Talk:British National Party

Black members

Apparently, if the urban legend is true, some of the people in the BNP list were black?? No way? Anonymous user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.219.185 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been the BNPs contention in employment cases that they have been discriminated against due to being an all white organisation in comparison to all black pressure groups such as the Black Police Officers Association. If they are not all white then this is in effect perjury and anyone who suggests otherwise would be accusing them of perjury, which would be defamatory. Rustem is in the "Ethnic Liaison Committee" & not the BNP proper. In fact he appears to be its only member. Sharif Gawad is white- he just has an unusual name. It is difficult to see why a non white BNP supporter would not seek to further the party's aims by leaving the country immediately and not coming back, assuming anywhere else would have them.--Streona (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The party discriminates British and not British, not specifically white and not white. As a multiracial member of the BNP i have removed the "all white" from the first line. Also, if you look at all the membership protocol for joining the BNP you have to show you're British not show you're white. As for your comments on perjury in the cases they defended their right to discriminate based on other groups forwarding views of one segment of society, they wouldn't have perjured.--user:anonymous23:10 30/03/09 (utc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

Sorry, we can't use your original research - you need to provide reliable sources that dispute the reliable sources we already have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the BNP is not, by definition an "all-white" party and does not discriminate on the basis of colour in accordance with the party's official literature. I feel that statement in the opening sentence of this article is baseless, and rather biased. It's source is quoted as being from a British mainstream newspaper - how unbiased can this really be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.46.203 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling Lee barnes a liar? If you are, that's ok, because I don't really have a problem with that, though he might and he is quite the amateur lawyer (and more unfortunately, poet)--Streona (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Far Right?

-- BNP are really national socialists. Being socialist means they are 'left' not 'right'. Left/Right are not great labels now days, but if they are going to be used, then BNP are far LEFT not far RIGHT. If it weren't for their supposed racism they would resemble the british labour party far more closely than the british conservative party. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pp uk (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure this is the right description of the party. First they do not advocate violence, which is a common trait amongst extremist organisations, and secondly, if one looks at the people who vote for them, it appears they are making greatest headway in the left wing areas, especially those old decaying industrial towns up north, e.g. Stoke on Trent and places like that with a high percentage of working class people. These areas are traditional Labour safe seats and Labour describe themselves as socialist. On the other hand, the areas that have been traditionally associated with Tory voters, such as the southeast do not attract a large BNP vote. They seem to be much more associated with the left than the right, and this is why Labour are more worried than the Conservatives in Britain. To introduce the party as far right is highly misleading and needs altering. 90.240.68.70 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is nationalist and nationalism is far-right but it is still nationalist, meaning that it appeals to the otherwise far-right and the left. Complicated I know but thats how it is. SJHQC (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi - you might want to take a look at the very lengthy discussions further up this page to see how this issue has been covered. Just to respond quickly to a couple of your points...

(a) While it's true of course that many far-right organisations have advocated and/or practised violence, that doesn't mean it's a necessary precondition of being far right. (Since political groups of almost every persuasion have been inclined to violence at one time or another, we could use that argument to disagree with the classification of almost any non-violent political group - for example by saying the Republican Party is not right-wing - which would clearly be absurd.)

True, but the discussion here is of branding the BNP as "far right", not "right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCaleyJag (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The political description national socialist is a literal translation of the Nazionalsozialist- component in the composite acronym of the NSDAP or Nazi Party, who self-defined as Far Right. Like many nationalist groups (such as the SNP, though the resemblance ends there), the ideology is often principally socialist in flavour. Where national socialists differ from socialists is in only wanting to extend the benefits of socialism to other members of their country or national or ethnic group. Arguably, the term national socialism reduplicates the form and perhaps also the sense of Stalin's famous dictum concerning "socialism in one country" - though Stalin is hardly a good example of a socialist.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(b) Your second point is an interesting one but not conclusive - it could be that existing right-wing minorities in these areas are swinging toward the BNP, or that non-voters are coming on board, or any one of several other explanations. We'd need to cite a reliable source before making this point rather than indulging in original research. Barnabypage (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the election in Millwall Ward in Tower Hamlets the first BNP councillor Derek Beackon was elected on a low turn out with a 3 way voting split in 1992 in a bye-election. When he was defeated in another election shortly after the votes of the Asian community and others were mobilised and he was defeated. However his votes actually increased slightly. It was evident that many voters were voting for the first time. It is probably the case that many BNP votes are not necessarily from other parties but from people who had not prviously voted. In national Front elections of the late 70s it became evident that the presence of a Liberal candidate reduced the number of NF vote, as these are often looking to the same pool of "protest" votes. The BNP seek the votes of the disaffected white working-class - or under class- voters and these are not necessarily the sole domain of the Left or of the Labour Party. When I was involved in the Millwall Campaign the BNP did use violence. Richard Edmonds their deputy leader was convicted of a racial assault outside a pub in Bethnal Green and myself and a group of anti-fascist canvassers were showered with bottles at the City Arms pub forecourt from a nearby bottle bank, after the BNP had thought better of an intended attack upon the premises at rather closer quarters.--Streona (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you are probably aware the right/Left classification is quite confusing and open to debate. The way I see it is some of the defining issues on the right would be a belief in free market regulation, small government and a belief in the nation state. On the left we have a powerful state, less private enterprise and a belief in equality and social justice. Remember the Labour Party and Marxism were born out of the struggles of the workers and are much concerned with worker’s rights and trade unions.

Now the BNP is interesting because it does not neatly fit into either left or right. It’s principally what it says on the tin, as in, it believes in nationalism, which I accept is a right wing belief but not by any means far right either. On the left side of it we see it works with a union called Solidarity, it believes in a kind of racial social engineering, and generally it’s style of campaigning is quite Marxist. It does political marches much associated with the left and tends to campaign in the spirit of a belief, much as Marx advocated, as in the rise of the proletariat to overthrow the ruling elite and all of that sort of thing.

Interestingly though it does not appear to claim to be left or right, or not in what I have witnessed myself, but it principally claims to be nationalist. If I were you I’d use that classification instead, although it would be true to point out that it is often labelled as far right. As you will be aware though, what political opponents label opposing parties as, and what they actually are can be two entirely different things. So I say that qualification needs inserting to make it factually correct, rather than a political point of view, which I understand Wikipedia tries to avoid doing.84.70.212.152 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that Solidarity is not a real trade union - it is simply the a BNP front and the latest in a line of fascist attempts to set up a workers' organisation. "Racial social engineering" - you're joking. "Political marches much associated with the left" - tell that to Hitler, Mussolini, Mosley, the National Front. "Belief, much as Marx advocated, as in the rise of the proletariat to overthrow the ruling elite " - where, oh where, has the BNP ever advocated anything of the sort?

No, "the right/Left classification" is not at all confusing; it's not always clear cut and there are degrees of overlap (the right wing de Gaulle nationalising Renault is a good example). But there can be no doubt that the BNP is most clearly on the far right and there are no serious independent commentators who have suggested otherwise. Emeraude (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe your article is based on media articles and is not at all acurate. The British National Party is NOT a whites only party and has 'ethnic minorities' standing as councillors for the Party. I was at a recent meeting and Nick Griffin spoke proudly of the Polish pilots who helped us through the war and the brave Indian and Gurka soldiers. Even the 'traditional parties are finally realising that this is a small island and immigration is just over the top and it is about time that British people realise, that no matter what your race is. The BNP want more of British taxpayers money being spent on British people. Yes the party is ostracised by mainstream politicians and that is because they are afraid that this up and coming party will start getting their votes....and so they should be. Those mainstream politicians have held on to the fact that the British National Party believe that political correctness in this country has gone mad and that we believe that immigrants should adopt to our ways (British) and not demand that we adopt to theirs. The British National Party are proud to be British and want elected British politicians making dicisons for this country and not unelected European 'officials. That is why mainstream politicians are ostricicing usHadley3867 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

I think theat the text of this article is very well referenced and has largely academic references as well as news events which are referenced from the media, but how else would they be? On this page we have been over the "whites only" question. At employment tribunals, the BNP legal officer, Lee Barnes has advanced the argument that since the BNP is a whites-only organisation, its members are being racially discriminated against when refused jobs or job interviews based upon their membership. The BNP has one mixed-race councillor, Laurence Rustem, who is the sole member of its "Ethnic Liaison Committee" and not afull member. They have a Jewish councillor, who as far as I am aware is white. A fellow Jewish councillor (a Liberal Democrat) called her a "Nazi", which she complained about to the Standards Board for England, who ruled that it is fair comment. These individuals are useful idiots, no more - as some might say the majority of the membership are. If the BNP are NOT whites-only, then Lee Barnes is a liar and a perjurer as well as a Nazi in the view of the Standards Board for England. So there you have it. The BNP want to encourage people who they do not deem as being "British". They want them to return to what the BNP consider to be their countries of origin. If they cannot do this- and most cannot, since those countries generally see them as British - they will be allowed to stay as "Guests", much as the Black South Africans were in South Africa. As they will be denied any rights to work or to benefits, they will be, for the most part, begging in the streets. This would create a huge problem which would inevitably be resolved by the erection of special camps. You can see where this is going don't you? Because I suggest that the likes of Griffin can see it too, and that is what they want. A Nazi Britain.--Streona (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2009

