Talk:Nick Griffin/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Nick Griffin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Current stance

Please note that Nick has stated openly on the news that the holocaust did happen and that there was "no doubt" of that. His original comments may well have been taken out of context somewhat anyway. Also, it is not islamophobia to suggest that there is a connection between sections of the community and hard drugs. There is evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.81.249 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The marticle makes it clear that he claims to have changed his stance. As to the drugs issue. Mr Griffin said that "You can't possibly separate the hard drugs trade from the question of Islam and particularly Pakistani immigration". We had drugs issues in the country long before Islamic migration. this is an attmempt to link an ethnic group specificaly and directly with the drugs trade.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I have added a {{fact}} tag to the quote This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon because I was unable to find a source for it. However, I did find this same quote here on The Kvetcher, a site highly unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-semitism, and which claims that ...antisemitism isn’t the BNP’s focus, so it would seem the quote is legitimate. We just need a source for it. --Unconventional (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Jewish Chronicle considers them to be vehement supporters of Israel, who have a reord, especially in Gaza, which the BNP evidently envy. Perhaps the Board of Deputies should consider this and its implications.--Streona (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm about to show my ignorance. The Jewish Chronicle considers whom to be vehement supporters of Israel? A record...the BNP evidently envy why? The Board of Deputies of what organization should consider this and its implications for what? Is the relevance to the putative Griffin quote needing sourcing, or the reliability of The Kvetcher, or are you just making a general comment? Sorry to be so dense. --Unconventional (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some points for Unconventional: That's the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the main representative body of Jews in Britain. Kvetcher is not reliable; it's a blog site. Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The source for the quote is ambiguous. The same quote appears in the BNP article and is sourced to here. However, this shows the wording to actually be "The BNP has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-Semitism which has held this party back for two decades." It is not directly attributed to Griffin, but to the 'BNP news team'. So we are now in a situation where there is no evidence for Griffin having said anything of the sort. Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it's too unreliable to keep 144.32.126.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Convictions

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone add info about his criminal convictions to this as it's locked? -- Anonymous guy

You'll need to be much more specific about what you want adding. You'll also need to cite source(s) to verify it. Cheers, Martin^msgj 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I understand that he regards himself Christian but what denomination does he belong to? Anglican? Catholic? etc. Please add to article. Apex156 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some cursory googling yielded [1], which states that International Third Positing was a "fanatically Catholic fascist group", which might suggest he's Catholic. However, I wouldn't consider an anti-BNP site to be the best source of information on the matter, not to mention that a lot of knee-jerk lefty types use "Catholic" and "Christian" interchangeably, e.g. referring to Fred Phelps as a "priest". Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even if ITP was a "fanatically Catholic fascist group",, it does not suggest Griffin was a Catholic. Griffin is not a religious figure nor is he known for his religion, so is any of this really important.Emeraude (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In a recent Sky News interview with Adam Boulton he talked about religion at length, he is also the founder of the Christian Council of Britain. Based on that I would say it is an important issue and should be covered by the article to a greater extent than it is at present. Apex156 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Music

Nick Griffin's musical efforts should be mentioned. http://www.greatwhiterecords.com/reviews_westwind.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8071467.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/oct/20/popandrock.race 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Folk Community does he belong to?

According to the BNP constitution he is a member of one of the following folk communities. Do we know which one? i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Folk Communities"! How quaint! It sounds positively Wagnerian! Will we have out "Folk Community" on our passports? And what about Jews? And members of the non-white Folk communities? As for Griffin himself, well an Irish-American (and they care about these things) claims that Griffin is an Irish name. Indeed Arthur Griffin was a famous nationalist politician. So perhaps Nick's in category v). Meanwhile, Collins New Gem Dictionary describes Griffin as a "fabulous monster with eagle's head and wings and lion's body". As I say, positively Wagnerian! Ausseagull (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to today's Independent on Sunday, he appears to be an Englishman who is diluting a "Celtic Welsh Folk Community". He lives in a Welsh village but has an English lifestyle and has not learned Welsh. Ausseagull (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be relevant to the above question. Nor am I sure that either your polint or the question are all that relevantSlatersteven (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in mid Wales for 3 years,I can assure Ausseagull that there is no significant difference between English and Welsh lifestyles. It would, perhaps, be useful to know if hs children speak Welsh (see discussion below). Emeraude (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I dare say you're right. But that was not the opinion of the Welshman writing in The Independent. Ausseagull (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

