Talk:British National Party

NPOV

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

Use of the term fascist is reliably sourced, i agree this page is hardly neutral but its like trying to paint the Nazis in WW2 as the good guys. If you can make suggestions on how to improve the article to make it seem fairer, u should suggest it here and see if theres an agreement. There is only 1 possible thing i could think might be added as a good thing for the BNP and thats their support for allowing the Ghurkas to get British citizenship and stay in this country. Im sure Griffin has said he supports that, but i cant find their actual policy committment on it, otherwise i would of added it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term fascist is, as BritishWatcher says, reliably sourced. But we need to get away from any suggestion that you can only be fascist if you say you are fascist. What next? You can only be a war criminal if you say you're a war criminal? You can only be racist if you say you're racist? You can only be tall if you say you're tall? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Things are described as they are, not as the subjects would wish them to be seen! Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that "fascist" is a potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory term, so it can be used to push agendas (in this case, the liberal one), breaking the NPOV. For a true fascist party, see National Front. They accept they are fascist. The BNP itself denies they are fascist, I read it somewhere in the official web site, I will put a link when a find it.Eros of Fire (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just about any word you use is "potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory", but so what? If I say that William the Conqueror was a bastard, I am not being insulting. If I say that Margaret Thatcher was a fascist bastard, I'm wrong on both counts. I repeat, this is an encyclopaedia; we are grown-up enough to use words accurately and precisely with their real meaning, and backed up from reliable academic sources. Incidentally, I don't think you'll find that the NF accepts (publicly) that it's fascist. And there's no need to link the BNP's denial; it's already mentioned in the article. Emeraude (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sugestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a suggestion about the general content (not how its described in the info box) and we will see if theres any support. If its a valid suggestion im sure Emmeruld wont block the alteration, this article is in major need of a cleanup so any improvements should be welcomed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the anonymous rants above refer to, but seeing as I have been personally attacked let's be clear about a few things: The citations attesting to the BNP's fascism are cast iron and there are no references - despite repeated requests - to the contrary!! None!! So the description stays until some reliable sources say otherwise, regardless of any opinions given in peer reviews. Incidentally, once again please read what I wrote: I categorically did NOT describe people who oppose the use of "fascism" as "BNP apologists". What I wrote was that sources for a change in BNP ideology "have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed" (see Archive 11). If you can't read what I wrote, and refuse to understand it, then you are hardly capable of engaging in meaningful debate. As to the peer review, which was conducted by Ruhrfisch and posted on 22 September 2008, he nowhere even mentions "fascism"; nor did he remove it. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to BritishWatcher, I agree that there is scope for improving this article. At the moment, many sections are unnecessarily long (e.g. BNP difficulties with employment), rambling and of dubious significance. Funnily enough, the main reason seems to be that editors have gone too far out of their way to be "fair" to the BNP, resulting in far too much detail being included. My own position is clear: I am opposed to the BNP because of its fascist nature and I make no secret of this. I'm not an activist though; I don't even always vote. I am concerned that all articles in Wikipedia are accurate and even-handed. As a graduate and one-time teacher of political science I am fully aware of the nature of bias, which is partly why I have never added or removed substantive content to this article: most of my edits have been removal of mindless vandalism, updating or finding of references, removal of unreferenced claims, copyediting to improve readability, punctuation, garmmar, etc.. I will support all suggested edits to improve the article that have genuine consensus, backed up with reliable sources, and my history in this page supports that. There have been efforts to do so in the past, but they have come to nothing because the "BNP apologists" always seem to leave the debate when they see what a consensus looks like! Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, actually, I don't agree. I don't see anything in the article that can be disputed from a "neutrality" viewpoint. My point is to do with the quality of the article, which I have said suffers because a previous excessive attempt to make it appear neutral. Quite simply, the article is too long in many sections but earlier attempts to address this (see archives passim) have been resisted by people objecting that removing text would cast the BNP in a less sympathetic light; others have added whole chunks (e.g. to employment, policies and other sections) with the same laudable but unnecessary intent.Emeraude (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would ask is to add (denied by BNP) to the Fascist part of the infobox. That is all. That should make it neutral. Eros of Fire (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's been suggested before and rejected. The function of an infobox is to provide brief, succinct info. The denial or debate belongs quite correcetly in the article.Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the liberal-controlled MSM say otherwise, FASCISM IS NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE PARTY AND THAT SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR!!!! Please stop pushing agendas in wikipedia.Eros of Fire (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Fascism is not the official policy of the party. It is its ideology and is listed as such. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain "HOW" it is its ideology, please?Eros of Fire (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can, but I won't. If you want to know why the BNP's ideology is fascist you only have to follow the references that are cited. It is not my job to explain them to you. Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ummm a couple of problems with the actual sources currently listed. 3 are books which we should not be expected to go out and buy or look at in a library. If those are the dates they were written (1996, 1999 and 2000), then all 3 are out of date, two must of been written before Nick Griffin took power, and one less than a year later. Which just leaves source number 10 from 2007, which appears to require membership to view and sounds like it costs money BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. The sources are all valid; when Griffin took over is totally irrelevant; the sources are still cited by later writers; they are all available. And if you're too ignorant to go to a library or bookshop........!!! Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you really need something newer, how about "The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." (Source: DAVID RENTON "‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party" in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005 p26) But you'll have to go to a library to check that as well. Emeraude (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