This section starts off with misinformed nonsense and ends with a response to open BNP propaganda. Wipe it out? Anyway: The BNP is a National Socialist party. They're keen to distance themselves from Hitler's Nazis and yet their economic and social model is absolutely identical - economically socialist (in that they want state control of all the major industries) combined with extreme nationalism, so that rights and benefits accrue only to a narrow section of society - namely, the indigenous British population. It's an agenda with strong totalitarian overtones in that they seek to provide a 'total', self-sustaining environment for the captive population, cutting Britain off from all external influence and from the world at large. A prison state. So, whilst economically 'Left', they're unquestionably Far Right in the social and political spheres, in which they openly pursue policies of inequality. On the subject of violence, Griffin wrote in 1995: "the electors of Millwall did not back a post modernist rightist party but what they perceived to be a strong, disciplined organisation with the ability to back up its slogan 'Defend Rights for Whites' with well-directed boots and fists. When the crunch comes power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate." He's since softened the party's image but the question remains whether this is a genuine change of policy or simply an attempt to make the party more electable. His words in 2001 suggest the latter: "So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it's not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on, and we're not supremacists, we're white survivalists, even that frightens people. Four apple pie words, freedom, security, identity and democracy." [1] (UTC)

There is a decent case to be made that fascism, as an ideology, is neither left nor right, that has been made by many historians. Certainly though there are enough sources that refer to fascism as far right for that to work. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish

What is the BNP's stance on the Poles working in Britain as guest workers? Are these workers welcome to assimilate and stay, as the BNP constitution claims Caucasians are? The Polish-speaking peoples are from the Indo-European branch of languages, yet I found this bit in The Register | 1 which is quite priggish about the irony it claims to have unearthed, that a BNP advertisment used an image of a Spitfire that was manned by a Polish airman in WW2, and the BNP wants to send all Polish workers back. Is this news article an example of disinformation and ignorance...or sharp reporting? --Npovshark (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simon Derby of the BNP is quoted in the same article as saying that they do not want Polish workers here and that they also knew it was a Polish Spitfire. Clearly the BNP poster represents the Spitfire in question as being viewed through the gunsight of a Nazi Messerschmitt, which indicates on whose side the BNP are really on if we are to make any sense of this somewhat bizarre image. Perhaps a subtitle would help, such as "Gott in Himmel! Achtung Schpitfuer! Surrender now to ze BNP, Englischer-schwienhund!"--Streona (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are asserting that the BNP are Nazis and Hitler-philes without providing any evidence , which is disruptive in the extreme. The BNP clearly has nothing against Polish people in themselves, just the scale at which they have been allowed in over the past five years - due to a Government refusing to protect its own workers and its own economy. This is perhaps an even bigger issue now that we are in a recession.--MartinUK (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Fascism

Fascism: is someone who stands for educating people in line with tradition rather than educating them in line with liberalism and new-age thought a fascist? In other words, is a party that at least seems to want democracy but thinks its people should not promote multiculturalism, claims multikulti creates double standards, does not want its youth to be educated about the wonders and joys of destroying bloodlines and bemoans progression away from national solidarity to be equated with totalitarian, absolutist states of yesteryear? Is fascism a credible word to describe the BNP's democracy-for-our-tribe-and-nation political philosophy, or is "fascism" just a slander word used to conjure up images of past states and personalities which are discrediting?

Fascism: is someone who stands for educating people in line with tradition rather than educating them in line with liberalism and new-age thought a fascist?

If by tradition, you mean the worst excesses of a defunct and frankly embarassing imperial past, then yes. You have it in a nutshell.

Nuttyskin (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is using this label "fascism" - and why? There is something that rubs me the wrong way when I realize I could defend state institutions for a living, as some scholars do, and come here on wiki to find that everyone fell into line when I gave my two cents about who should be called what and what I thought about the world, as per my latest book or scholastic essay. That is the biggest problem - the issue here isn't "facts" coming from a source and whether that source is reliable enough to give those facts straight - the issue is that an opinion, supported by the system, is being presented as a fact because Wikipedia is considering that source to be reliable.

Which is more important here, sticking to the facts or sticking to the sources, regardless of opinion or fact?--Npovshark (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verification not truth - so we report what reliable (mainstream) sources tell us - in terms of our articles they are the facts. If you don't like that, then I suspect wikipedia is not for you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me back up for a second. While I won't erase what I wrote above, I see now that my concern over the mainstream's use of the term "fascist" is not our concern - and I understand why. As you said, verifying whether the mainstream's opinions are valid or not is not Wikipedia's job, its job is to report what reputable people are saying.

On the other hand, calling the BNP "fascist" is an opinion. We need to remember that. If someone tells me Griffin kills those who challenge his rule, wants to tax at a rate of 50% and watches illegal cable, then I will expect a good source. But, if the source is reliable and says Griffin is a tyrannt, his taxes are nuts and his tv should be shut off, these are opinions, not facts. Opinions need to be cited as opinions.

Even then, the sources given are not good sources. They are politically-motivated sources withe government ties, ties to anti-right organizations and initiatives, and socialist workers propaganda literature. The others were unretrievable. Please see the conversation under "Reposted". I'm calling your bluff.--Npovshark (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave up about half-way it seemed to be a mixture of incoherent rant and delusional paranoid thought. The problem is, you are trying to butt heads with the fundamental principles of wikipedia - wikipedia says that we report what reliable sources say - and that's the start and end of it. Multiple reliable sources (according to wikipedia guidelines) say that the BNP is a fascist organisation so that we include that in the article. If you want to change wikipedia's stance on reliable sources and how we use them, then you need to do it over at the policy pages, it cannot be done here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You failed to address all of my points and only pointed out your incompetence. You failed to address how an opinion becomes a fact, just as you failed to illustrate just what it was that made these sources reliable. I feel you are snaking out of this by trying to call me delusional and I am not at all impressed.--Npovshark (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the point is this - all we say is "Source X says Y" - that's it. In this situation, multiple peer reviewed academic sources say it's a fascist organisation. If you can find multiple reliable sources that indicate that it's not, then we have something to discuss. I actually became involved with this article because someone raised the very question you raised over at the reliable sources board - we looked and concluded that the sources were good. You can head over there yourself and try again but you are going to get the same response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but we are not doing that. I don't see "Source X says Y" in the text, or "according to...".

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

Taking into consideration the definition of fascist...

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Fascist movements promote violence between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist and militarist stance that views violence between these groups as a natural and positive part of evolution.[9] In the view of these groups being in perpetual conflict, fascists believe only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and have an aggressive warrior mentality by conquering, dominating, and eventually eliminating people deemed weak and degenerate.[10][11][12][13]

...and its complete irrelevance to any behaviors of the BNP as they have thus far been documented, I believe it is all the more neccessary for the "statements of opinions" regulation to be followed. This is exactly what I was alluding to with my Griffin and his illegal cable (!) example. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. That X has opinion y, however, a fact.--Npovshark (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to repost what I wrote in "NPOV" anyway. I tried to edit it down a bit, be a little more concise. It is a bit curious that four or five of the sources are not accessible..

Reposted:

Ideology of the BNP:

White nationalism[1][2][3] British nationalism Right-wing populism[4][5][6] Third Position Fascism[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

So I did a little research into the "reliable" sources calling the BNP fascist.

Source number 7 was published by Taylor and Francis in a journal called "patterns of prejudice. T&J also publish these multi-issue journals:

   * Labor History (since 1959)
   * Patterns of Prejudice
   * Philosophical Magazine 
   * Rethinking Marxism (since 2003)

So a marxist rag is being used as a source warranting that the BNP be called "fascist"?

Source 8: I will have to read the book. It appears the author, Richard C. Thurlow, uses the epiphet "fascist" to describe the BUF, NF and BNP. Unfortunately, the direct passage, quote or chapter section which is cited for the "fascist" reference is not referenced - or accessible.

Source 9: A book by Dr. Nigel Copsley. Copsley wrote two books about fascism. The second, not the one sourced, has this cover | 1 A picture of Griffin photographed next to the Union Jack flag...but the Union jack flag is cropped so it looks like a swastika. So the BNP is the NSDAP? Is that the suggestion? Pretty weak. The BNP does not stand for undoing the Treaty of Versailles, creating an all-German Reich without any Jews in it, and so on. Academic dishonesty and pov-pushing, anyone? Just like a cropped photo of Obama and the hammer and sickle on the front cover of a book...used as a source to talk about Obama? Somehow, I doubt that would fly. Anyway...the Copsley book which is used as a reference, "The Failure of British Fascism", was published in 1996. That is ELEVEN YEARS ago, one year after Griffin joined the party in 1995. According the the BNP article, Griffin became leader in 1999, when, as the article says, he reformed the party. So...is the 1996 source qualified to say that the 2009 BNP is "fascist"? Is "fascist" a static descriptor that never changes?

I wanted to know more about the publisher of Nigel's book, considering what I learned after investigating source number 7. The following shows evidence of political editorialism, anti-nationalist political activity and government funding tied to this source - a source which in spite of also being outdated, is supposed to be a trustworthy source for commentary on the nationalist party:

Here is what Wikipedia tells us:

"Macmillan Publishers Ltd...is a privately-held international publishing company owned by Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group...Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is a Stuttgart-based publishing holding company which owns publishing companies worldwide....Newspapers owned by this group include:

"Der Tagesspiegel: a classical liberal German daily newspaper...in 2007 and 2008 Der Tagesspiegel's Washington D.C. correspondent, Christoph von Marschall, was noted in both Germany and the United States for his coverage of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. He wrote a book entitled Barack Obama - Der schwarze Kennedy. The literal translation of its German title is "Barack Obama. The Black Kennedy".[1] His book was a best seller in Germany, where other commentators had also compared the two Americans.[2]"

"Die Zeit (see below for my quick, German-to-English translation): Zielgruppe sind traditionell vor allem Akademiker bzw. Bildungsbürger. Ihre politische Haltung gilt als liberal...Am 5. Mai 2008 startete Zeit-Online mit Partnern wie dem Deutschen Fußballbund, dem Deutschen Feuerwehrverband und den drei Internet-Portalen SchülerVZ, StudiVZ und meinVZ, dem ZDF und dem Deutschen Olympischen Sportbund das Internetportal Netz gegen Nazis. Das Portal erfuhr neben dieser Unterstützung jedoch auch Kritik von publizistischer Seite.[7] Am 1. Januar 2009 zog sich Die Zeit deshalb aus dem Projekt zurück und überließ die Trägerschaft der Amadeu Antonio Stiftung.[8]"

Die Zeit is a newspaper for academics and scholars, its political direction is liberal...On 5 May 2008 the newspaper partnered with the German football club, firefighting organization and ...three Facebook copy-cats...as well as ZDF (German, government-funded public broadcaster), and the olympics organization to form Netz gegen Nazis [www.netz-gegen-nazis.de]. (translation: the web against Nazis). It led this organization until it gave main authority to Amadeu Antonio Stiftun, which die Zeit still funds and helps from the Second-in-Command position at "Netz Gegen Nazis". Amadeu Antonio Stiftun, is an organization that is responsible for "Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt" (translation: courage against right-wing control/might) and several other anti-right/pro-multiculti organizations (ex: | 1 but there are many others, including Enstation Rechts, another anti-right organization).

