups from the troubles, perhaps both, I don't know, I fail to see what the issue is, Elonka has said that if the article is stable after a few weeks then the troubles restriction will be removed, I myself have already noticed a reduction in the editing by the troubles editors since the restriction has been in place. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The issue is I have no qualm with Elonka taking admin actions, but doing so under false pretences is not on, and making the apperance that this is some kind of AC endorsed action when it isn't. If this were a troubles related article then this case provides sweeping powers that cannot easily be overturned by other admins. However, this is clearly not the case. Some editor overlap does not make it related, and the addition of the tag on this page has without a doubt been disruptive. The issue is that there is no relation. If Elonka wants to extend the scope (as she is attempting) or start a new case, fine - but for now this case doesn't apply here. Verbal chat 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
(Ec) As pointed out elsewhere it's obviously not a Troubles-related article. Also, people are not defined as "Troubles" editors, and the fact that some people who edit in the NI area might sometimes edit other areas relating to British politics is hardly a surprise (I'm not even clear exactly how large the overlap really is in any event). The issue is one of basic accuracy and clarity, especially in a situation where the threat of editor sanctions is being waved about. And whether the arbitrary misapplication of an editing regime designed and approved for something else altogether is the reason for any alleged improvement here (which could easily have happened in 101 other ways and for 101 other reasons) is a moot point, and a claim unsupported by any evidence. --Nickhh (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The question: Does the fact that editors who've been involved at Troubles-related articles, automatically make articles Troubles-related, by their presence? GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Clearly not. Verbal chat 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a historical dislike of the bnp regarding its policies by the same people that edit the troubles articles, something about Eire, and other issues? Why do so many of the people that edit the IRA articles also edit this article, and edit it in a negative way? Sorry but it is seems undeniable. Off2riorob (talk)
What evidence do you have, apart from some editors are the same? Editors active in one political arena active in another? What is the link. There is wide dislike of the BNP, and it has nothing to do with "the troubles". Please show some evidence that this "undeniable" link exists, which is far stronger than Elonka's unsubstantiated "doubt". WP:RS please. Maybe we should add the pseudoscience sanctions because I edit here. Verbal chat 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
All of these comments arose during the discussion, Good day will join the dot a bit, I'm sure, you are from a different group of editors. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And an answer wasn't provided then either. Do you have a justification? Please provide one, let others, or remove the notice. Verbal chat
The template is fine, what exactly is your problem? I agree and support the template, the article since it has been added has been much better, and possibilities for improving the article have arisen, there is a connection with Ireland and I am not going to go searching for reliable sources to help you accept it, I suggest you simply ask one of the Irish editors what the exact connections are. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no connection. I understand "the troubles" quite well myself, thanks. The template is misleading as this is not a troubles related article and these sanctions do not apply. Elonka is failing in her admin duty by not justifying this admin action. The article has improved despite the incorrect application of the "troubles" template. You need to accept that there is no connection, or provide proof of one. Verbal chat 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill tell you what, if it is so troubling to you I could support the removing of the troubles template if there was a consensus to keep the 1RR on the article as I feel this 1RR is beneficial to the editing of this article? Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If an admin wants to impose and police a 1RR (per day) restriction, which can be reviewed in the usual way by any admin, and they give a reason and a set time, without appeal to sanctions that don't apply, then I would have no issue with that. Verbal chat 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is any objection to this idea, which I don't forsee..I wonder if Elonka would do the same work she is doing here with us right now but under those conditions, shall you ask her? Or do you want me too? Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka hasn't done anything to assist this article, so I'd be happy if she continued to do nothing, minus the tag, or if she actually policed a 1RR, minus the tag; provided she gave a justification. However, as there is currently no edit warring I don't see a current reason for any restriction. One can be placed, by an admin willing to police it, if the situation degenerates. Verbal chat 22:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There you go moving the goalposts, there are issues with this article and the IRR is clearly beneficial to editing here, there are also in the very near future going to be a lot of changes at this article, if you are unhappy with any editing restrictions then I remove my good will offer, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is your "lot of changes" a threat, a promise or a prediction? Not sure what you are getting at here. --Snowded TALK 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your signature is very messy in the edit box...there is not need to feel threatened. I don't know how you see it but to me it is a simple fact, the new constitution will be released in the near future, then there will be a lot of activity regarding that and the first ethnic members, the re-branding and the election on the near horizon.Off2riorob (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would support it, for a limited time. I feel it is unnecessary, but better than the current untenable situation. You would need to find an admin willing to police it (Elonka would suffice). Verbal chat 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that an enforced 1RR is a good thing, there are enough editors involved that it would have little effect but to scare off more moderate editors, and encourage the those with extreme opinions to recruit meat puppets and create sock puppets. Interestingly (an this is an not entirely related point) as the peoples currently living in Ireland, are decended form groups that have been resident in the British isles longer than most of the groups resident in England (who have a large amount of Roman, French and Scandinavian ancestry) the BNP's 'Ice age' philosophy would imply that they would set up policies to encourage re colonisation of England from Ireland etc.... The crux being this cannot be considered an 'anti-Irish policy'--Natet/c 09:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Given some recent events (and mis-understandings) 1RR is too severe, unless there s a clear e w edite arring holing up the pages evelopment. I would argue the opposite is rly now true the 1RR restriction is holing up the pages development. One last question are the Irish gang (A Shamrock of Irish?) only editing Ireland related pages, is there a major issue on Wikipedia of an Irish Mafia bibblaing about making themselves a right old nusicance?Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I propose we ask an admin to remove the troubles tag from the top of the page (at AN, ANI?). Comments? Verbal chat 17:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Give over, the troubles irish editors have again returned, reverting to their favoured position, adding nothing, offering nothing for discussion, remove the troubles template and there will be no chance for good faith editors to work on this article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive attacks on other editors. I have no interest in "the troubles" editors and unless you prove otherwise it is irrelevant here. We have several here saying that these restrictions are damaging to the article, and no one has as yet supported the link to "the troubles". Please either do this and stop trying to drag other disputes to this article. I suggest that we take his to ANI for review and reversal, per Vassyana. Verbal chat 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Another possibility, an RfC here? Verbal chat 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not overly familiar with all the characters, but a quick glance at the article recent history and its talk page doesn't suggest that there are vast numbers of Troubles-related editors (which is a bit of a limiting description anyway) swarming over this page, edit-warring and refusing to discuss those edits. Even if there were, that still wouldn't make it a Troubles article, as has been pointed out consistently. And of course the length of the thread above also suggests that the presence of the tag is hardly helping to focus discussion on improving the article, but instead is stoking disputes - and quite possibly drawing the attention of "Troubles editors" as much as it is helping in any way. As for how to deal with this farce, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that one of us should simply take the tag off. That's how editors would normally deal with someone putting a picture of a cat on the dog page saying "this is a dog", however charming the picture was. Here though we are all tip-toeing round that, since the addition was made purportedly in pursuance of an ArbCom decision, however absurd that assertion is. The admin who unilaterally and bizarrely applied the Troubles tag is refusing to listen to anyone, while at WP:ANI we were directed to ask for clarification from ArbCom, where we are in turn being palmed off somewhere else again. There's no guarantee this won't happen at the next venue. They make films about these sort of absurdities. --Nickhh (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Should we workshop the wording of the RFC/AN/ANI notice? Hopefully Elonka will reverse herself or provide a satisfactory justification, making this unnecessary. I'd rather focus on improving this and related articles, such as the EDL article. Verbal chat 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As I say, I'm in two minds. It seems like such a struggle to get such a daft mistake corrected, and I'm not sure I want to spend any more time on it. Having said that, it's becoming more and more ridiculous the more I look at it - between the 13th and 16th (ie from when the membership issue flared up here to the point where Elonka added the tag), I can see a grand total of three article edits from what might very loosely be called "Troubles editors" who do not appear to have recently otherwise edited either the BNP page or other UK political pages. Neither of the two involved appear as "disciplined" editors on the Troubles Arb page. So even that flimsy (and irrelevant anyway) argument is blown out of the water - if anything I suspect it has merely encouraged people to start talking about "IRA editors". I don't know whether Elonka made a genuine mistake and is now too stubborn to admit it, whether she accepts her action was probably in error but genuinely thinks that it has improved the page or whether it's some evil admin power-grab. Who knows. Personally I'm not that bothered about editing the substantive article myself (and despite Rob's comment below, not having done so is not some sort of bar to commenting on this specific issue), but the tag does need sorting. If you want to get on with helping with the article, I might work on a quick second ANI post in a couple of days. The decision is so obviously insane, and we have about 15-2 consensus on that already from those who have commented in various places (both involved and uninvolved in the article itself), that it's now got to the point where it's about straightforward admin error, or even abuse of tools. --Nickhh (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
An RfC would make the most sense to me, as it would get clear opinions from here and draw new ones (I almost started one yesterday, but was short on time) On why people are reluctant to remove the tag is because (in my case, and i suspect other) is because the draconian sanctions it lists imply that removing it will result in a summary block, with pesudo-authorization form abcom. Regardless of this I am still tempted to do it stating it improves the encyclopaedia to do so. --Natet/c 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
... and then based on comments here and here add it to every noticeboard we can find including the village pump. --Natet/c 12:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested text for RfC