You both have expressed a deep hatred toward this party, and I think you should not be allowed to edit this article. YOU CLEARLY ARE PUSHING POV!!! YOU JUST HATE THIS PARTY! GET OVER THAT!Eros of Fire (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I too despise the BNP and everything it stands for, i have made that very clear. However i do think this article is biased against them which is clearly wrong. The trouble is i dont know how it could be improved at all because as said by Streona its simply telling the truth. Eros please make suggestions on how to improve the article if you think they are pushing their POV. Apart from the fascist issue which i still think should be removed, especially as most of the sources are outdated and by non neutral sources i cant see anything thats inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you say that? You have admitted above that you have read none of the sources and implied that you won't, but on this evidence you are able to claim that the references are outdated and by non-neutral sources!! Unbelievable!! Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not read any of those books and i certainly do not intend to. However for you to simply dismiss the fact some of these are out of date and one unavailable shows there is a problem. Please can you give me a link to the author / authors of these books so i can read about the people just so i am reading about the correct person. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

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

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

All editors have specific opinions, that's why they edit. That's why WP:V exists, if you have reliable third party verifiable sources to back up your views, we will need to see them. Also, I'd suggest jurisdiction shopping isn't going to help, this isn't a BLP matter, since it is about an organisation, and the organisation doesn't have human rights to be observed. You give a list of articles citing the BNP using fascist as a opeerjorative term against opponents, I'm afraid they aren't admissible, not just because they aren't third party reliable verifiable references, but because it requires OR to read them as a claim that the BNP isn't a fascist organisation.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the comments you make Red Deathy, however on the issue of fascist label surely it should be the case for alot of evidence and sources being provided to prove that is their ideology rather than having to prove they are not. At the moment the sources for this controversial issue are seriously lacking. As i mentioned above 3 are out of date (atleast 1 written before Nick griffin even took power, which ofcourse makes a difference.. Germany changed after Hitler took power, someone taking control of a party has similiar changes) and one is to a website which requires membership and a fee (from what i could see). Im also concerned about the actual sources and if they are neutral enough to declare such ideology on others. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would need a verifiable source to say they are out of date, otherwise it's OR. Also, I know at least one dates from 2007, I know, I added it in response to just this point. The 2007 article is from a peer reviewed academic journal. References do not have to be neutral, merely reliable and uncontradicted.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Well there are 4 sources currently. 1 from 1996, 1 from 1999 and 1 from 2000 now Nick Griffin only took power in 1999 so i think its not Original Research to say these are outdated. On the 2007 one as i said before, that requires membership and looks as if you have to pay a fee something that almost no one can access should not be treated as a reliable source. Also to claim that sources dont have to be neutral seems wrong to me. It should be mentioned within the article that many consider them to be fascists and such sources would be fine, the trouble here is its being put in the parties info box making it sound like this is their actual ideology, and not what some people just label them as. Im sure the BNP have called the labour party communist, that doesnt justify us including it in Labours ideology surely? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You can go to your local library and ask them to obtain the articles for you if you want, WP:V merely demands it be published (and properly cited), just because you have to put effort into it doesn't mean it isn't valid. Non- neutral sources. If anti-fascists cnsider that an organisation is fascist, that is within WP:V to mention, but academic resources are better, definitely. The BNP may call the labour party communist, but the balance of reliable third party published sources would say something different. The case here is that all the reliable third party publihed sources editors have found state the BNP is fascist and non have been found to invalidate that claim. Out of date: Yes, Nick Griffin arrived in 1999, but unless you have a source saying he stopped the BNP being fascist (reliable third party published source) then it OR to claim this invalidates the previous citations. We are evidence based, not opinion based.