On "Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt", "Netz Gegen Nazis" and "Endstation Rechts":All three spy on nationalists, report on nationalist activities, distribute literature to get people to embrace Multiculturalism/not embrace the conservative right-wing. Their goal is to get people not vote for right parties, which are all "neo-nazi"; ironically, if these nationalist parties were truly nazi, they would be illegal under the German constitution and disbanded. In court, Germany's leading "Establishment Parties" (as well as die Linke, the "SED-leftovers" Party) tried to show that one party, the NPD, was Neo-Nazi, but then it was revealed that half the NPD was controlled by agents at the time. The prosecution refused to identify who the government agents were and thegovernmentwas unable to distinguish actually party policy from agent-initiated, lets-try-to-make-the-party-look-like-a-nazi-organization policy. The case was thrown out.)

Source 10: Same story as Source 7. Note also, that Source 10 is written by the same person in Source 9.

Source 11: "British National Party's representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition". Unfortunately, this is not readible online. But, judging from the title, this seems like a source that sees "homogeneity" as fascist instead of seeing "homogeneity" as homogeneity.

Source 12: Would I pay 40 dollars to see if Hino Ario uses the colloquialism "fascist" in her book about the Failure of the Far Right? No. Pass.

Source 13: Another text non-existent or requiring a fee before reading. Honestly, more of this? Am I that desperate to see if Yasmin Hussein thinks neutrally enough about the BNP not to use the label "fascist"? (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See - this is why I can't be bothered to answer most of your points - You think that the first source shouldn't be used because " So a marxist rag is being used as a source warranting that the BNP be called "fascist"? you seem to think that because the publisher (Taylor and Francis - an A grade academic publisher of mainstream widely accepted journals) *also* produced a magazine that *discusses* Marxism (note an academic journal discussing Marxism doesn't make the magazine a Marxist propaganda piece), that it means it's a Marxist publishing house. I really don't know where to start where the misunderstanding of the material and the context is so profound. Please I beg you, head over to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask that Taylor and Francis and also MacMillan Publishing are disallowed as producers of reliable sources, it would be comedy gold. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I suggest you get someone to adopt you as a mentor, I think you will be constantly banging your head against a metaphorical brickwall without some guidance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I only assumed the publications were Marxist propaganda and I admit that I did not check to see what the focus and purpose of these publications were, but that is because I knew better than to waste my time and double check, I've seen so much crap that I know what to expect. You call it "delusional paranoid thought", and you are entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that I was right afterall:

"Rethinking Marxism, Aim and Scope" Taylor and Francis:

We are interested in promoting Marxian approaches to social theory because we believe that they can and should play an important role in developing strategies for radical social change-in particular, for an end to class exploitation and the various forms of political, cultural, and psychological oppression (including oppression on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation). We especially welcome research that explores these and related issues from Marxian perspectives.1

Although at this moment I cannot vouch for all the articles published by Taylor and Francis, I am willing to bet that a magazine with the title "Patterns of Prejudice" makes no effect to define fascism and is just as biased in its objectives as "Rethinking Marxism" admits to being. Likewise, the fact remains that Macmillan Publishers Ltd. is the international mother company of two publications which are "liberal", one of which wrote about how Obama should be likened to JFK, while the other is funded by the government and has organized "Endstation Rechts", Mut Gegen Rechte Gewalt" and many other similar organizations. As for these all-encompassing "history of the right" texts, I'm also assuming these sources know they are using the term "fascist" innappropriately, but they're "far right experts" who are paid by the shitstem to lie, just like they lied to infiltrate groups like the BNP so they could do their research in the first place. Still, I realize now that these points do not matter; Wikipedia makes it clear what sources can be used, that they can give their opinions regardless of political objectivity. HOWEVER; the important point is the format of this article is in violation of how Wiki says these sources need to be treated. You said it yourself - "all we can say is 'source x says y'" - well, that is not what was done. --Npovshark (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a big problem with the F word being there. Political historians have always wrestled over how do define the word and it doesn't really warrant much consideration - Mussolini had very few consistencies in his rule, he considered himself a pragmatist. One constant ws Corporatism. I've never heard of the BNP promoting that, if I remember correctly they are for Economic Nationalism. Not only that, but Mussolini's government had very warm ties with Islam, as did he rest of the Axis, wheras the BNP are critical of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.204.139 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I don't understand why people are telling the BNP what their ideology is. The Labour Party says it supports "Social Justice" so that is reported as being their aim. If the Lib Dems say they want to introduce a PR voting system, it is reported as that being their aim. If the BNP say they are committed to a democratic Britain, with freedom of speech, assembley, political view etc. (ie. the antithesis of Fascism), why is that not reported as their aim? Why are people telling them that thats not what they really stand for? Surely the BNP know better than anyone else what they believe in? With regards to calling the BNP "racist", that is opinion (one which incidentally I'm inclined to agree with), however if they campaign as a non-Fascist & democratic party, it does strike me as very strange that people are denying this and reporting to the country that this is not what they stand for. Surely by doing this, they are denying the BNP a legitimate & fair chance to campaign for their beliefs (a basic right in a liberal democracy), and is restricting the dissemination of views not a rather Fascist thing to do?

This is an encyclopedia; above all else, it espouses a neutral point of view insofar as is possible. This means that we must have regard to not only what any political party says about itself, but also what independent, reliable sources, such as academics say about it. we do report what the BNP claim for themselves, but not only that; we report criticisms and analysis of those claims, and leave the reader to form their own judgement. This is a non-negotiable policy. However, if critics of the BNP, and by extension, the National Front and others, have credibly argued a particular political analysis based on the mainstream academic thinking, and we report that fairly, then we are doing our job properly. This article isn't intended to disallow the BNP from putting forwards its policies, far from it; neither is it an electoral or polemical platform for the BNP. We aren't "restricting the dissemination of views"; rather, we are reporting, or attempting to report, in cold analytical terms, what the BNP is. Of course, the article tends to be something of a battleground at times for those who have a particular axe to grind, and that is resisted. If you have any particular imputations of bias in the article, please raise them here. Rodhullandemu 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair comments, however just for clarification, the accusation of restricting dissemination of views wasn't aimed specifically at Wikipedia or this page in specifically, but rather the media in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.38.176 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Whites only

"Whites-only" is a complete breech of the NPOV rule and an obvious attempt to manipulate the way people think about a party that restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’, with allusions to Jim Crow, the Apartheid and so on, by using similar language similar to Jim Crow and the Apartheid in the article.

First off, the Times is a newspaper, not a label generator. It should not be passed off as an academic source that refines the way we should view and categorize the world. Lastly, I am failing to see the neutrality in taking a phrase in a sentence that appears in the last paragraph of a newpaper article and using it as the primary descriptor in the first sentence of an encyclopedia article.

The BNP has been accused of racism because of its whites-only membership policy. is different from "the BNP is whites only". In fact, even the Times' article is less POV than Wikipedia. I cannot think of a more POV way of addressing what the article already does address, in the third line. In other words, the same point is repeated twice.

This is from the BNP website.. http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/

"Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people."

"If the BNP is racist for holding this position, then, we would suggest, all of the following organisations - some of them state funded - are also “racist” because they too address themselves exclusively to the issues and concerns of their respective communities"

In this statement they admit and do not hide the fact they are a white only party that cares about white people. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Still, they fail to use the phrase "whites only" in that article, they put it another way, saying exactly what the Times article says: the party has all-white membership. I think there is a difference, and I know it isn't good faith (sorry), but I'm willing to bet the person who wrote "whites only" in this article here on Wikipedia was well aware of the differences, given the historical context. Also, I remind you: [a party] that restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ means the exact same thing as the other two phrases, and is already in the article's intro (3rd para.).

By the way:

Googling "British National Party" - 685000 hits.

Googling "far right BNP" turned up 9390 hits.

Googling "whites only BNP" resulted in 69 hits.

Other queries: "fascist bnp" - 6730

Googling "far right British national party" turned up 13300 hits.

Googling "whites only British national party" resulted in 1050 hits.

"fascist british national party" - 3270

Browsing through the results pages, I'm seeing a lot of Indymedia, newspaper and anti-right organizations use these titles, as expected. I tried also very pro bnp phrases, like "pro-white bnp" and "nationalist bnp"...hardly contenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i wouldnt object to "whites only" being changed to "with only white members" but it would have to remain in the intro because its a very important matter. However no matter which way you word it, this is clearly not a breech of Wikipedia policies as you claimed. The two things are the same. Just because they dont have a sign outside their office saying no blacks doesnt mean it isnt a whites only party. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You should've checked all the sources for that sentence -- the whites-only British National Party, the BNP should remain an all-white party, we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members. I've asked for that third paragraph to be partially removed here and here, if some registered editor could make the change please? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of a headache but will take care of it in the morning... --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, anon. So we plow over the more articulate explanation and leave the Jim Crow/Apartheid-esque "WHITES ONLY" or its near equivalent, three-word expression in place?