Based on the discussions at Talk:British National Party (especially Talk:BNP#The article British National Party, along with other articles relating to The Troubles), abcom clarification request and on the adding admin's talk page the use of troubles banner and restrictions on the BNP article are disputed and more input on if it is appropriate would be appreciated.


1's draft comments & edits please --Natet/c 13:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Admins talk page" and link to it rather than "on the adding user's talk page". I would rather we tried to go down the ANI route first (with Elonkas approval and may be even if she could start it) to get feed back in a short period of time there rather than RFC which will probably take several days to get enough comments to form an opinion. The second post in the arbitrators views / discussion clearly says such a dicussion can take place there so it shouldnt get closed down the way my first attempt to post on ANI was. If that fails we should go to RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added the link. I can see you point on ANI, I was thinking that a for 'a community consensus' rather than asking an admin to intervene the RfC made sense but I wouldn't object to either.
Best to find out which path Elonka would prefer so we can ensure the issue is sorted out either way. Im fine with RFC if people that that will resolve it, i just wouldnt want us waiting a week or two to get enough responses to determine the solution to the problem, where as on an admins board u can get many responses quite quickly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A sitting Arb recommended the RfC route, which is my preferred option (unless Elonka corrects this before tomorrow, when we will get onto this properly). Verbal chat 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article edits