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but the duty of proof is on those seeking to label the BNP fascist not the other way around. I am sorry but they are out of date sources, Griffin has claimed to of changed the party even those that disagree hes truely done it admit hes tried to make it look that way. The two sides are never going to agree on this issue, we need neutral 3rd party opinions to help decide if it should remain. Even if deep down they are fascist which i accept is probably the case, it doesnt justify labelling them as such because its what their political enemies have described them as. Sure say they are considered fascist by the vast majority of the British public and most political parties / figures but there is a big difference to that and labelling it as an ideology in their info box which is simply POV and biased. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The proof has been provided by four different citations, one of which comes from after Griffin's leadership. What Griffin claims needs to be supported by third party reliable published sources. WP:V and [WP:OR]] are clear in this matter. Go to your local library, or pay to access the Copesy article, if you like.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:RS is a policy page, which sets out what I've been saying here for some while, that these are reliable sources (from peer reviewed academic journals). All we need to have them called out of date, or out of line with reliable consensus is reliable third party sources stating a cotnrary position, which hasn't happened. Until then its WP:OR to say they're out of date (and saying that you need to pay for an article is a valid reason to reject it).--Red Deathy (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not agree though that this has gone mad and the contributors on this page on both side are unable to adequately discuss this. This debate needs extrapolating and being discussed by nobody involved with the discussions so far. This to prevent the discussion page being gridlocked permanently.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I am adequately discussing this - I reiterate the policy of WP:V and await the production of new sources for us to take things forward. Whenever a new name comes forward to question the fascism tag, I point out what is required. What if mediation prudced the status quo, do you think the attempts to remove the fascism label would cease? I'm afraid patient explanation of policy, and encouragement to editors to go out and find reliable, third party published material is the best that can be done, for now.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but i dont know if the current sources are verifiable and from a neutral point of view as required. Those in favour of the use of the term fascist dont even seem to accept the fact that parties change over time and especially as new leaders come to power. Labour certainly cant be described as the left wing party it was just a couple of decades ago. Which is why the fact people simply dismiss that 3 of the 4 sources are OUT OF DATE and one is a source which requires subscription is unacceptable. If the BNP is widely regarded as Fascist then please provide sources. Its the job of those who support the term to PROVE it belongs there in their ideology, not to prove a negative.

Mediation is the best step, even if it results in the current term remaining in their ideology box atleast there will be clear justification for it remaining, unlike now when it has been strongly contested by many people over the months and the sources clearly lack the required standard. If the BNP ever did come to power then i think they would be fascist and radically destroy British democracy, but its just wrong to use a couple of sources which "claim" they are something, especially when those sources are far from neutral or up to date. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Teh sources are verifiable, because citations are given, and they can be read to see if they say what they are purported to say. Many come from respectable publishing houses, or peer reviewed journals. While some are now old, no reliable third party published source has been produced to say they are out of date - it is only eduitors' opinion (at the minute). No-one is being asked to prove a negative, far from it, you're being asked for a positive, that is to prove that someone has gone to print saying the BNP are not a fascist organisation. That's all it takes. Again, sources do not need to be from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia must, but sources from opponents, that come in a reliable published format, still count. These sources, hwoever, are academic. One source, is all it takes, that says the BNP is not fascist, one source, published by a third party.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

COPIED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICE BOARD WHEN THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED

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

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

Lucy-marie is correct when she says the discussion has gone mad. Common sense is bound up with Wikipedia policy and, if it comes to that, the normal standards of academic study and reasearch. It is madness to say that one has not read and will not read the cited articles/books and then to carry on contradicting them. It's as valid as me saying that the film I have not seen is terrible - i.e. opinion and prejudice based in ignorance. If anyone who has read the citations wants to suggest they do not say what is claimed of them, then that is grounds for debate. If they are not prepeared to read them, the only decent thing to do is to admit to ignorance of the subject and withdraw.