How many "blacks-only" colleges, scholarships, organizations, funds, contests, caucuses and so on are, or refer to themselves as, BLACKS ONLY? Searching Google, I'm seeing most hits for "Blacks Only" are pro-white/racist/? websites complaining about "blacks only" colleges, scholarships, organizations, etc...

"blacks only" - 77.200 hits

"all-black" - 10.100.000 hits

Why can't the BNP article be like the Sinn Féin article? Should there not be uniformity? In spite of its nationalism and own primary and distinctive features, Sinn Fein is introduced as just "a political party in Ireland". Why not the same with the BNP then? Three paragraphs down, we can add the part about all white membership, followed by a brief explanation as to what that means in non-cro-magnon-terminology.--Npovshark (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

'Why can't the BNP be like the Sinn Féin article?' How about because they aren't a bunch of neo-fascist racist thugs with a gas chamber fetish, if my knowledge of Irish political parties is correct? It is people like you coming here with the non-stop arguments that have been dismissed time and again that stop this article ever improving. The BNP are far-right and fascist and whites-only and described like that by many sources, if you think differently then good for you, get yourself published in a peer-reviewed journal then come back, otherwise you are wasting your time and other people's. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ouch lmao BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't encourage him, BritishWatcher. All anon demonstrates is why people like him need to disappear from reach of this article, because he, like so many others, cannot distance himself from the vague half-truths that influence his opinion.--Npovshark (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean I accept peer reviewed journals to be the best sources available and do not use ever excuse going to try and say they are not acceptable unlike the endless stream of BNP apologists, then you are correct. Otherwise, you are not. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

first you say because they aren't a bunch of neo-fascist racist thugs with a gas chamber fetish, if my knowledge of Irish political parties is correct? then, when I challenge you on this, [| having seen this] and you say I accept peer reviewed journals to be the best sources What sort of peer-reviewed journals are you using which say the half-truths you espouse?--Npovshark (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Browse through the talk page archives, this has seemingly been going on forever. Every so often a BNP member or supporter or sympathiser or apologist pops up and the same discredited arguments pop up. 'The sources are biased' -- yawn. 'The sources are out of date' -- yawn. 'You have to pay to read the sources' -- yawn. 'The BNP have changed since Nick Griffin took over' -- yawn. 'The BNP are not fascist because of their economic policy' -- yawn. 'The BNP are not fascist because they only wear their Swastika armbands on the second Sunday of each month' -- yawn. The best possible sources according to Wikipedia policy - peer reviewed academic journals - were added, and it still goes on, it is taking the piss. It is time for a FAQ to be added to this page like on the Barack Obama article, and if anyone pops up with the same boring arguments they are pointed to the FAQ and the discussion is archived, instead of the endless points being explained over and over. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

if you mean "discredited" as in saying that biased, politically-interested sources, the disparity between BNP activity/policy and the definition of fascism and 10+ year-old sources being used to claim the BNP continues to be a fascist party do not matter to Wikipedia, you are right. I am willing to accept that. Still, your defense of the last of these three points suggests that maybe you don't think political parties change, which is completely insane.--Npovshark (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Got any sources for your opinions? I do not believe you have. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

See the conversation above this topic with fascism in the title.--Npovshark (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So, not "whites-only" but "all-white" then. Glad that's sorted out.--Streona (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed, shortened the lead:

The British National Party (BNP) is a political party in the United Kingdom.[15][16][17] The party is restricted to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" and also accepts white immigrants who have assimilated into one of these ethnicities. Thus, the party has all-white membership.[19]

Suggestions for next paragraph: either a) accusations and labels of "far right", "fascism", etc. with sources listed (x says y), followed by the BNP's counter points, if they exist. or b) talk about its election performances. Either a follows b in the next paragraph, or b follows a.

Peer review says the article is biased anti-bnp, especially in the lead. So we're working with that. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you have not bothered to read the talk page or recent archives, and your proposed version of the lead is unacceptable, as well as not being correct. The BNP are not "all-white", their membership is "whites only". There is a subtle difference you do not seem able to comprehend. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect" is not the right word - incomplete is. I thought I had mentioned that the BNP is white by design and not just default (unique from most parties which support white nationalism), but apparently this fact was lost in the shuffling. In any case, I have changed the proposal above rather than reposting it here. Maybe that was a mistake?--Npovshark (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable - chock full of weasel words and we don't get into "he said, she said". If there is dispute in reliable sources that the BNP is a fascist organisation, please present the sources for review. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So you want to get into "he said she said" in the first sentence? Did you not see my proposal for the third sentence, at the start of a new paragraph? This is where the mention of fascism could go...

Pertaining to the label Fascist and NPOV

Each source must be indicated, and it must say "according to", or something along those lines, in accordance with wikipedia policy. There is too much of a disparity between the definition of fascism and the BNP for the sources claiming the BNP is fascist to not be treated as sources with opinions instead of sources with all-knowing wisdom. Cameron, you said we, as Wikipedians, must accept that the sources dictate what we can say, which is why we say "source x says this, source y, this". But, in spite of this conclusion, this is not what the article does.

The BNP is linked in association with three other parties which are defacto whites-only parties. For comparison, here are their intros:

The National Front (FN, French: Front national) is a French far-right, nationalist[1] political party, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen. The FN has 75,000 members.[2] In the French presidential election of 2002, Le Pen finished a distant second to Jacques Chirac in a runoff election. From 2002 to 2006, the Front National established itself as the third largest political party in France, after the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, formerly RPR), and the socialist party (Parti Socialiste). In what pertains to the international scene, FN is affiliated to Euronat.

next paragraph Although the party describes itself as a "mainstream right" organization[citation needed], observers in the media describe the party as "far right"[3] or "extreme right".[4][5] Both Le Pen[6] and FN general delegate Bruno Gollnisch[7] have been condemned sometimes for Holocaust denial or minimizing.(to a loud-and-emotionally influenced anon: this is why your point about the BNP is moot)

The German NPD

The National Democratic Party of Germany (German: Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) is a far-right, pan-German nationalist and white nationalist political party.

next paragraph: An ARD-led poll states that the majority of the population in Germany considers the NPD to be undemocratic and damaging to the image of the country. [1] The NPD is viewed by its opponents and the mainstream media as a de facto National Socialist organization for various reasons, particularly because the party opposes the increasing number of non-whites, Jews, and Muslims living in Germany.

The National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna, ND) is a minor political party in Sweden, formed by a faction of the Sweden Democrats in October 2001. The far right[2][3][4] party describes itself as a democratic nationalist ("national democratic") and ethnopluralist party.[1] The general media and other observers frequently designate the party as xenophobic and/or racist[5][6][7][8][9][10] and the Stephen Roth Institute has described it as "neo-Nazi"[11], while the party itself rejects these descriptions.[12][13]

two other nationalist-oriented parties, have been attacked by opponents and the mainstream media:

The Republicans (German: Die Republikaner; REP) is a nationalist conservative political party in Germany. The primary plank of the REP's program is anti-immigration, and the party tends to attract protest voters who think that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CSU) are not sufficiently conservative. It was founded in 1983 by former CSU members Franz Handlos and Ekkehard Voigt, and Franz Schönhuber was at one time the party's leader. It is currently led by medical doctor Rolf Schlierer. In the 1980s the Republicans had several seats in the European Parliament as well as in the parliament of the German state of Baden-Württemberg. In Baden-Württemberg, the party has had seats until 2001. Currently they only attract between 1 and 2 percent of the vote in Bavaria, and approximately 3.5 percent in Baden-Württemberg, thus failing to reach the 5 percent necessary to win seats in the parliaments.

The Republicans are considered by many Germans as extreme-right and neo-Nazi in orientation, but do not see themselves in that way. The German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz observed the party from 1992 to 2006 and categorized it as an extreme-right party, until 2006, it does not regard REP as extremist. The avowedly extreme-right party National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and the far-right German People's Union (DVU), both of which are more successful than the Republicans, have offered the Republicans a chance to join their electoral alliance, but the REP leaders refused any cooperation with any openly extreme-right parties.

The German DVU

The German People's Union (German: Deutsche Volksunion, DVU) is a nationalist political party in Germany. It was founded by publisher Gerhard Frey as an informal association in 1971 and established as a party in 1987. Financially, it is largely dependent on Frey.