what you mean he is some one who has come to anotehr land and not learned the language and is diluting the the folk heratige of the native inhabitants, for shame. I relalise that what I have just wrote breaks soem of Wikipedias policies, but I have don e so to inllastrate the problom with both the Indepedant article, and the general demenour to much of the anti-BNP debate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What strange English! Ausseagull (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we know which folk community he IS a member of? As a Englishman in Wales would that make him a member of the " The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community" ? I have been unable to find any definitions of these communities.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can figure these are definitions created by the BNP (presumably though not defiantly to avoid the issue of racism within the party). Nor does there seem to actually be any definition of what these actually are (or how you qualify). Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So its all complete bollocks then anyway? --Streona (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean (and if you are willing to accept hear say and conjecture, which we cannot for the article). There does appear to be no publicly availible criteria as to what these 'folk communities' are, or what you have to be to belong to one. Nor does there appear to be a definition as to which of these Mr Griffin belongs to. Now it could be (as I sugest) that this is some nasty little dodge to avoid breaking anit-racist laws by having vauge and ill defined criteria that can basicly be used to allow, or ban, the membership of any given individial. But as there is no real evidance for this (beyond un soourced accusations) we have to assume such is not the case. Or to put it another way we have to treat Mr Griffin as we would treat any other person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

MEP

Please fix link: "He was elected as a member of the European Parliament for North West England in the [[European_Parliament_election,_2009][2009 European Elections]]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.224.131 (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Left eye

{{editsemiprotected}} I read on another website that Griffin had one eye. I came to wikipedia to check which it was missing but the entry only confirmed the fact, not which eye. The source given for the fact, the Telegraph newspaper, states it's the left eye. I suggest updating the entry to save people having to visit a second site to get the extra information. Cheers.

Done. Jolly Ω Janner 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes which seem to show Griffin's ultimate aims

In April 2000, Griffin addressed the American Friends of the BNP - a fundraising group. Mr Griffin said: “The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. And that means basically to use saleable words — freedom, security, identity, democracy.

“Perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, [where] we’ve got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say ‘yes, every last one must go’. Perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get absolutely nowhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6481475.ece

I'm definitely not neutral when it comes to Griffin, so would anyone like to comment? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

"...if I was in power I personally would immediately enforce anti-miscegenation laws with a mandatory death penalty for the non-white partner if a mixed-race relationship continued after the passing of the law (mixed couples would be given a short time in which to separate), after having repealed the Race Relations Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawing membership from the European Union and the Council of Europe. Primarily, I would do this to prevent genocide.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) " Is a quote from the BNP talk page and I think says it all. The contributor admits to voting & supporting the BNP. This is it in a nutshell. --Streona (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is now on my radar, I'll be doing what I can to remove any elements of bias. As objectionable as Mr Griffin's views may be to some (including myself), he is particularly notable and his entry deserves to be well-written. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is user AgglutinativeSerfdom Mr Griffin if not then his views are not relevant.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Er. I wasn't really asking for comments on Griffin, so much as asking whether perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. My opinion is that it should, because it serves as proof that his strategy is racist, and his tactics are a softly-softly approach and I think that should be mentioned. I have a very non-neutral view on Griffin, though, so I'm interested as to whether it is reasonable to put the quote on the page in such a context. Much as I'd like the page to call Griffin a neo-Nazi racist scumbag, that's only if it can be shown to be true to the standard required on Wikipedia. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

An encyclopaedia does not exist to 'prove' anything. It exists to present informative and unbiased information on a notable topic. Information should be presented in exactly this manner, and balanced so that the reader can form his/her own opinions on the matter. I too share a similar view, but I will absolutely not allow that view to colour my edits on this article, and neither should you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been very clear. Let me try again: if we have evidence of Nick Griffin's aims, that should go in the article in order to provide information. What I was asking is whether the quotes I provided actually provide that evidence. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