Please correct me if I am wrong but you have not even attempted to make an edit to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
When there is an ongoing dispute not why is not editing the article a bad thing? --Natet/c 12:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed vandalism which added this page to my watchlist. On contentious articles, unless there is an urgent need or my edits are restoring consensus, I prefer talk page discussion. I have recently become very interested in this area following the activities of the EDL, and the BNP appearing on question time etc. However, this is unrelated to improving the article and is again focussing on editors rather than on improving the article (WP:TALK). I have made no disruptive, unsupported or damaging edits to this article. Verbal chat 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case it would appear that the community (or at least the those who oversee) is not interested in consensus if that consensus overturns a desision by an admin. Iif this were onoly the Irish Mafia hijacking this page to push their por-republican and anti-British agenda there might be a reason for this. As been ppointed out more then twice this is ot the case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR

If I'm understanding the comments above:

  • Some feel that it is appropriate to place this article under a 1RR restriction per the ArbCom case.
  • Some feel that 1RR is appropriate for this article, but not to put the {{Troubles restriction}} tag on the article, because the topic is too distant from the case's scope
  • Some feel that 1RR isn't appropriate at all, because it stifles the editing of the article.
  • Some don't care either way.

Is that a fair summary? --Elonka 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

here is the main point, this article is in no way related to the troubles. Please remove your tag, that you have so far failed to justify. I haven't seen anyone who didn't care. Those that support your actions are in a very small minority, and even Off2riorob said he would support an unrelated 1RR. Please remove the tag so we don't have to waste time with the RfC. If you want to apply a temporary 1RR per day restriction, I don't mind and wont oppose - though at the moment there seems to be no reason for it, and it has caused problems on this page. Verbal chat 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, could you clarify: is your application of this tag an admin action? Verbal chat 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Elonka: just remove the {{Troubles restriction}} tag. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the 4 points. Although far more feel this article should not be considered troubles related than the small number who agree. I too would have no complaint at all about editing restrictions being placed on this article, but its just not troubles related and should not be described as such. Although i do not actually think this article needs any additonal restrictions, the only reason why there was an edit war the other day was because the situation with the BNP constitution has recently been changing and so new wording was needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with BWs summary. Verbal chat 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The tag is simply a reminder to the editors here that the article is under 1RR. I have no objections to anyone removing the tag, as long as it's clear that this is not carte blanche to start up with the revert wars again. If edit-warring starts up again, tag or no tag, there will be consequences. As long as people aren't reverting each other though, it won't be an issue. The preferred method to edit here, is to edit in a civil and collegial manner. Seek compromise, rather than simply reverting other editors, and that will be the best way to proceed. --Elonka 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that Elonka. I have removed the tag. Could you make a new post below outlining that this page is on a 1RR for the time you think best, say the original 30 days you mentioned on your talk page? Thanks again. Obviously edit warring should be avoided, and anyone who does should be blocked. Verbal chat 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Happy that this has been sorted out. Any issues that remain in terms of edits to this page can presumably now be sorted out on their own terms, as suggested above. Even though I'm not sure how much 1RR generally helps, or that there is such a problem here at the moment that it warrants much at all in the way of intervention beyond the usual rules. FWIW. --Nickhh (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown quote on immigration