Note the common thread: "he said, she said" comes into play after the intro, not in it.--Npovshark (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

98 results on Google Scholar for "far right british national party", plus every major UK national newspaper means the BNP are far right, to suggest otherwise is advancing the BNP's fringe view of themselves. If you are so concerned about NPOV, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories. NPOV only calls for significant views to be included, not fringe views. That's why "the earth is round" is NPOV, not "the earth is generally seen as round". And you still do not see the difference between "whites only" and "all-white", the BNP are not "all-white". 86.155.245.189 (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that "far right" should not be mentioned. In fact, I suggested the opposite. As for your comment about the party's whiteness - I see the difference. It is an obvious difference, and I made it clear that I accidently lost the distinction between white by default and white by design when I was playing around with splicing sentences together. Perhaps my description to you was not clear, and I should have used the words defacto white and dejure white instead of default and design. Anyway, this time around, your argument about whites only and all white does not reflect what has been said. This distinction is made ("membership is restricted..."). I'm not even addressing your second point, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.--Npovshark (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

<panto>Oh yes it does!</panto>Your proposed wording is 'Thus, the party has all-white membership'. If you understood the different between "all-white" and "whites only", you would understand your proposed wording is not correct in relation to the BNP. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you responded before I finished my post. I hope you understand...by the way, you were not clear that your "the moon is not made of green cheese" argument was in reference to the whites only thing. You mention the "thus" line without referencing the previous line, where it says who the party is restricted to. Calling something "whites only" and calling it something "allowing only caucasian people with historic roots to the isles" does not change the point, it merely elaborates on it. One is more descriptive and therefore, more useful and npov. Saying "the earth is round" as opposed to "generally, the earth is thought to be round" conveys two different ideas, not the same one.--Npovshark (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? The BNP do not have an all-white membership. There are nine words in that sentence, many of them only have one syllable, any words you do not understand I will be happy to explain for you. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

189, I will admit unequivocally that I do not understand the subtle difference between an all-white membership and a whites-only membership. Will you make this difference more explicit please? You can use long words if you want, and I will give it my best. Boris B (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, and it is a matter of defacto white and dejure white. The BNP appears to be both. The problem is, the anonymous user does not understand that the proposed version does make this clear - that the BNP is both.--Npovshark (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, 86.155.245.189, please see WP:No personal attacks and WP:assume good faith, and try to keep things civil. Suggesting that other editors can't read because they disagree with your points is not constructive, although I do understand your frustration. Second, 'all-white' and 'whites-only', whilst not necessarily being the same thing, are not mutually exclusive; it's highly likely that a 'whites-only' organisation will, as a consequence, be 'all white'. However, it is possible for an organisation to be 'all white', either through demographic coincidence or because people from non-white backgrounds would not wish to join, for whatever reason, whilst being open to any non-white person that did wish to join. What we have to ask ourselves is which the BNP is. Npovshark suggests that since the BNP's website does not refer to 'whites only', we should refer to them all 'all white'; however, the very source makes it clear that the BNP is 'all white' as a matter of policy, not merely as a concidence or because non-whites choose not to join. By describing the party as 'whites only', we make this explicit, whilst, if using 'all white', we present a much less clear picture of the party's membership policy. FrFintonStack (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct FrFintonStack, but the point is the ideas of "white-only" (by policy) and "all-white" (because the party is pro-white, and therefore attracts whites) can be expressed without saying this verbatim. This is what the proposed version accomplishes. Please read it again: The party is restricted to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" and also accepts white immigrants who have assimilated into one of these ethnicities. Thus, the party has all-white membership.[19]--Npovshark (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that, though? It's just a longer, less concise, clause-ridden and ambigious way of saying exactly the same thing. Why do you object so strongly to the term 'whites-only' to begin with? If, for whatever reason, we wished to avoid the term, your wording above would be a good way around it, but I fail to understand why we do. That a phenomenon can be described using a different form of words is not an adequate reason for doing so. Secondly, with Lawrence Rustem issue, you'd need to establish 1) that, according to the BNP's designation, he's non-white (remember that they classify Sharif Gawad as white) 2) that he's actually a member of the party proper (it previously transpired that other councillors elected on BNP tickets weren't actually party members) and that 3) this represents general policy rather than a specific exception; please remember that the BNP themselves state that membership is open only to whites: it is not merely what 'some people' say about them. If there are, in fact, non-white members (again, using the BNP's own understanding of white, as the term can be very ambiguous) inspite of policy, that ought to be remarked on, but it does not change the fact that the policy exists.FrFintonStack (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You still do not see the problem do you? It should logically follow that if the BNP has a whites only membership policy that the BNP is all-white, but it does not. A one time only exception was made to allow a non-white person to join, but the BNP still retain their whites only memership policy. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The BNP website addresses the question of whether they are racist or not and they suggest that they atre analogous to "Black only" organisations, such as the "Black Police Officers Association" and that by implication these organisations are racist ad don't allow white members. The conclusion thenis that they are racist and do not allow black people to join. They have set up the Ethnic Liaison Committee which has one member, Lawrence Rustem - a deeply sad and lonely individual. Allwhite might be an organisation which black people have not chosen to join and whites only implies deliberater exclusion.--Streona (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Lawrence Rustem any one of the following?

-A BME(in terms of heritage, not identification)

-mixed-race

a non-white character?

It appears he is. In which case, I withdraw my proposed intro and am now opposed to calling the party all-white or whites-only in the opening sentences, because it seems now that, in reality, the BNP is neither whites-only nor all-white. It would then be best likened to a white interests political organization and, in the second paragraph, write that the BNP has been accused of being all white - and so on.--Npovshark (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source - we can't use your original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not original research, this is trying to plan out how to approach the article so that the views of the BNP's opponents are represented (ie - perhaps we could say it has been called whites only), but doing so so that we are not calling 1+1 "7" in the process. A man with 72000 brothers and 1 sister is not a man with "all brothers" or "only brothers". This is not original research, it is understanding that "all" and "only" are beyond weasel words.--Npovshark (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the Guardian article linked to above:

An activist for more than a decade, a special exemption was made to BNP rules to allow him to become a fully pledged member of the organisation. BNP leader Nick Griffin has said the rules will not be bent again, making Rustem unique.

So yes, technically, this means that the BNP are not 'all-white', though I'll remind you that it was you who argued for that wording in the first place. However, they retain a policy of admitting only white members, to which an exception was made in one instance, and will not be made again: therefore 'whites only' still applies, as long as a qualifier for Rustem is added. To represent the issue as "called" 'whites only' is simply insufficient and does not accurately or adequately describe the situation: the fact remains that it is the BNP's policy to admit whites only. This policy has not changed because a one-off, one-time exception was made to it.

A few of the other remarks from the Guardian interview are very telling:

"To look at him you would not know. He looks slightly different, but he is not a Negro. He is a bit like a Greek, I suppose," said BNP press spokesman Phil Edwards.

"A part of me is never going to be British. It is impossible. The blood just won't tell a lie, will it?,"FrFintonStack (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Finton. Yes, I know I proposed "all-white", but that was a mistake. Anon could have simply said "you know, you forgot about Rustem," which I did. It is clause-ridden - but because the BNP's policy is also clause-ridden. "White" makes a complicated assessment, where again we find ourselves asking who is white. Is the organization a white nationalist organization? If so, then this should be said, just as the Black Panthers were an African American organization, according to wikipedia.

How about this, then? "Party policy is..."

It would mean we don't have to make sentences like "for the most part/generally, the BNP has" which would be an overemphasis of the fact that technically speaking, the BNP has non-white member. At the same time, we can avoid giving instant mention to Rustem. Rustem should come later in the article, not in the intro. So...

The British National Party (BNP) is a ---- (far right? white nationalist? ethno-nationalist)---- political party in the United Kingdom. Party policy is to restrict membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’" and accept white immigrants who have assimilated into one of these ethnicities.

next, I would propose talking about the party's most recent performance, followed by the media response to the BNP/what the party is also regarded as, which seems to be the format of other, less-controversial articles about nationalist parties in Europe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So the BNP is not "all-white"(due to Rustem) but it is "whites-only" (because it will not admit any other non-whites). --Streona (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. What about Whites of the Muslim faith? This is why a clause-filled into is needed, one like the proposal above. Or, perhaps we could simply say this: "...a party without what the BNP defines as "non-white or Muslim members"| 1--Npovshark (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to get away from this idea that we rely on what the source says about itself - we have reliable sources that state that it's a white only party. We don't get into original research or "truth", we are interested in verfication. You need to find a reliable source that states that the BNP is not a white only party. That's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

we have reliable sources that state that it's a white only party. Not quite. One source for the phrase "whites only" says that "the Rustem appointment aggravated the whites only hardcore." How does this support the reliable sources stating it's a white only party? Another source states that "the BNP has been accused of racism because of its whites-only membership policy". This source talks about the membership policy - not the membership - and cannot be used to support the current shape of the into. It is because of the current shape of the intro that I pushed for "all-white", because I misunderstood what it (the intro) meant. Interestingly, the other sources given for "whites only" talk about the BNP's policy, but do not use the phrase "whites only". Thus, another reason why I'm not going against the sources by criticizing "whites only".

My other problem with "whites only" is we're only talking about one aspect of its policy (and that is as it stands in the current-standing version) although the non-Muslim point is just as pivotal. Interestingly, "anti-muslim bnp" gave me 149 hits and "whites only" turned up only 69. Google scholar, which someone referenced earlier to support using the phrase whites only, also has more articles on anti-muslim bnp. So in conclusion, your synopsis that "we have reliable sources that state it's a white only party" is not much of a final word at all.