If its noteworthy and adds to the article then certainly it would warrant inclusion, however including every scrap of detail you can find just to pursue a specific agenda is very dodgy territory. Your use of the word 'evidence' suggests you have such an agenda. The article concerned only provides a small excerpt of that speech - the same speech, word for word, is on YouTube under a BBC report, but strangely the speech is edited (clearly so). All I'm saying is, provide a balanced view so that people may form their own opinions. As far as I know, Nick Griffin's aim is to achieve a degree of political power for himself and his party. Using excerpts from an edited speech to speculate on what he would do in power is, in my view, not something for an encyclopaedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a good selection of sourced Griffin quotes at http://www.aryanunity.com/WNP/griffinfile1.html 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly a selection of quotes, but it is a selection, and the general tenor of that website, let alone its name, would seem to suggest that they have been selected for a polemical purpose, and without specific attribution. Here, verifiability policy requires much more stringent citations, such that proper context may be established by impartial observers. It is difficult to find quotes on such a subject as this that are not agenda-driven, and hence free of selectivity, but that does not mean we should dredge the web for anything and everything that supports an agenda. Neutrality is vitally important in such circumstances, yet, in my experience, extremely difficult to achieve. That goes with the territory here, but the guy, per WP:BLP, is entitled to be represented honestly and fairly. As for me, I leave my prejudices at the door when I edit here. Would that others would do the same. Rodhull andemu 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

PoD> "As far as I know, Nick Griffin's aim is to achieve a degree of political power for himself and his party." The quote above appears to indicate otherwise, and to suggest that is merely a means to an end. Isn't it of interest to know what he plans to do if he ever achieves power? It seems a little facile to sum up a politician's aims as 'wanting power' because they all want that. The difference between them is in what they'd do if they had it. Rodhullandemu> As I've said, I'm inviting comment because I'm not convinced I'm capable of being neutral on this subject, but I am trying to be. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

It boils down to the purpose here of citing Griffin's words. Leaving aside that all politicians seek power and/or influence of some sort, to cite words to indicate some alleged "hidden agenda" is original research or synthesis. I agree that it is difficult to remain neutral in an article such as this, simply because of its underlying subject matter; however, leaving one's prejudices at the door is a vital quality of any encyclopedist, and I would ask you to consider your motives in seeking to introduce this material, and even if you are beyond reproach on that score, also to consider how such words can appropriately be used to provide a neutral and informative commentary on the subject of this article- and those last words should, of course, be applicable to any article on Wikipedia. That's the acid test here. Rodhull andemu 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No source

I can't find a reliable source for this, so I'll put it here as its quite an interesting quote, if true. Someone can reinsert it if they find a wp:reliable source.

Griffin went on record in 2005 stating "This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon."^{[citation needed]}

Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See Current Stance section above. I totally failed to find a source that attributed it to Griffin personally. Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Loss of eye

the only political element to this is that A:It may have been due to survialist manouvers (at this tiem un sourced). A supcision that may not be true. But stoped his political carrer for a year (a line such as "the loss of his eye disrupted his political carrer for a short while" can be placed in the right place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. You are asking questions and inserting citation requests that are completely unnecessary in a fully-referenced paragraph and you are also introducing poor formatting. You are also moving a paragraph which follows the chronology of the article, completely outside that chronology, into a section reserved solely for the man's personal life.

I am reverting your edits for the last time since they are quite clearly incorrect and inappropriate - if you continually revert edits without fully explaining yourself first here, I will be forced to request admin assistance.Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You too were in danger of breaching Wikipedia:Three-revert rule .

The section you have placed it in is titled political career; the eye injury is not part of (but did affect it for a brief period) his political career. As such it does not belong in that section. Also you removed a sourced statement (a source you provided) that stated that the round that injured his eye was a shotgun round. As it was sourced why was it removed?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The eye injury seems central to Griffin's removal from political life at that time, and is bolstered by the 'survivalist manoeuvres' quote. It therefore is most certainly a part of his political career, if you like I can also add quotes that demonstrate his use of his false eye to generate humour in his political speeches. I could also add a line from a source that states Griffin found it amusing to wear a leather jacket and eyepatch while working for Irvine. One source says 'bullet' - from Nick Griffin's own account - and the other says 'shotgun cartridge' (or similar). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that his injury (may have, thus there is an element of specualtion here) put his political career on hold, but did not stop it or change his views, thus its effect was of only limited significance to him as a politician( and seems to have had far greater efFect on his business career). Except that 'survivalist manoeuvres' may mean many things, some of which may not be direclty political (there are non-political survivalists). So that quote may not (and it is supersition to say it does) relate to political activity. Nor does his use of the glass eye have relavance to his mpolitical career, it has more relevance to his personality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not know how the injury affected his views, and thus its significance to him as a politician. This is getting repetitive now, so I'll refrain from further comment on the matter. You know my opinion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us do, thats my ppoint. It is speculation to say how it affected his political career with out sources to say how it affected it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As we now have two sources sating it was a shotgun round I think that should now be re-instated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we n ow actualy put the story as Nick Gri9ffin said it happened and not how a source that has had doubts raised about its accuracy says it happened, and thus move it to the right areaSlatersteven (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Jewish source as I doubt it would ever be judged reliable (the website carries a disclaimer about tampering), but the shotgun cartridge is referenced correctly now so I'm happy with how it appears. I still don't think its an entirely personal matter, and I think it should remain where it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Times profile