Let us remember that a year ago a group of editors (including as I recall Lucy-Marie) objected to any mention of fascism because there were no references. I found many references and put in 3 or 4 (I could have included many more). Objectors then changed tack: they were out-of-date; the BNP had changed X years ago (no agreement on how many years); etc etc. However, no one - repeat no one - has provided any evidence from any reliable source that the BNP has changed, that the earlier sources are significantly dated, that the later ones are inaccurate or, more importantly, that the BNP is not fascist. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

I've been in the fortunate position of having accesss to academic journals online, but if I hadn't it would be an easy enough matter to request them in any local library or find them in a larger library. There is no excuse for not doing this.

I would recommend readers to at least study the reference for Copsey, N. "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006", Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82. An abstract 'without need for a subscription is here and for those who still refuse to look it up I will provide some key sentences:

"At the outset, [Copsey]] offers some conceptual clarifications regarding fascism, national-populism and neo-fascism before discussing the nature of Griffin's 'modernization' project and the circumstances behind his decision to revamp the party's ideology. He then moves on to a critical examination of the party's new ideological position as revealed in its 2005 general election manifesto..... He concludes that ideological renewal under Griffin constitutes a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity." Emeraude (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It will not allow me to view that site right now, thanks for posting the paragraph. Can you please give me the full name of the author and who he is? Whats his political affiliation, previous record. A link on the author would be useful thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nigel Copsey? He's an accepted academic authority on the far-right and fascism in England. You can read more about him here As for his political affliation? what of it? Do you think that if he's revealed as a member of the labour party, that's going to negate his sources? His material is printed in accepted PR journals, what wikipedia accepts as the gold standard of sources, so if you are planning to go down that road - I'd think on, it's likely to get a sharp response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just read some brief information on Dr Nigel Copsey, im still rather concerned that someone who makes a profit from writing books on this subject is considered neutral and everything he writes must be correct. Should we take the fact there are writers like Alex Jones as serious sources and start labelling orgaanisations ideology based on his point of view on the new world order? Please provide the other sources mentioned on this issue. At the moment we simply have two different sources which get used twice. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:V, by definition people make money from publishing material (though academics make very little from their publications' sales) and we must refer to published material. We wouldn't use Alex Jones because he doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals, hold an academic post, attend academic conferences or be a member of academic societies, all of which scrutinise their members work. Further, we take the weighting of a source based on the published consensus, thus currently we have no reliable, third party pubished sources that state the BNP aren't fascist, and one peer reviewed, redcent source, which says it has, and which cites (and is in turn cited by) other articles that maintain the same.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually we have two - my second link is to a different peer reviewed article by a different author. This was a two minute search on my part, if people are that interested I can find an hour tomorrow to have a proper look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"makes a profit" I'm sure any other current or former academics will join me in a quick chuckle at the idea of "making a profit" off dry academic readers. The last book I wrote, (which was fairly successful, If I do say so myself), It worked out at about 97p an hour. Seriously you are barking up the wrong tree - it's a combination of factors - Accepted Academic = yes, Cited as an expert in this area = yes, published in reliable mainstream academic sources = yes. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" I am sorry but i still dont consider the current sources to meet that required standard. I dont have a problem with them being described as fascist throughout the article, as i said before i believe if they came to power they would be a fascist regime. I just dont like the way a couple of sources are acceptable enough to justify declaring a parties ideology as something, especially as they deny the claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are we going to go with this? If I provide twenty peer reviewed academic sources - are you going to ask for 30? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably yes, i do not think its right for 3rd parties to label an organisations ideology when it is clearly up for debate and does depend on ones point of view and the actual definition of the term. Considering at the moment wikipedias definition of fascist doesnt define the BNP. Im not the one starting the debates demanding change on this matter, im just stating my point of view as i think this should be more balanced. Changing the sources to some more up to date ones (after 2000) would certainly remove some of the criticism of its inclusion but i would rather remove it and avoid all the different people that come here questioning the ideology list so people can worry about the rest of the article which has problems. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