Back to my proposed version...it is important to say what the party's policy is. That is why I used the the phrase "The party policy is to...". To say "the party is whites-only" is not only an interpretation, and I am not interested in that in the first line and neither should anyone else shooting for NPOV in spite of the fact that the slant in the reliable sources will make this impossible. You want to make this article balanced? Then after the introduction sentence, state what the party's policy is, since this is a defining feature that sets it appart from other parties. Then go on to talk about how the party has fared and then, still at the top, talk about the media perspective and commonly-held views. That should get us off to a good start.--Npovshark (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it, we aren't adding meta-commentary about the sources into the articles and we aren't adding "commonly held" views - both are NOT what we do here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you possibly take my one-sentence summary in the second last line a bit more literally? How about addressing the other 98 percent of what I wrote?--Npovshark (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just keep this simple. The BNP appear to be a whites-only party. Indeed, it is often reported as being so. Perhaps it has people in it who are not white, but apparently that isn't well publicised. Some people have stated that being white isn't a condition of membership, but that being British is. I can't find any statement whereby the BNP says it is only for whites. So I went to their website and clicked on the "Join us" button. Disappointingly, it doesn't mention anything about this. But it does rather hilariously offer overseas membership...

http://bnp.org.uk/how-to-help/join/

And for extra chuckles, they're selling Gollywog dolls and tat https://excalibur.bnp.org.uk/acatalog/The_Golly_Collection.html. If they're not whites only, then some of their darker members must be very broadminded.Kodabar (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an African neighbour who collects Gollywogs, not all black people are offended by these things, it's usually just the (often white) dogooders in the media who have a problem with Golly's magnius (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but one has to ask why the BNP offer gollywog related material for sale on the excalibur website, imcluding material that seems a clear breech of copyright(held by Premier foods who now own Robertsons Jam)unless the BNP do in fact believe it is provocative.--Streona (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comes across as an attempt to influence the reader...it's a controversial policy, and most intros on political parties simply state where the party is based and/or its ideological position. Just put in the second sentence or something. It might be true, but that doesn't make it appropriate. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

The BNP do have Euroscepticism. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

This article is pathetic, and has clearly been written by a bunch of commies, labour supporters, and general nutjobs with an axe to grind. You want to know why there are not any sources saying the BNP is not a fascist organisation, or that the BNP have changed their ways? Because under the rules of the National Union of Journalists, journalists are not allowed to write about the BNP in a positive light! That's why you're never going to find a source that says the BNP are just normal people who want the best for their communities. I've been a member of the BNP for three years. I'd been looking at their performance before then. I've seen first hand how Nick Griffin has changed the party. This can be reflected in our growing vote share over the years in elections. 3 years ago, getting 10% in a by-election would have been a cause for major celebration, now we generally get at least that number anywhere we stand.

I remember when BNP lads were going out leafletting and just getting 2 or 3% of the vote. Those days are over. You really think a sizable chunk of British society suddenly turned fascist? Not likely. It's damned obvious the BNP has changed, and that is not BNP apology, that is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.6.10 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we aren't *using* newspaper articles for the fascist claim I'm not sure what your point is? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is such an NUJ rule (can you point us to it?), there are tens of thousands of journalists who are not members of the NUJ and therefore would not be bound by it. Nor, of course, would the academics whose work we prefer to use. Barnabypage (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the anon ranter actually believes that crap. The BNP has never scored 10% in a parliamentary by-election. If he's referring to local council by-elections, given the appallingly low turnout in them, it is proof of absolutley nothing. Emeraude (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regular readers will know that the NUJ guidance is not binding on journalists, who are edited not by their union but by their editors. The NUJ in common with many, if not all TUC affiliateed Unions does have a position on the BNP. They share the opinion of the 90 percent plus who do not vote BNP. In fact I do not think that those whop do are fascist or even especially stupid, but I do think they are being deceived as to the true nature and intentions of the BNP. Perhaps we collectively can clarify this? --Streona (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For 90% plus, read 99.3%, as of 2005. I share Streona's position on BNP voters, incidently. 79.77.6.10 may which to acquaint his- or herself with WP:No personal attacks before editing this page futher..FrFintonStack (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

79.77.6.10 should also bear in mind WP:COI Autarch (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BNP police officer sacked

Can someone please update the information on the BNP membership leak / employment troubles for BNP members. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7956824.stm - the police officer who was on the list has now been fired. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are smiling? Yeah, you don't have a bias.--Npovshark (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made my view very clear on several occasions, i find the BNP disgusting and thats one of the reasons i dont actually edit the article myself. However as the issue over BNP employment problems is included in the article i thought someone should update it with the latest information. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not realizing that User:Wordforge had already added the sacking under "Organisations which ban BNP membership", I duplicated the fact at Bettley's first mention, under "2008 membership list leak". After discovering the duplication, I decided to leave it in because my edit occurs earlier in the article, is only 6 words, and cites a different source (BritishWatcher's link above), but if anyone objects to my edit, I have no objection to its removal. Unconventional (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to include a mention in both sections, so i think it should stay, Thanks for adding. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

90% don't support the BNP? Keep dreaming, commie scum. Just about every British person supports the BNP, but they will vote conservative in the next general election because they believe the conservatives will stop the labour madness. Once they realise the conservatives are just another head on the three-headed monster known as Lib/Lab/Con, you'll find out just how many support the BNP, and neither the Guardian nor the false opposition peper the Daily Mail will be able to stop us then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.74.15 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I refer you to wiki guidelines on personal abuse, companero(AGAIN)? Also if you check the article, the figure is given, with references, that somewhat less than ten percent- or less than one percent even support the BNP. This would mean that considerably in excess of ninety percent do not support the BNP. Who is the dreamer now ?--Streona (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lmao @ "just about every British person supports the BNP" It is amazing how some BNP supporters lose all sense of reality. Even if every British person supported them which they dont, its votes which count and u basically admit that the BNP wont get any votes. they got only 1% in 2005, i doubt they will do that much better in 2010. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire pilot joins BNP

It may interest all you people who agree with the mainstream idiot press (and their equally idiotic opinions about the BNP) to know that one of the last few surviving Spitfire pilots from WWII just joined the BNP.

Yep, I'm sure he'd quickly sign up for a far right fascist party...

But I understand...rules are rules, "reliable sources", as you call them, are the sources we use. I have come to accept that Wikipedia has no dedication to truth and is just a mouthpiece for the ruling regime and its beneficiaries - just like Wiki would have been under the CCCP, and just like it will be under some unknown government of the future, guided by a new "spirit of the age". Well, hopefully that "spirit of the age" will embody a commitment to truth. Hopefully, it will be an era where people cannot make a living telling us that an ethno-nationalist party is "fascist", that the only remaining right-wing party that has not sold out its people is "far-right".

link:[2]

--Npovshark (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to approach the story in such an aggressive way. However, this might be worth addign to the article, if an appropriate spot can be found. AFAIK the NPI is a 'reliable source'.--MartinUK (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am a bit angry. In case I have not made it clear why, see the previous two topics, above Euroskepticism--Npovshark (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I have come to accept that Wikipedia has no dedication to truth and is just a mouthpiece for the ruling regime" you are complete correct in that wikipedia is interested in verification not truth and that there is a bias towards mainstream media and discourses. It's both wikipedia's biggest strength and biggest weakness and why we aren't aren't for everyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[e/c] I'm not sure that the National Policy Institute truly qualifies as a reliable source. It might be regarded as a fringe organization. They appear to just be rehashing the BNP as a source - I think the BNP itself would be a better source for their own membership. Here's a cached copy: [3]   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrible thing Alzheimer's Disease. Tragic. I also understand that he flew with the Apartheid South African Air Force in 1978. --Streona (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How DARE you suggest that he has Alzheimer's without a source - that breaks so many Wikipedia guidelines I can't even begin to list them all...--MartinUK (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Getting back to the matter at hand, I don't think this is noteworthy unless it's been noted in a reliable source. There are many old soldiers, sailors, and pilots, and unless this one is particularly celebrated it doesn't seem extraordinary that he'd join a political party. Would we mention it if he joined the Labour Party?   Will Beback  talk  20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As it doesnt seem to be on the BNP website anymore and theres little other sources i think its best to leave it off and it doesnt seem that notable. If it was one of the last survivors from WW1 then it would be a much bigger deal.

One thing notable in the news recently is about Winston Churchill would of been a bnp member. It was covered on BBC news and has been talked about alot, dunno if thats worthy of a mention somewhere? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Nicholas Soames (Churchill's grandson and a veteran Conservative MP) spoke out against Nick Griffin's assertion that Churchill would now support the BNP, so it should be possible to find a neutral source.--MartinUK (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes heres the BBC article if anyone wants to try and ad something about it somewhere in the article although im not sure where it would fit in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7955799.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of that information. Why should we include it? Griffin has said something silly as a publicity stunt, nobody takes it seriously, to include it is propaganda. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So now this South African Apartheid supporter wants to deport my wife and what ? Maybe gas my son? How many Namibians died, before the Cubans knocked the hell out of the SAAF? And when Mandela got out, was it then that Tidy went scuttling down to Devon? If he does have Alzheimer's this would be a mitigating circumstance.--Streona (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But seriously folks, this piece of news is not noteworthy apart from the BNP trying to milk it for publicity purposes and would obviously have no place in the substantive article, but this talk page has become a blog for knockabout political jibe throwing in its own rather than a talk page for the article.--Streona (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The longest lasting fascist regime was in Spain, created after a revolt against the established order by the army. Many other right wing dictatorships relied on the army to create or sustain them, so "military type joins BNP" is hardly news. Move along people, nothing to see. Valenciano (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how this could possibly be regarded as notible.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Walker

His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for accessing pornography using school equipment, and was eventually dismissed as a result of his sickness record.