This article would appear to raise questions on the authenticity of The Times profile referenced several times in this article (although I would hardly consider the BNP website an entirely trustworthy source). I think there are two options - the first, to simply remove anything sourced from that article, the second, to somehow use this link to refute those points. What do people think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the first course would be to see if any of the claims are referacned elsewere, and that those are not referanced from the time article. It should be pointed out that the times is generaly regarded as a reliable source, but it can make mistakes. Aslo it may yet turn out that the press complaint commision may yet find in favour of either party. So I would susgest leraving it mas is for now, but try to find new sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the reliability of the BNP website statement is spot on. However, many of the details given by The Times are not contested by the BNP (or even contestable) so I have removed the "verify source" tag from them. It should be easy enough to verify the other points from other sources, but, to be honest, most are pretty trivial (e.g. his kids speak Welsh) and could simply be deleted from the article if no alternative source is found. I'd suggest allowing 24 hours for this to happen, and I'll get onto it asap. Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, I think however the source should be removed, or its reliability questioned (as it now is) until the PCC has reported. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've replaced references from other sources on 4 or 5 of the issues. Details of his house I've deleted as not being of any importance. That leaves:

"Following his graduation, Griffin was unemployed for about a year" which I would suggest is not crucial and, in fact, not particularly unusual. Could go, but if another ref is available and people want it to stay....

"...Griffin worked as a security man for David Irving." This is so unlikely that it can go. Other sources say that Griffin met Irving once before their scheduled university debate.

11) The article claims that Nick was a security man for David Irving's meetings. He was for one meeting and that was it. - I know its a blog, but it is an anti-BNP blog that is also attacking the Times profile. It lends a little credence to the matter, but not much. I just thought it worth pointing out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS, not matter what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Griffin claimed to have fallen out with Tyndall over the latter's hatred of Jews, and his policy on Muslims." This could be accurate in the sense that it is the sort of thing that Griffin would claim - that's not to say it's true. However, I can find no other reference for this statement as it stands.

"They have four children, all of whom are fluent in Welsh." This is believable if they have been educated at schools in mid-Wales. There are plenty of sources for there being 4 children, but there's no other source that I can find that they speak Welsh. Again, it's trivial and can safely go.

On the wider issue, let's remember that the Press Complaints Commission is not a court of law and has no legal standing. The issue is therefore not sub judice and normal practice would be to accept the newspaper's story until the PCC has adjudicated. So, for example, you could say "The Times says that........ , though this is disputed by Griffin." This is especially true given that the issues Griffin is complaining of are not those used here. However, given the availability of alternative sources for all the substantive issues, it is OK to delete these Times refs (though we may look stupid if the PCC eventually adjudicates against Griffin!!). Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I'm happy for you to remove the above material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy they are for example "The Times even lies about how Mr Griffin lost his one eye, trying to insinuate that it resulted from a shooting accident while on “paramilitary manoeuvres.”" this 'fact is in the article (and is used as a justification for his eye injury being a political not personal matter. So this should also be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a graduate to be unemployed for a year after graduation. It's known as a gap year; and, if the subject of the article were a royal prince or someone not controversial, it would be described as such. This is a useful example of how facts can be slanted. Pavel (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such a statement could ever be described as controversial - it is used to connect his education with the start of his career and implies nothing beyond that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Trials

Why is there so much information (amount of time jury took to decide details of arrest ect) for one trial and not for the other?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

in addition most of the links seem to be far from working.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the first trial happened in 1998, and online sources are lacking on information. Print sources don't offer much either, presumably because Griffin was at that time not a particularly notable figure in politics. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So those links that no longer work (and the information they source) should be removedSlatersteven (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Which links? I prefer to replace deadlinks if possible with entries from Archive.org Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Ware & Back 2002, p. 55