i do not think its right for 3rd parties to label an organisations ideology - that's the core of what we do here, if you don't like that you are in the wrong place - independent actor X makes an analysis of subject Y, we assess the value of that analysis and how it should be used and we report that analysis. That's the start and end of it. So clearly we wouldn't say "The BNP is a fascist party", we'd say "Academics studying right-wing extremism argue that the organisation is still fascist and has strategically masked its core ideology behind the deployment of ‘moderate’ language" - gosh look folks, another peer reviewed academic source for you to use and a quote to boot, and it's from 2008! How lucky we are that so many of the top level sources we use here are available to include in the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please add them and remove the out of date ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Only you claim that the old sources are out of date. What the sources do show is that, according to academic opinion, the BNP was and is a fascist party, and that that assessment has been stable for more than a decade. There is no need to flood the article with references, but I would suggest to keep 2 or 3, including one of the older books, and an newer academic reference. I think the Copsey one on the evolution is particularly suitable, and it's easily verifiable online with a proper library subscription or a small fee. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not the only one questioning the use of the term fascist in the ideology list of their info box. There are many comments by different people above that disagree with such use of the term. Im sure those that dont think it should be described as such would also view such information as out of date. You dont have to flood the article with sources, however i would of thought even those that strongly believe the term is justified would understand that the most up to date and easily verifiable sources are clearly more important than 3 from before or within a year of Nick Griffin taking over and one that can only be viewed with membership to a site. As a source mentioned above used to justify the term fascist shows, the BNP have tried to change their image in recent years. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

It doesn't seem to make sense to the rest of us, there is no consensus to remove that from the infobox. --Cameron Scott (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See.... it is the only party whose infobox does not match its official policies. The BZO and Vlaams Belang have similar positions, but they do not get any fascist label in their infobox. You really think that is fair??Eros of Fire (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So if I find the references to add it to those infoboxes - where are we going then? The colour is wrong? it makes the articles bum look big? I came to this uninvolved and became involved in the last couple of days. The consensus here back by policy and multiple reliable sources is that it stays in. If someone can provide some high quality independent sources that dispute the fact that the mainstream academic opinion is that the BNP is a party with a fascist ideology - let's see them because "it's not fair!" isn't an argument that goes anywhere at wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

But the infobox is for official policies, at least it looks like in every single party less the BNP. The references can go in the introduction. Fill the article with the word fascist if you want!!!! I just say it is not fair it is the only party whose ideology in the infobox does not match the official policy. The NPD is by far more extreme and it does not get that label! Tell me... WHY SHOULD IT SPECIFICALLY GO IN THE INFOBOX?Eros of Fire (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight - I don't respond to passive aggressive questioning - if you'd like to ask the question again but this time by not shouting (and typing in all caps is considered shouting on the internet), I might consider answering it but I'm not a dog, so please don't think shouting at me like I am a dog is going to get a response. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Eros has ben told before that there is a significant difference in meaning between "policy" and "ideology". I and other editors that say fascism must go in have never said it is BNP policy - it isn't. It's the ideology. Whatever faults other Wiki articles may have is totally irrelevant to this one; it might suit Eros's argument were he to go to the NPD and similar articles and suggest that fascism be added to the infoboxes there. Emeraude (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Intermarriage is also a big cause of a declining white population. And I'd like to see a source for your assertion that BNP supporters consume more alcohol than supporters of other ideologies - I'd be happy to guess that they use less illegal drugs however. In any case - [1] notes that "The results of research studies are conflicting and have shown both positive and negative effects of alcohol on fertility and fecundity".--MartinUK (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's covered in the article if you read it and was discussed here (probably now in archive). Emeraude (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone might want to add a bit to that leaked Members list section. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-named-on-bnp-list-back-at-work-1520016.html two people on the list have now been cleared and returned to work. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to inform you that an Eros especially the Eros that the user was referring to is a Heart with an arrow going through it and I believe it is related to Greek myth. As you can see on the user's page. The user's page was devoted to fantasy and Greek mythos wiki. It is not as you say a burning cross symbolic of the KKK.