I have returned the above sentence to the article, after it was removed by Npovshark at 13:27 on 15 March 2009 on the basis that it was "utterly irrelevant". The edit can be seen here, and removed all mention of Mark Walker from the article. Not only is the case and the information contained in the sentence highly relevant and fully-referenced, but without it the following two sentences, which deal with his employment issues, appear to refer to his brother Adam Walker, and thus create a potentially libelous paragraph. Could the user in question please explain fully why he or she sought fit to undertake this confusing removal of information?FrFintonStack (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

because the way it is written, the information does not have to do with job difficulties tied to BNP membership, it has to do with a violation of other laws. No political party page lists every crime or misdemeanor committed by people who run for office, and I believe the only way the Mark Walker part deserves to be mentioned is if his supporters allege that he was targetted because he was surfing the BNP site. As the article stands, the sources talking about public support mention Adam, not Mark.--Npovshark (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware I've criticised other people for doing this, but it's clear you've not read the BBC article properly, ([4], reference no. 186 in the article) which states Mr Walker's brother Mark, also a BNP member and technology teacher, was suspended by Sunnydale College in Shildon, County Durham, in March last year. His supporters claim he was suspended for looking at the BNP website on a school computer. The school denies it has acted because of his political affiliation. Or, in other words, it claims precisely that "his supporters allege that he was targeted because he was surfing the BNP site", almost in your exact words. It's there in black and white. The Northern Echo article, ([5], reference no. 187) further states The dismissal of Mark Walker, from Sunnydale Community College in Shildon, County Durham, has attracted national interest because of his claims that his membership of the British National Party has made him the target of a witch-hunt. (my emphasis) It's therefore relevant according to your own argument. Please do not remove this information again. Please note also that neither I, nor any other BNP critic, added the reference to Mark Walker in the first place; when I began editing the page, it was already present but presented his supporters' claims at face value. I merely added the real story. I note no one was clamouring for its removal previouslyFrFintonStack (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to add for BLP purposes that nowhere does the article, or any of the articles it references, allege that Mark Walker broke any laws whatsoever.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly being represented that Mark Walker#s sacking was politically motivated due to his BNP membership. If this is questionable I think it is of interest that this may not entirely be the case.--Streona (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much questionable as simply untrue, as the Northern Echo article reveals. Not that that undermines your point.FrFintonStack (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Finton, I guess the order was unclear and I lost track of who it was talking about - Mark or Adam. You are right. I have however, eliminated the quote at the top of this page because it is uncited, unnecessary (the point is to mention that his supporters said this but it wasn't true) and the article is already very long as it is.--Npovshark (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. The BBC's habit of writing one sentence to a paragraph doesn't exactly help. Your wording is pretty good, but I think it needs to mention that the school says he was suspended for looking at porn (adult porn, nothing illegal, which I think ought to be made clear) and sacked for his sickness record, which I think is more important than the relationship/email stuff. Do you want to give that a shot? Cheers, FrFintonStack (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added the reason for Walker's sacking, since Npovshark failed to do so despite my invitation. The real reason for his sacking is contained within the Northern Echo article: it would be irresponsible to let this go unreported whilst continuing to present, even sceptically, his supporters' claims that he had been suspended/sacked over his party activity.FrFintonStack (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Completely independently of this conversation, I have removed this content as being in breach of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL- that was a decision based on the merits of the cited sources as I saw them; I didn't think the sources were adequate to support the contentions made. The suggestion that he was actually sacked for his sickness record is unlikely to be read separately from his (alleged} BNP membership, and that offends against WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and a myriad other policies. I bear no flag either way for this guy, but only what can be reliably sourced belongs here. Even in an article as contentious as this, we must scrupulously maintain a neutral point of view. That's an issue of personal responsibility based on an understanding of the issues involved. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph because I believe you have misinterpreted the contents of the articles to which the claims are sourced. The Northern Echo (which satisifes WP:RS is every respect) contains virtually word for word the claims made in the Wikipedia article (please see discussion above): even Npovshark, a BNP supporter, accepted that in the end. It states explicitly that he was sacked as a result of his sickness record; this is relevant because his supporters had claimed in the press (see the BBC article).

Moreover, the sickness record incident is entirely separable from the BNP activity issue as again the Northern Echo article makes explicitily clear that the initial cause of his suspension was not any alleged BNP activity, but the fact he had been viewing pornography using school equipment. This is not about splitting hairs regarding the technicalities of the disciplinary process; if he had been suspended for alleged BNP activity and sacked for sickness that may or may not have been related to the disciplinary process, you were certainly have a point, but that was never the case. BNP activity was the cause neither of his suspension nor of his eventual sacking. I hope you won't be offended if I suggest you read both the Northern Echo and BBC articles again: it really is in there in black and white.

I'm also aware that there is a competing claim from Mark Walker's supporters as reported in the BBC article: however, it is not up to us to cast doubt on the clear contents of reliable sources without very good reason, and the wording as it stands does make mention of the competing claim. However, the claim of unnamed supporters, quoted second-hand and without endorsement in a BBC article represents a minority viewpoint at best when contrasted with the Northern Echo article, and thus we have no obligation to give it equal weight in the article.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unlike some, I have read the sources in detail to see precisely what they state; and I've done that more times than I care to spend any time at all doing. I've removed one reference, because it didn't refer to Walker in the slightest. I have refactored the text to reflect what the sources state. WP:V and WP:BLP are not negotiable policies, for very good legal reasons. If my redaction is thought to be defective, please refer to dispute resolution. I stand by it, although I still believe that it's an exercise on somebody's part to hope enough mud will stick when it's thrown, and it does this article no favours, in my view. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the sources in detail. Are you seriously telling me you cannot see the word "Mark Walker" in the second paragraph of the Northern echo, or "Mr. Walker's brother, Mark" in the third to final paragraph of the BBC article? I have already quoted them above in the page to NPOVShark, who accepted my reasoning. Please note also that you are not doing a very good job of assuming good faith.FrFintonStack (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the history. That's all. Just look at the history and the diffs. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So after all that we have exactly the same thing with two minor caveats; "allegedly" and a line to point out he didn't do anything illegal (which was never alleged in the first place). That's a couple of hours of my life I'm not going to get back.FrFintonStack (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Two hours? Luxury. Take a look at how long it took me to sort out List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps episodes yesterday. And that was a diversion. I only do it for the money we get paid. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I admire your committment; that tops just about any Yorkshire hardship I've yet encountered. My limit is neither next nor near Two Pints of Lager....FrFintonStack (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You were lucky. Took me that long to stop fascist vandalism to my user page, as well as misattributing nonsensical edits with my signature.--Streona (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing should be reported to WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. And I'm usually around. Rodhullandemu 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Its sorted.--Streona (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BNP councillor defects to the England First Party

This article claims that a BNP councillor has defected to the England First Party here:

http://www.efp.org.uk/page68a.html

The BNP article needs this information.

Thank you

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC))

• Not really. Within the grand scheme of things, one local councillor from a minor party defecting to another minor party is hardly worthy of comment, which is why the national press has hardly mentioned it. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Euro Elections Manifesto

Perhaps somebody with the ability (and without bias) can add some of the info from the latest manifesto to this article.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/05/british-national-party-launches-its-european-election-manifesto/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.32.252 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the manifestos of other parties put on their wiki articles? I am sure the BNP can manage their own publicity without our help.--Streona (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin on the Daily Politics show

Nick Griffin categorically affirmed his acceptance of the fact that millions of Jews were murdered in Nazi Germany on the Daily politics show and that the BNP had many jewish members, which was shown on 11 May 2009. This obviously needs to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.32.252 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable sources? Even when they're written by the person whose views are in question? I'm inclined to revert the last edit. Boris B (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Right Wing?

The Sourcing nonwithstanding - I think that the Right Wing label is POV and should be removed. Thoughts anyone? RicoRichmond (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's sourced, why is it POV? We aren't expressing our own opinion, merely reporting that of reliable sources. If there are contrary viewpoints, we may also report those; but the prevaling balance seems strongly to favour the term. Rodhullandemu 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, people get a bit confused about this and think wikipedia has to have "balance" (whatever that means) - we simply report what reliable mainstream sources say - and multiple reliable mainstream sources (academic journals, newspapers, documentaries) say it's right-wing so that's what we report here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Sourcing nonwithstanding"? What does that mean? If sources state that the BNP are right-wing, then they are right-wing. To say otherwise - contrary to sources - would obviously be a breach of NPOV. That label certainly stays. Setwisohi (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to unlock this article?

How long must we be subjected to a team of evidently bias editors being the only ones with the ability to add and edit this article? It's quite absurd.87.114.166.75 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased in what way? And looking at the protection log, it seems that vandalism returns whenever the article is unprotected, as one might expect; you can ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP, but with elections less than a month away, I doubt it would be unlocked. If you have any particular edits you'd like to see made, you can always ask here using the {{editprotected}} template, and providing a reliable source. Rodhullandemu 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info.

See below. Cheers. 87.114.166.75 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed it has already been addressed. Thanks 87.114.166.75 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps would-be editors would like to put some time into establishing themselves as wikipedia contributors, start up a few stub class articles and contribute constructively to existing articles. I have done so and as a result would not wish to jeopardise my position by various acts of vandalism and breaches of wiki guidelines that the protection status is being used against.---Streona (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You can edit this page if you've had an account for a few days, and have made some edits to other pages. Get an account here. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gurkas, Johnson Beharry

I was listening to interview quoted here on the Gurkha's and it has been I feel deliberately taken out of context.

He went onto say that Gurkha's could be settled in Britain, but not until the problem with the high numbers of ex-British servicemen living homeless here had been dealt with first. He also said that the Gurkha's had done their most for Britain and should be getting proper pensions in line with the rest of the Army, which is a major reason for so many wanting citizenship (as the government would then be forced to pay them properly by law).

This clearly adds a whole new angle to the debate that is not included here. With this information in mind, it is misleading and bias to say that they do not support Gurkha settlement.

Anyway, here are two links I quickly Googled from their website as they deny both the allegations on Gurkha's and Beharry listed here. Surely it is fair to include them? As the public declarations to an allegation from any other organisation or person would be included.