The condemnation of the BNP by the main line political parties is not because they object to immigration. The fact that Brown has said that opposition to some forms immigration does not mean that you a racist has nothing whatsoever to do with the section which describes the universal rejection of the BNP as a racist party by all the main political groupings. This point has been made before, but the quote is reinserted from time to time with no justification. --Snowded TALK 08:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brown was clearly referring to peoples rejection of the BNP anti immigration policies and agreeing that holding those views is not to be considered racist, I would say it is totally relevant, all the comments about the ostrazisation of the bnp by the mainline parties and there is brown stating that people with the same fears as the bnp are not racist and that he has never thought that it was racist to have those fears, his comments are totally relevant here and are recent comments and show the main parties moving in line to some of the bnp policies. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention the BNP, it's OR to add it to this article. 2 lines of K303 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Or what? brown is clearly refering to one of the main policies of the BNP, anti immigration, all the parties are talking about that, and it has been instigated by the rise in popularity of the BNP, the comments from Brown and the other parties are clearly related to the BNP policy and the rise in support for the party, it is clearly correct and is going to be more only more citable in the near future, the major parties are in support of the anti immigration policies that the bnp have championed, whether you like it in the article or or not, it is citable and is only going to be more and more citable, please attempt to add material to improve the article, simply reverting to editors favored position is not moving forwards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As Snowed and One night say, this is WP:OR. Verbal chat 18:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Rob, the logic of what you're saying seems to me to be that the BNP campaigns on immigration, therefore any information that relates to immigration belongs in the article. That surely can't be right. Subject to considerations of weight (the article is supposed to be about the BNP, not Gordon Brown), I imagine it would be possible to find third-party sources which make a link between things Gordon Brown has said and the BNP. I think some of his own MPs have criticised him along those lines. If you can find a suitable quote it should be includable. But if it's you making the link rather than the source, then that is defintiely OR. --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you are right, the comments from brown were made as a response to the television program, dimberly express or whatever it is called, it would take a blind fool to say the comments from brown the were not in relation to the BNP, agreed he does not say specifically that he was saying that in relation to the bnp but to assume categorically that he is hardly a huge OR step, perhaps he was just saying...he has always felt that way, whatever, the main parties are moving towards the bnp's anti immigration policies and there will soon enough be more citations to support that position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that mainstream parties will ape the BNP, however much the BNP may spin it that way. And please note, this is not a forum for general discusson or speculation, and please do not imply others are "blind fools". This material should not be restored, unless a solid RS (not the BNP or associated groups) is provided linking it directly to the BNP. Verbal chat 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The content from brown is clearly related to one of the major policies of the bnp, anti immigration, a policy for which there are comments already in the article accusatory that the bnp is racist, this is a clear comment from brown in the aftermath of the dimblyby program..that clarifies fromn a person that is accuses of ostrasization of the bnp that he clearly supports that people that are worried about excessive immigration (the BNP) are not in his opinion to be considered racists, which is clearly relevant to this article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Rob, I think it's inconceivable that Brown meant his comments to be interpreted as "the BNP are not racist". We can't make the article out of idle speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not commented that, brown clearly only said that people that were worried about immigration should not be considered to be racist and that he had never felt that they were. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You did so comment that. Re-read what you put and where you inserted "the BNP" in brackets. --FormerIP (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also not OR, I will perhaps later add it as such, ....although the main parties have ostrasized the bnp, after the dimbelby program gord brown commented on peoples worries regarding immigration, one of the bnp's major policies, and was quoted as saying that people that were worried about immigration were not in his eyes racist. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And it is OR to say that the quote in anyway qualifies the condemnation of the BNP by the major parties. That condemnation is not because the BNP want to limit immigration, that policy is shared by all parties. It is because the BNP is seen as racist (and several other things) by those parties. Please do not add the quote without getting agreement here first. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The BNP is now seen by those parties as a party that is taking votes off them. that is their only problem, your comments here are more OR than you accuse me of, repeating OR OR OR will not change anything, I will find stronger citations, it will be easy. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
And that statement illustrates the problem you are having as an editor. The BNP has been condemned by the other major parties during times of its growth and decline. You are showing a consistent pattern of interpreting material to support a general apologia for the BNP. It is very important on a controversial article such as this to be very objective in the use of citations. I suggest take the advise of all other editors above to heart and use it to direct your energies and research. --Snowded TALK 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as why I am here goes...I am here because you are here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It is OR unless you find a WP:RS linking it to the BNP. As it seems contentious, you should also propose such an addition here and not add it to the article directly. (it's ostracised here, too). I see no evidence for a lot of the claims you are making. I don't understand the relevance of your last comment. Verbal chat 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I will find other citations, and I will not be chased off from editing here, which is how I feel... In regards to your question....I was accused by Snowed of being a bnp apologist and I replied that I am here only to balance the editing as an independent, I care less about the bnp, it appears that I am a supporter because I am simply attempting to balance the editing here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
No one is trying the chaise you off editing, just get you to follow normal rules on citation etc. Reacting in the way you just did is a further illustration of the problems you are having. --Snowded TALK 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not having any problems here, I am standing my ground and editing to improve the article, it is hard as there seems to be many ira editors here but I will not be chased off. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battleground Off2riorob, and please do not accuse others of bias. The suggestion that you need to be here to correct the bias of others, when the ground you are on lacks any firm foundation (no reliable sources and engaging in original research), is not civil and appears to be assuming bad faith. Please, as I have asked you repeatedly, comment on edits and bring RS, don't comment on editors and specifically please don't make accusations as to the motivations of others. You are not being chased off; when people have valid concerns you need to address those concerns - not attack others. You sound awfully like you believe you are here to ensure "the truth", but we need to follow RS and npov, and not treat this page as a forum. Please do propose any edits you wish to make here, with RS, and I'm sure I and others will regard them with good faith. Verbal chat 22:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Pleeese...your excessive linkage is tedious. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your IRA comment is unacceptable and insulting please delete it as its a clear brach of WP:CIVIL. --Snowded TALK 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I will not delete anything, I see this combined assault on me as nothing more than a disruptive attempt to chase me away from editing the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Good grief! IRA editors? Please stop this Off2riorob, I'd rather you weren't blocked but f you continue in this way you probably will be. You should probably be added to the troubles sanctions with edits like that. Please retract and apologise. Until new sources are brought I'm not going to comment here on this again. Verbal chat 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, shock horror, lets all move on, we are all amigos, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw the accusation and apologise then we can move on. Please realise that this sort of accusation is very serious. --Snowded TALK 23:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
May I ask why being called an "IRA editor" is worse then beiing called say a "BNP appologist"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Because the various faction of the 'IRA' are responsible for dozens of mass murders and it is still rather a sore spot for many. That said neither is appropriate language and it is a matter of the degree of unacceptable insult only. Can we get back to the point now?
Immigration control is not (necessarily) racist, neither is having open boarders anti-racist, I'm sure the US had a 'Welcome all comers' policy at one point, but still had laws based on race. --Natet/c 14:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is not the only party to be against immigration. Most of the laws restricting immigration have been passed by the Labour Party. However the BNP have policies to "encourage" a minority of people to leave based upon their racial origins. Whilst they are vague ablout what these encouragements will be, the denial of basic rights in the UK has been mentioned by Griffin. One might assume that there would be more stick than carrot. Apartheid in South Africa was underpinned by the notion that black people actually came from some homeland, such as Bophuthatswana rather than where they were actually born. The BNP policy is no different and that is why they differ from mainstream parties.--Streona (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