At a certain date this user changed his/her page to reflect his/her views which seem to correspond with the dicussion on this page getting heated. I'd have to say you probaley just witnessed a individual being radicalized by your opinions. You see it may seem perfectly normal for you to say things like British people don't exist or to constantly refer to white Brits with racist language and think nothing of it. But some People would regard it as vilification or at least racist and insulting.

I refer you to Godwins law and the reductio ad hitlerum because Godwins law is the tendency for discussion to break down into talking about Nazis and Hitler its the common denominator sort of stuff because a person lacks significant knowledge of other regimes or history. They are unable to express their point of view in an intelligent way. This is where you get the absolutely absurd recent situation of your Antifascist friends calling jews Nazi.

I also refer you to the reductio ad hitlerum because of the slippery slope affect for instance of making vague connection to two groups and then suddenly concluding the current group is a genocidal totalitarian regime which is what a person does when he insinuates that a group are Nazi's. An example " The nazi's had cars. BNP members have cars. They must be polluting the planet (and thinking of commiting mass murder aswell)" ignorant of the fact that many people connected to green groups may use cars. Just an example. Maybe not the best.

Further more I'd like to say your arguement of an SS page in logically wrong. The BNP are not Nazi's, SS, etc they are the BNP so you'd expect discussion to revolve around them. You would hardly expect discussion on the SS page to be about the BNP. Likewise the British are not Germans or specifically ww2 Germans. They aren't destined if the BNP come to power to make the mistakes of a different people. Unless you are lumping the two people and nations into one "White" group and assume because one is white like the other they will do the same thing.

And i did laugh when you started up the reductio ad hitlerum yet again. I've read through the archives. You do it alot.

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

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

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

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

The BBC and the BNP

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

I think more people would believe the BBC than the BNP, however its a sad reflection of the country that there is not a single clear list of how many councillors every single party or group has. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that the BNP claims it has 100 councillors. Before the 2007 local elections it had said that it hoped to double its number of councillors to around 100, but only gained one extra. There were a number of losses subsequently (resigned, disqualified, changed party etc) so the number was probably considerably below 50 for the 2008 local elections. The Wiki article United Kingdom local elections, 2008 says that the BNP gained 10 councillors, making a new total of 37. So the BBC figure is also suspect or, most likely, an old source. Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Found the BBC source here, from 4 May 2008. What it actually says is "The BBC estimates that as of the May 2008 elections outcome, the party has seen 56 councillors elected - however thanks to differing interpretations of defections, splits and at least one exclusion, it's rather difficult to come up with an exact figure." Note what I have marked in bold: I take this to mean that there had been 56 over the years, not 56 at any one time. If I'm right, then the second sentence in the article needs to be changed. Emeraude (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we should just put how they did in that election rather than mentioning the total number of councillors different sources think they have. I dont really think that it deserves a mention in the second sentence. Other party articles dont start out by saying how many councillors they have in the second sentence, it should be further down the article somewhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about shifting it down. Let's see, though, whether anyone else agrees with my reading of the source. Meanwhile, I'll try to track down some reliable figures from the journals. Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-councillors.php this seems like an accurate list although i dont think an attack site is probably a good source to include on the article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'd describe it as an attack site, but there needs to be a more reliable source as you say. That says 55, dated June 2008 - I'm sure there have been changes since. Incidentally, after the June 2004 elections "twenty-one BNP councillors were elected, a net increase of four." (Danny Reilly: "Review of Contemporary British Fascism: the British National Party and the quest for legitimacy" in Race & Class 2006; 48; 104).Emeraude (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we remove the bit about the BNP claiming they have 100 and simply put the BNP have around 50 councillors (sourcing the BBC and that hopenothate site) and say the exact number is unclear because of several resignations or suspensions etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Anti-semitism, the tone of the article

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

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

Roger i agree. I am one of those people who hate the BNP with a passion because they would destroy this country if they came to power, but this article is biased and clearly pushing a negative point of view against them, which i do have a problem with as it should be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I wrote somewhat nervously, as I don't really want to start a fight. I'm a non-combatant on this one, myself, only came across the article by mis-clicking in google, thought "yuk!" and then thought "hang on... I don't recognise the BNP that I see on TV in all this."