Links: Gurkha: Real racism in action Beharry: Media lie against the bnp

Please note, I do not say this as a supporter of the BNP, because I am not. I have simply seen how very one sided political articles in WIKIPEDIA can be, some of your editors for this article are very public in their intentions. Please allow some balance. Thank you. 87.114.166.75 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A fair point and content has been added. The BNP policy on Gurkhas is not mentioned in Searchlight, who would undoubtedly have picked up on the Lumley story if they had thought there were any legs to it.I note on the BNP website that Adam Walker, who was accused of distributing it says that the BNP has no policy on Gurkhas.--Streona (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm new to editing Wiki so apologies for any formatting issues here, but it seems that the middle paragraph of three in this section requires citations to me. 203.129.24.200 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I assume you're talking about the third paragraph in the British Army Gurkhas... section, which seems to have adequate citations. Please state exactly which sources you wish to be referenced in the article, and at which point they should be added. haz (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to lack clarity, paragraph as below:

"There has been controversy concerning a statement to the Sun newspaper, by actress turned campaigner Joanna Lumley, condemning a leaflet which had allegedly been distributed by the BNP candidate, Adam Walker with a picture of a dead Gurkha soldier crossed out and attacking her campaign for settlement.[citation/citation required] Both Walker and the BNP have condemned this as a forgery[citation/citation required] and the BNP have published a statement they attribute to Joanna Lumley and the Gurkha Justice Campaign, retracting the criticism. The statement does not appear on the Gurkha Justice campaign website." Zero Citations, citations required as noted at least, you could probably place more if wanted.203.129.24.200 (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comments regarding protests against the NUJ

I have removed a section regarding the protest against the NUJ over the coverage of a man's death, as it has been flagged as unsourced for 2 months now, and the source given to it was this: http://www.findmypast.com/home.jsp The section can be added back in if a reliable source is found, as I don't feel a section regarding someones death should be there without citation. Taelus (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ section

I've added a FAQ section, as the "right wing"/"far right" label queston comes up quite frequently. Anyone can edit FAQ sections. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

White only

This is an inadequate assumption, there are asian and black members of the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.161.181 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all for now. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just accidentally submitted my edit reverting Cameron midway through typing the edit summary. The edit stands in the wake of two well-sourced arguments and nobody except Cameron has raised any objection. To cite consensus without any comment to the ongoing discussion on the talk page is frivolous. To do so just after copyediting a statement saying they aren't fascist smacks of deliberate disruption. I'm happy to discuss any legitimate concerns about my edit in a proper open manner. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death up and down the page - the consensus has always been to retain - if you want to remove it after it being reverted (BRD) then we need to wait for more people to become involved in the debate - unless you want to have a edit war? surely not? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it really too much to ask for you to stop gaming and discuss content? I have raised a very specific issue with the current infobox: the current sources are inadequate. To draw the conclusion that fascism is a central ideology of the party from sources which only use the term adjectivally in passing is original research. Especially when some of the most authoritative are using the term "neo-fascist" and not "fascist". Especially when the BNP have listed specific ideological differences that they hold with fascism. Where are the reliable sources discussing these ideologies and reaching the opposite conclusion to Nick Griffin? If they exist, fine, but I don't see them and the article needs them. Surely you must at least see that a string of seven half-dead, half-contradictory, mostly hard-to-access sources is amateurish and inadequate. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anybody else would say that Renton uses the term adjectivally. His treatment corresponds to the closer analyses of BNP ideology, such as Copsey and, presumably, Elisabeth Carter. Again, though, I could always use a second opinion. Ottre 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Ottre. Is there a relevant quote from Renton that explains what the source says on the matter? Does it do anything to address BNP policies like the rejection of "corporate state" which claim to separate themselves from fascism? I'm sure you understand that having reliable statements that are free to access is important for subjects like these. It's clearly controversial, if only because the BNP make it controversial, and the stronger we can make the sourcing of the article the less perrenial argument there need be. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

that are free to access is important for subjects like these. - that's *never* be the case, the qualification wikipedia has is that material has to be accessible by *someone* not everyone and it's long been accepted that the high grade academic sources we perfer are going to have restricted access. There is a wikiproject (I can't remember the name off the top of my head)that will get academic documents for you if you don't have access for yourself. Removal on that basis would be instantly reverted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." I assume you have no objection to making the article more useful. I have no intention of removing sources which say the right things. It was only that I was unimpressed by the source that I could access (Hussain et. al.) and until Ottre commented there was no suggestion that the other sources were any different. It occurs to me that perhaps even Hussain et. al. is not available online to most people, since it appears to take note of the fact that I'm accessing it from the University of Cambridge. Both I, and, I think, future contributors to the article, would find it useful to know the gist of what these sources say. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While continuing to search for free versions of the sources cited, I noticed that in an earlier work, Fascism in Britain, Richard Thurlow also characterises the BNP as neo-fascist, not fascist. The cited book, Fascism in Modern Britain is only available in snippet view. Any thoughts on this? The work is a fairly thorough history of the progression of fascist ideology in Britain since its inception, and it seems pertinent that it considers the BNP practically an afterthought of fascism, a divergence of the extreme right from historical fascist ideology. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read Copsey's paper Contemporary Fascism in the Local Arena? It seems to be cited a lot by other sources, but seems very difficult to get hold of. Proper practice is to only cite sources directly, not cite the sources they cite. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving to Main Body

There is no reason to have Fascism in the ideology box if the party officialy rejects it. It is the only party in the Wikipedia that has an ideology it officialy dosnt support put on its info box. Please explain this anormality. I am moving it to the main body now.Eros of Fire (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm surprised to see the National Front deny that they are a facist party and it's included in their information box. (I'm surprised that's not on your watchlist being that you are "white resistance" fighter?) --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Streona added it to try to "fix" that abnormality after it became evident. Streona at Talk:British National Front: Whilst the BNP is characterised as Fascist the NF is not in the ideology box. The opening of this article reads like an advert for the NF. Can be cleaned up or will some pruning be required ? Eros of Fire (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it probably warrants mention at least somewhere in the article, but if political academia takes that standpoint into account and concludes that objectively that their ideologies still count as fascist then that takes a precedence of reliability. Verifying that sources exist that say this is still difficult and I think this is where discussion is best aimed at improving the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am rewording it nowEros of Fire (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An Old Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Political_party

The phrase "Political ideology" have been changed to "Official ideology" to point out that this field should only state what is the official, self-stated ideology of a party, and not what is the opinion of media and other outside observers. To use anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source.

So it looks like when this infobox was being designed, the creators knew that using anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source.[sic] Eros of Fire (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, we can make this discussion larger, and make a request for moderation regarding the interpretation of what is the correct use of the infobox, something that was already made clear on the own talk page of the template in question.

I think now I have more of a case. Eros of Fire (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote in question is taken from a proposed change in 2007 to a design still kept at Template:Infobox Political party/test. It was followed with no discussion or action. What matters in this issue is not what intentions if any were designed into the infobox but what makes sense to put next to the word "ideology" as it stands now. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't involve "moderation" anyway, as admins don't get involved in content disputes in that way. What you actually want is a Request for comment - where you lay out your argument and involved parties and other then discuss the others and draw tocome to a conclusion and formulate a way forward. To start with, you need to draft a statement outlining your position and the policies which you think support it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Political ideology" have been changed to "Official ideology" to point out that this field should only state what is the official, self-stated ideology of a party, and not what is the opinion of media and other outside observers. To use anything else than the party's official position here would be against WP:NPOV and will only lead to edit wars and disputes over what is to be considered a reliable source.

Notice the use of "point out". He is not talking about the new design, he is talking about making clear that the ideology section should only state what is the official opposition of the party to prevent edit wars.Eros of Fire (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It never got out of the sandbox, it's worthless to us in this discussion it carries no authority. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Political ideology" have been changed to "Official ideology" to point out that this field...

He is talking about the ideology field in generalEros of Fire (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct Use of the "Ideology" section of the Infobox. See also Template_talk:Infobox_Political_party, where it is pointed out that the section in question should only include "Official Policies" to prevent edit wars and misinterpretations --Eros of Fire talk) 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: coordinated attempt by Coxsmith and Cameron Scott to engage me in an edit war. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cameron_Scott&oldid=293513629, and coordinated revertions of my editsEros of Fire (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I had asked him, you'd have a point - looking at the history, we did some editing together on some comics pages and he clearly following my contributions - He wouldn't be the first person. I will ask him not to edit war over this matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: User:Slarre seems to have put forward an arguably sensisible proposal two years ago. However, no other users commented on it, so no-one, it seems to me, is obliged to follow what Slarre suggests. Eros, you seem to be suggesting that it either well-established or that it goes without saying that it would raise a POV issue if sources other than the subject of the article were used to define its political position. But I don't think this is well-established or obvious at all. Compare the question: "Is Phil Spector a murderer?". Clearly, sources other than the subject of the question ought to be used in order to get at an answer. I do think that an issue is raised of ensuring that undue weight isn't given to minority views. Cheers. --84.13.81.131 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like point out that this is virtually a classic case of synthesis, where articles not available on-line and not written directly about the subject are used to further a specific POV. That is clearly what has happened with the ideology section on this article.--Lucy-marie (talk)

No, it isn't synthesis. Synthesis means using multiple sources (or a combination of sources and original research) to back an assertion that is not directly made by any cited source. There doesn't seem to be an issue or synthesis here, since the sources cited use the same term used in the infobox (ie "fascist" or "fascism"). Also, in this case, the materials cited do appear to be directly about the subject. --78.148.14.222 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point intentionally to further your own. I could provide loads of sources stating what bankruptcy is and place that in the info box in the same was as it has been done for fascism that doesn't mean that it is true just because the sources all use the word bankruptcy. Unless each source explicitly states the following sentence "the BNP are fascists" then it IS a form of synthesis.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussions above, it seems that there is already agreement that the sources are explicit (although it has been noted that some of them use the term "neo-fascist" - I'm not sure this makes much difference). That's not the issue at hand. The issue seems to be whether what the subject says about itself should be the only valid source. --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the sources yourself before you can comment on them and I'm certain that many of those who are criticising them have not read them at all. The sources do explicitly say the BNP is facist (or neo-fascist, though many political scientists would argue that the two are the same separated by a period of time anyway). They do not have to use a specific sentence as Lucy-marie claims. The bankruptcy point is ridiculaous - no one is suggesting that random adjectives be added to the infobx! Emeraude (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)