do you have any sources that prove that the BNP intend to intorduce Apartheid in this country?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I am sure they would not use the word (even Apartheid called itself "separate development")but it is difficult at present to refer to thje BNP website direct as it is buggered up, having been overrun by a navy-blue background which obscures its content. However I am suggesting that such a conclusion is both implicit and inevitable. Presumably that is why people vote for them.--Streona (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actualy you can read it, just highlight the text and cut and paste it into word. I would say that "encourage" might mean they intend to intoduce "separate development", but it might also mean giving them all so much money that they would almost have to be mad to refuse. So I again ask for a source that they intend to use a stick to "encourage" minorities to leave rather then carrot. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not assumptions or susgestions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that no one is suggesting putting anything in the article, what is this about? The BNP has the homeland concept in its constitution, its just the homeland is overseas not within the state. It also talks about "strong persuasion" if I remember aright. We know what that means for fascist parties from history. All of that is pretty self evident, so its OR as is the rebuttal. interesting stuff but nowt to do with the articel --Snowded TALK 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent nonesense in general - sourceable information

It seems that the recent edit warring in general, is not about information which cannot be reliably sourced, but which bits are appropriate as they have often the capability of implying two connotations. There doesn't seem to be any third connotations but lengthy discussion and flickering content on the article. Can the information sourced, in what editors are suggesting as - opposing interpretations, conflicting sources and changing circumstances, not be included wholesale with either connotation clearly represented and then argue about it later? The value to the reader is in the reliability but also in the diversity. Readers who disagree with the tone on the article will just ignore it unless they never heard of Wikipedia before and continue looking elswhere, so why don't you just give them it with both tones available where you consider two tones to exist? You know... "Oh don't display information about what they were going to do until they did it..." and "Don't display information about what they used to do if they don't do it anymore..." Or... "Display them all instead so we can all read it for a minute?" You are not going to turn anyone for or against the BNP on this article so you are just debating wether they can find info here or not so can editors not represent each conflicting resource instead of deciding which one to pick? ~ R.T.G 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No the value to the reader is the reliability, notability and verifiability of the information, not its diversity.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede too long

I suggest cutting down paragraphs 2 and 4 a little to improve readability. Also, 'parties' at the end of the 1st para should be 'party's'. Mice in drain (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and made a start. There were too many quotes and qualifications. There needs to be more material in the main body which is also where all the references should be located. --Snowded TALK 02:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessive comments

this section seems a bit excessive to me, this article is about the bnp isn't it? Seems to me some opinionated stuff and some coatracking, as regards the brother who was sacked for being sick, also specifically the report from 2004 that says that probation and civil services are considering bans on bnp membership...is that like an open ended consideration..they have been considering it for five years now and not done anything ..comment seems to have dated if you ask me..what do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Also someone who is the president of a bnp linked union with no official position in the bnp and his brother, the details of these two people are imo excessive here, neither of them have any position at the bnp at all. Do they?Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