Now I've been looking at the article, and I think I see a problem which might be addressed simply. Imagine that you or I came from Mars, and wanted to know about the BNP, as it saw itself. We would learn very little from this page, I think; only the opinions of those opposed to it. This conceals the subject. Imagine if we went to the page on the UK parliament and it consisted mainly of a list of frauds perpetrated by sitting MP's, with the constant insinuation that the institution was worthless (although, on reflection, that might be a useful, if long, page!!) That's what we have at the moment. Most of it has to go somewhere more appropriate, as we can't sensibly add balancing material.

The page is also far too long to be read, and much of it consists of smears (true or false). There are lots of personal attacks on Nick Griffin (and indeed other figures) which may not belong here. Do we have an article on him? -- If so, they belong there, surely (with a link).

What we need, I think, is a page for "Criticisms of the BNP." This would allow us to put much of the page content -- which is plainly derived from anti-BNP literature -- where it is appropriate to have all this detail, and indeed as much as we like (subject to the law of libel). There would then be a short section in this page with the same title, and a link to the long detailed page. As it stands, the same stuff appears in several sections, which is always a bit of a giveaway.

We probably need several sub-pages, actually. Perhaps we should pattern this one along the lines of the pages for all the UK politial parties. Pick whichever party we like most, and follow that pattern, perhaps?

These are just my proposals, and I'd welcome some feedback. I won't do anything much for a day or two, and let's see what people think. We've got to break this up, because of length, anyway. It's truly horrible to edit this page, at the moment. (I bet all the edits are happening on the summary!!!) Anyone like to offer suggestions on how? Let's have some suggestions, and work something out. It's probably a multi-pass effort anyway. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen the Peer review of this article; points made look sound to me, especially the one about too much in header. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous:

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

New:

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

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

Previous:

It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation

Why has this been removed?

Previous:

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

New:

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

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

Addition:

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

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

Previous:

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

New:

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

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

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

Thank you for your suggestions. You ask why I removed various things from the leader paragraph. Many of them were true, but... we have to get that paragraph down to something short, to the point, and representative. That's good editing, whatever the subject. The same items are mostly in the body, I think, so I felt able to shorten here. I don't myself care much what Gordon and call-me-Dave agree on; the agreement is much wider than this, and includes *everyone*. Doesn't it? Brevity, you know, so I said "everyone".

I reworded "far right" because it is a PoV (it may be true, but it is not their own view of themselves, thus controversial), and not a neutral term. The term is used widely, tho; thus I indicated who uses it.

"The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians and TV and mass media journalists of all other parties." OK, I'll have another go. Let me know what you think.

You also complain that I mentioned that the BNP is the target of intimdation. Is this disputed? I thought that "direct action" and "anti-racist work" were well understood to mean this, and therefore there was weasel-wording here which I tried to get around. I didn't check the existing ref (there are so many) -- will do and reword, then. Roger Pearse (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

About "far-right", we've been through this a 100 times - multiple gold-plated (peer reviewed articles) reliable sources describe them as "far-right", that's all we are interested in. Wikipedia is based on verification not truth, so if multiple reliable sources describe object X as Y, then that's what we stated with adding weasel phrases such as "some people feel". If you can provide multiple reliable mainstream sources that state that the BNP is not a part of the far-right - let's see them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. But... if you have had to discuss it 100 times, that surely tells us that this is PoV? Let's not do this. The BNP doesn't identify itself in such terms; its enemies so describe it. That's fact; 10,000 claims by its foes are not "reliable references" on a matter of opinion. It is certainly a far-right party; that is not the issue. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through it a 100 times because we get new editors who don't understand what NPOV means and how we apply it to articles. The top level of reliable sources here - that of peer reviewed grade A academic journals describe them as far-right, so that's how we describe them. Our own views on this would be original research. If you can find mainstream academic journals who disagree with that perspective, please provide them here so we can discuss them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree the article has been edited to add weasel words and phrases and to try hide unpleasant (but NPOV) facts.--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Whlst i agree with Roger the article is currently biased i agree the current changes have pushed it into the wrong direction and made it biased in favour of the BNP. It must be neutral and if the fact its a white only party is clearly sourced it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph and i agree with some of the other concerns raised about the changes.