Firstly there has been an attempt to add a disclaimer to the infobox, claiming per Jobbik. Edits to this article are discussed here, not made with a claim of alleged consensus on another article. Secondly the Times article does not have a denial by the BNP of being racist, not in the slightest. What it actually says is that they believed they were exempt from the Race Relations Act, which means "yes we are racist, but we're allowed to be". There is no way this is a denial of being "racist", and that word does not even appear in the reference. In addition the BNP's stance has changed since that article, since they had to climb down in court. Thirdly I have amended the sentence about "ostracism" to reflect the reality and remove a tautology. 2 lines of K303 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The party does deny being racist in The Times article (“We are not discriminating on grounds of colour.”). But it also says so in the link at the bottom of the page[33]. The party makes the distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination and that must be noted (even if it seems farcical), otherwise I think our neutrality is being compromised. (The same rule should apply to other the Fascist label in the infobox - we always let parties have their labels; surely no academic source, for example, would today make the claim that the Labour Party runs on a platform of democratic socialism.) Regardless, I am not sure why we are dealing with the membership issue in what is effectively the first sentence when it cannot even be said to be the issue that has aroused the greatest controversy. We rarely lay out the membership rules for other parties, how they relate to other organizations in civil society etc. in the lead so if our intention is to insert the most controversial aspect then I suggest that we cover the issue of whether they are Fascist or not, the appearance on QT or something else. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's not about giving prominence to the most controversial aspects, but the most noteworthy (of course, it might be a matter for debate what is most noteworthy, but the BNP membership issue clearly is more notable than for other political parties).
Given that this is contentious, would it not be best to stick as closely as possible to the wording in the source? --FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the text of thier denile to be more in keeping with the source. Moreover theri stance has not changed, as has been pointed out they have not accepted they were in breach of the law (they have been let of the hook in that respect) what they have said is that they are not finacialy abel to carry on and therefore have to back down (without any actual addmision of guilt).Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop making things up, this is not Jackanory. The BNP agreed in court to change their constitution "so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion", see the BBC and Telegraph. They did accept they were in breach of the law, their earlier posturing and excuse making is not relevant once that admission was made. 2 lines of K303 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
From your BBC source
"Bankruptcy fear
On the BNP website Mr Griffin had asked supporters to help fund the "horrendous" bills for the legal case and accused the commission of "trying to bankrupt us".
Richard Barnbrook, the party's representative on the London Assembly, said he believed BNP members would vote in favour of a reformed constitution.
"The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections."
Prety much says what I said they said, that they could not afford to fight the case, also I do not see an admision of guilt in the source. You second source contains no admisioon of guilt, but does contain a claim that "they are trying to put us out of business." Its not earlier posturing its their response to the findings (well excuse for their backing down), they have admitted nothing (please find a quote were they say they have accpted that their membership cirteria was rascist). Also this "The Commission asked the BNP to provide written undertakings that it would amend its constitution and membership criteria to ensure and to make transparent that it does not discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds." that does not read like an accusation of rascism but a request to avoid any appeance of rascism. I would also request that you do not accuse me of 'making things up'.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that on all independent judgement they were going to loose the case then they had to come up with something that would make avoiding that loss palatable to their members. We work from third party reliable sources here, ie we do not take on, unverified, the posturing of a political party in trouble. --Snowded TALK 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean unverified, are you susgesting they have not said this? Please provide a soource that says that their statemnt is untrue. By the wat I* presume that you would not say htat my quote from the EHRC is not true?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
They have used that excuse, and their use of that excuse has been reported. The validity of the excuse (is it real, or did they realise they were on a hiding to nothing but needed to save face) needs a third party. --Snowded TALK 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Do certain people round here have some sort of tunnel vision that only allows them to see what the BNP say and only what's favourable to them? From the BBC, "BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard". Note exactly what the court heard, that Griffin agreed the consitution discriminated. The Telegraph says almost the same word for word, "The British National Party will amend its constitution so its rules on membership do not discriminate on the grounds of race or religion, a court was told". So unless that was actually said in court as both sources say, why would they independently say it? Crucial is the fact that both sources also mention religious discrimination, when the BNP's constitution doesn't even mention any membership requirements based on religion, even Muslims would have been at least technically available to join assuming they didn't fall foul of the "race" requirement. The BNP's posturing prior to the case is irrelevant. Both sources say that the BNP and/or Griffin agreed that the BNP's consitution broke discrimination laws, they do not say that in court the BNP did not agree their consitution broke discrimination laws but agreed to change it anyway. 2 lines of K303 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask you to not accuse other edds of ignoring facts or accusing them of bias, please assume good faith. Now has any one said their excuse is not true?, if not then why should we assume its not true? I will also point out that this was not pre-case posturing. No one questions that they have lost, or that they have conceaded, the question remains did they accepet that they accepted that they were in the wrong, not if they were, the evidance from their own statments is that they do not. The BBC source also says ""The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections.". From the telegraph source "I just believe its another obstacle thrown into our way by the Lib-Lab-Con elite that now we are taking votes from them they are trying to put us out of business." that does not read like they accepet the courts fndings that they were in fact rascist, or in breach of the law. yes its an excuse, n ot one denies that. But has any said its not true?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of racism is wider than the question of membership, but more a question of; are their policies and fundamental aims still racist? The fact that one geriatric Sikh might want to join them in order to spread hatred towards Muslims will not make them not racist. It means they will allow him to be racist with them. The issue over the constitution is entirely irrelevent and the ECHR have undertaken the case just to wind up the BNP and cost them money, as the BNP have claimed, although that is not necessarily a criticism.--Streona (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is essentialy what Ms Chakrabarti is saying. But given the ammount of time taken up on this talk page with hte all white membership question its harldey irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And another thing; we are told that the BNP distinguishes between "ethnic" and "racial" discrimination, yet when I looked up "ethnic discrimination" on wikipedia I was re-directed to "Racism". Also I do not understand that the BNP has denied being racist from its website. The site is currently totally mucked up, but that is their concern, but my recollection is that their answer to the question "Is the BNP racist?" is that various other groups exclude white membership and that the BNP is no more racist than they are. Since they contend that such bodies as "The Black Police Officers Association" are racist, then this statement would, logically, serve not only to confirm their racism, but to contend that this is acceptable. --Streona (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Race is defined as "a group of people of common ancestry, distinguished from others by physical characteristics such as hair type, colour of eyes and skin, stature etc". (Collins English Dictionary) Ethnic is defined as "relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic and certain other traits in common". (Collins English dictionary). Not much of a differnace, but a differance none the less. Also another one of the reasons that the BNP droped the case (I seem to recall) was that the governemnt intends to make ethnicism illegal (or some such). colour nationality ethnic or national origins .[[34]]. So there is a distcition made between colour and ethnicity (which is what I belive the BNP were playing on (and what this page was sayiing, that they discriminate on the grouunds of colour). I seem to recall that the BNP's point about the BPOA was that it was no more rascist then they were. Not that the BPOA is rascist (untill now, they now contend that if they are rascist then the BPOA must be too). I also seem to recall thier they claimed that under the race relations act it was not illegal to operate a resticted membership policy to protect the interest of ethnic groups (I bleive it is this loop hole the government plans to close).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The quotes from the party about why they decided to give up the court case are one thing, Mr Barnbrooks quote is about why the party will allmost certainly accept the new constitution. Yes they are linked (and the reason given is the same) but they are differnt in context.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Other professions

Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration."Civil service BNP ban considered" BBC News, 19 September 2004, Retrieved 4 October 2008.Alan Travis "BNP ban urged for probation officers", The Guardian, 1 February 2005, Retrieved 4 October 2008. A proposal to ban the BNP from Dorset Fire Brigade, proposed by the management and the Fire Brigades Union, was turned down by the Fire Authority. BBC News Fire bosses stand against BNP ban", 24 October 2005, The president of the BNP-linked trade union "Solidarity", Adam Walker, resigned from his job at a college for accessing BNP websites and posting comments using a school laptop during working hours.[35]. He has been summoned to a hearing of the General Teaching Council, which could result in him being banned from working as a teacher in England. "BNP teacher could be struck off", 20 September 2008, His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for allegedly accessing adult pornography using school equipment, and he was eventually sacked on the basis of his sickness record.BNP row teacher sacked by school, Northern Echo, 16 October 2008, </ref> His supporters told the press that he had been suspended for accessing the BNP website and had been victimised because of his political beliefs. A report by the NSPCC found that "a substantial amount of emails indicating a sexual relationship between himself and a 17-year-old former Sunnydale student have been recovered from Mr Walker’s school laptop and the school server."NSPCC worries over BNP teacher, Northern Echo, 13 November 2008.

imo the whole lot is not worth keeping, some five year old consideration and some coatracking of not notable bnp members who did this or that, are there any editors who consider any of this content to add anything of value to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any comments regarding this content? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is. Five years, five months or 500 years is not relevant. The fact that certain individual members of the BNP are not personally notable is only an argument aqainst creating separate articles on those people and nothing more. Emeraude (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Really, lets look at it piece by piece.....

"Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration" this is five years old and very dated from 2004 and is in need of bringing up to date, no ban was put in place, you are allowed to be a bnp member, nothing happened... if you think in is worthy of keeping it should be changed to something like....In 2004 the probation service and the civil service were reportedly considering banning employees from being members of the BNP, they didn't do anything about it and as of 2009 you are allowed to work in the civil service and the probation service and be a member of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You see, what you get to read now is this.. "Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration" .. that is all you get in the article, no explanation as to when this happened, and if it was some years ago, what happened, what was the outcome, no explanation at all, it is only if you click on the link that you find out the this was five years ago, imo it is misleading completely. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 2009 only the police and the prison services have the power to sack officers for membership of the BNP. [36] . Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is too long, Rob. I think it could be improved as follows, which cuts out a little under 200 words.
Bans on BNP membership have been considered but, to date, not imposed by the Civil Service [1], the Probation Services [2] and Dorset Fire Brigade.[3] In February 2009, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ban its clergy from membership of the BNP.[4]
The president of the BNP-linked trade union "Solidarity", Adam Walker, faces proceedings which could result in him being banned from teaching, following criticisms he made in 2007 against muslims, homosexuals and asyslum-seekers. The case remained unresolved in September 2009.[5] His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for allegedly accessing adult pornography using school equipment,[6] and was eventually sacked on the basis of his sickness record.[7] His supporters told the press that he had been victimised because of his political beliefs.[8], although the NSPCC found that there was substantial evidence that he had had a sexual relationship with a student.[6]
Liam Birch, a sociology student standing as a BNP council candidate for Southway was dismissed as assistant warden at Plymouth University when his BNP membership was revealed on an internet blog concerning the Holocaust, in which he declared "The Jews declared war on Germany, not the other way round".[9]
Simone Clarke was a principal ballerina at the English National Ballet and a deputy for the entertainer's union Equity. Clarke's membership of the BNP was revealed by an undercover Guardian journalist in 2006. Her performances were picketed by anti-fascists demanding her sacking.[10]
--FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is all the awful coatracking that I am of the opinion that it doesn't belong in this article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, Walker...the case remains unresolved two years later, ok..that is code for no charges were brought or code for nothing happened, and he is not even a position holder of the bnp, he has no place in being here at all and his brother who also holds no position in the bnp at all...was sacked for his sickness record...none of which belongs here at all...it would be like adding to the conservative party that someone that supported the conservative party was convicted of murder...coatracking and has no place here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The walker case appears to still be active [[37]], the delay (in aprt) appears to be Mr Walkers fault. As to his having no place in the artcle, here I would disagree. His case links directly to his BNP activities. As to his brother, that is a different matter as his case appears to have no linkage to the BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Walker's case is still pending, which is in the cite. His brother's case seems to be claimed by his supporters to be political persecution, which probably does make it pertinent. Unless I'm wrong, "coatracking" normally means trying to insert material which is not connected to the subject of the article. This material seems to me to be fairly directly about the BNP. --FormerIP (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the link from this February, at a quick look at the assertion of bnp relation is there, but at the end he resigned and his brother was sacked in relation to his sickness record...nothing officially to do with his bnp association, at the end of the day..he is at most a bnp member, he holds no official position in the bnp and was not sacked for that all, the rest is supposition and speculation. While I am prepared to discuss and consider this addition, I agree that the brother should clearly be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The link is acutally from September: [38]. I think the thing is to follow what RS's reflect in terms of whether individual cases are relevant in terms of being linked to BNP membership or otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
its an interesting point, is it linked becasue the BNP says it is (which is effectvly what we are saying). In that respect Walker2 may have a place, but then we would have to be clear that he was not officaly sacked for his BNP related activites, but that his supporters say he was (so far from mshortaniing the section it adds material. For my part I would say that only cases in which BNP activites were an offical reason for the dismisal (or disiplinary actions). At least if we want to shorten this section, else lets have every similar case. I am not sure (given the almost passing comment nature of most of the comments about Walker2) that any of the sources make the link. The Northern Echo seems to be saying there is no link, just an accusation of one. I am not sure that is definate enoughSlatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
EC..Yes thanks, these links are all good, I support the removal of the brother and prehaps? a correct cited comment regarding this guy, he has actually resigned and there is this case in an attempt to get him struck off not for membership of the bnp but for religious intolerance. the fact is that the religious intolerance is not related to his membership of the bnp but in regards to the comment that he made regarding the Jewish people asked for it .. not related to his membership of the bnp at all, and in this reality, he doesn't belong in the section either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In reality, all there is at the most for walker brother one is that, he is accused of religious intolerance and there is a case attempting to get him struck of for the comment...... and he is a bnp member.. he is not accused of that at all, he is not going to be struck off for that either but for the comment that he made and is accused of the religious intolerance for..all of which does not belong in the section, clearly him and his brother do not belong in the section or in the bnp article at all,. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Teacher who is a BNP member is accused of racial intolerance...really? yes, but it doesn't belong in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Accusation that he accessed a BNP website, and that he admitted it[[39]]. Also it seem to make it clear that the initial investigation was directly linked to his BNP membership. Only question is how RS is the Sunday Sun?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he is not charged with accessing the bnp website, as that is not illegal,but the fact is that we have sources that say he is in court for racial intolerance, they are attempting to get him struck off for that charge, he is not accused of anything to do with his bnp membership and is not charged with anything to do with that at all. He is not an offical of the bnp and the bnp is not responsible for him at all, he is not charged or under threat for anything to do with him being a member of the bnp but is charged with racial intolerance, imo it is totally coatracking. Off2riorob (talk)
Rob, Walker's status within the BNP is not the issue here (although, just on a point of fact, he is President of their Trade Union). The question as regards notability is purely about the notability of the action taken against them (which, I suppose, should be decided by common sense and consensus) and what (if anything) links that action to the BNP. If nothing links it, then the material should not be included. However, if something links it, then that could legitmately arise in a number of ways, as long as it is reported in an RS. It doesn't have to be any one set of specified circumstances. "Ah, but that link should be ignored because..." ought not to apply. The section is about cases where BNP members have been persecuted/held to account (depending on your POV) with regard to their employment. Any case where it can be taken from an RS that that is what has happened, or there is a claim that it has happened, should be includable in principle. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO it is not like that at all, he has no position at all in regards to official within the party, he is not charged with anything to do with the bnp it is clearly coatracking his case on the party as there is a weak connection, the section is regarding the people and reasons for organizations that do not allow membership and this case clearly does not actually fit in that situation I have discovered this by the simple reading of the citations.He is not a official of the bnp and he is not charged or punished in any way regarding his membership of the bnp. it is simply adding two and two and wanting it to be related but the facts clearly are that it is not connected. As I said, there was a member of the Tories that was accessing the website and the day after he murdered someone...it is in no way worthy of adding to the conservative website, I am in danger on repeating myself as it seems totally clear to me, if you feel it is connected and worthy of inclusion I will ask for an independent third opinion. What I can also do is rewrite the comments to more accurately reflect the reality that is contained in the citations and then imo it will be even more clear that it is not worthy of inclusion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
On the other issue, are we already clear that the brother that was sacked because of his sickness record does not belong in the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No, there's a clear claim that his sacking was politically motivated. I think it's a question of consensus and waiting for other editors to comment. --FormerIP (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you want to keep it, I will rewrite it to accurately reflect the citations. If consensus is later to remove the lot then fine, but what is there now does not accurately reflect the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The part about Adam Walker definitely wouldn't belong, except for the fact that "His supporters told the press that he had been suspended for accessing the BNP website and had been victimised because of his political beliefs". Both brothers are BNP activists (not just members, there's a significant difference), by the BNP's own admission. The BBC source in the article says they are both BNP members. I think it's more than relevant to show that when the BNP claim their members are being persecuted for their political beliefs and/or party membership to show that the reality, at least in one case, is that the person in question is an alleged pervert who rarely bothered turning up for work. The proposed bans are still being called for occasionally and quite recently, see the Daily Mail. 2 lines of K303 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The danger that I see is that as the schools have denied any link (even though is in Walker1's case they seem to have sent him a letter saying there is (according to him)) we have to be very carefull about accusing them of lying. Essentuialy this is an unproven accusation made by the Walkers (and the BNP). This is how it needs to be worded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)