This article is about the BNP not about what sort of image they try to put out through their media broadcasts. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the problem at the moment is the quantity of anti-BNP polemic in the article. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You feel it's anti-BNP polemic to mention in the lead that it's the only majority UK party to allow party membership on the basis of race? That's seems an obvious and important fact for a lead to mention. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. The article contains endless polemic, I said; do you dispute that? The reason why that particular statement shouldn't go in the header is that there isn't room for all the "obvious and important fact"s in the header. It has to contain a few key points, and that isn't one of them. Indeed I'd never even heard of it before I came to this article.

Well I disagree (and it seems others do) the fact that it's white-only makes it unique in British politics apart from parties like the national front. It certainly makes it unique as a mainstream party. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it totally belongs in the opening sentence - http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ they say they only have white membership so it is clearly accurate, id like that link added as a ref too if others agree. Nothing better than hearing it from the horses mouth as they say. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"the whites-only British National Party", "the BNP should remain an all-white party" (amongst other quotes), "we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members" were already at the end of the sentence. The BNP's whites only membership policy is one of their key defining features, it has to be in the introduction. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Being brutal to the header

Currently reads:

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]

The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.

According to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."[17] The BNP also proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[18]

The BNP has focused on criticism of Islam, and has said that it does not consider the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions to have a significantly detrimental or threatening effect, although it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[19] The party does however have members with Jewish ancestry. The BNP has been known to work with extremist Hindu and Sikh groups opposing Islam,[20] and has actively tried to win Jewish votes.[21]

The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]

Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

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

"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and is currently opposing Islam and trying to recruit Jewish members. The party is described as far-right by its opponents.[14][15][16]

The party has no members of parliament, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections.

The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27]

Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]"

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

There may be justification for shortening it, but the popular vote must remain in the opening paragraph as must the fact they are a far right party and if its a white only party that information is needed although im still slightly unsure about that claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy to source to multiple reliable sources and I will do so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if we say that it only gets 0.7% of the vote; but remember we have only a few lines, before we violate the whole idea of a summary. I felt this was probably covered by saying that it has no MP's and a few councillors. Do we need more? And... won't any statistic we give just change anyway?

Re "multiple reliable sources" -- can we be careful here. This article is drowning in references to frankly low-grade sources, often from the BNP's enemies. That isn't a "reliable source." One unbiased source is worth a million others. We have too many statements with clusters of reference notes on them; can't these be combined into one reference, with multiple links? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The BNP's "enemies"? What information and what sources are you specifically talking about? Rather than a meaningless vague statement, be specific. I can provide references from virtually every British newspaper describing them as "far right", are they "opponents" or "enemies"? Is there a media conspiracy to paint the BNP in a bad light? 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The popular vote is from the 2005 election so will only change every 4 years. As for sources i think for the white only bit we should add this as well http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/is-the-bnp-racist/ It basically says they have a white only policy but it doesnt make them racist. That source ok to be added cameron? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful about those sorts of sources but it should be ok here - in a subject about the article and because it's only making a claim about them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Roger but that suggested introduction is simply too one sided. Whilst the current introduction is long, it is more balanced than that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

If the BNP's coverage in reliable sources is generally negative, then it logically follows that the article will be too. That's the whole point of neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like Roger's shorter version. I think it is balanced, and is about the right length - the previous one certainly has far too much trivial detail.

I would like to suggest a couple of changes. The "periodically achieved success in local council elections" is a bit vague - perhaps it could be replaced with "has [NUMBER] of local councillors"?

Also the "Currently the BNP is making electoral progress," is time-dependent (meaning the page may go out of date). It's also about something very recent: a slightly longer view of the last few years may be more statistically significant.

On the popular vote issue: I'm not too worried about it being 4 years out of date - it's a small price to pay for an unbiased source, which can be used to compare the size of the BNP with the other small uk political parties. Besides, it can be updated within about a year anyway :) --h2g2bob (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I like some aspects of it. However it leaves out their whites only membership policy, and attempts to portray them as a right wing party unjustly smeared as "far right" by opponents. That is not neutral point of view. 86.155.245.189 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Caution on using the BNP as a source

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