^ Seale et al. 2004, p. 268

^ Atkins 2004, p. 112

All seem to go no where.They appear to be boo sources, but par to be links.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They work perfectly, guide the reader to the appropriate book, which is highlighted in blue, which can then be clicked to take the user to the book page at Google Books. The reader is then free to read whatever material is available to preview at Google Books. Parrot of Doom (talk)

Except that when I click on them they just take me to the bottom of the Nick griffin page, not google booksSlatersteven (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Opps ju7st seen that the books are at the bottom of the pageSlatersteven (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Atkins 2004, p. 112 seems to make no mention of the trial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes a very great mention of the trial. Read page 112 of the book, column 1. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am it makes a referance to Zundel, one passing referance to britain but mainly seems to be about Germany (mainly the NPD) I can find no referance to the trial, maybe I have a different page 112.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)#

Cooking the story

The cook report was aired a year before the rune trial. None of the sources seem to link to tow stories (though they are mentioned together). The trial was about the Rune article not the earlier comments about Baron Carlile of Berriew (who had reproted the rune article). Whilst tehre fore it could be argued that the one influenced (and may have led to) the other. This is specualtion, for which some very goos souorces would have to state specificaly, which is against the policies of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rune was reported by Carlile, and Griffin was later filmed by The Cook Report giving the quote in the article. The two are directly linked.

Frankly I'm getting sick and tired of your continual reversions to this article. You are being deliberately obtuse, you have added nothing of note or relevance to its content, you do not understand how to use or read citations or sources. There is no speculation involved here - the two are directly linked, and as such belong together.

By the way I do not appreciate the heading you have created here - I have no interest in 'cooking the story', and I would ask you to refrain from suggesting that I have some kind of underhand agenda. I do not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Acualy the cook report was aired the year before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk. Do your source say they are linked, if not (and I sugest you provide a quote) if not then it is specualtion, not fact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the source yourself. Its linked in the article, the page of the book is given, go and read it. I'm not going to do everything for you, and if you do not understand how to read it, it isn't my fault, or my problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am stating that it does not explcititll link the two (I have read it). I am stating you are wrong in claiming the source backs up your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, just so you're clear - I am not making any claims. This is pointless, it is you that is inferring things that may or may not exist. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You are claiming there is a link, I am disputing that. Can you provide a quote or not?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am not. Stop implying otherwise, I have made no such claims in the article. You are the one who is inferring a link, not me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are not linked why do they need to be together? The section is about his 1998 trial not his anti-semitism or his relasionship with any given person. On my talk page you say they are centextauly linked http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slatersteven&diff=297910252&oldid=297907808.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any further time on this matter. You clearly have little or no understanding of basic English, or how to write a good article. Take it to the report I have filed here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, but I still find you refusal to provide the quote odd, OIK you can't be botherd with me but would it not re-inforce your argument to show me that I am wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New version

In order to resolve a dispute (see above) about this article, I have been working on a replacement version here. If you have any comments about that version, please make them there. I'm writing in a sandbox for several reasons.

To remove the reliance on headings, which I think can sometimes create a mass of headings, and confuse the reader
To significantly expand the scope of the article (by moving most things into chronological order, its easier to create new sections which may not fit into the chronology - such as the criminal charges and the debates)
(using the sandbox) so as not to create too much work for people with this article

The changes so far have mainly been around the order things appear and the headings used. I prefer this style of article as things more naturally blend together. The reliance on "In 1994 Griffin...", "In 1997 he..." is reduced, instead I can use phrases like "in the same year..." or "several months later..." or "it was not the first time..." - etc.

I've also significantly expanded the university debates section. There are a few facts and things still missing, such as his birthday, how long he was at university for, and the question about The Times source (see above). Once I've made a few more changes, if nobody objects, I can copy the text from my sandbox into this article. That wouldn't mean that there would be nothing to add, or change, but I believe the format I'm working on is superior to the article as it appears now. Comments? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made significant progress now, and have added much more covering his time in the NF, and his public debates. If nobody minds I'll copy it across to here at 10pm tonight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would sugest a severe proof read of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Runeing away

I'm sorry, but what does "runeing away" mean? Ausseagull (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This gives credance to the claim that the rune article was published in 1996 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/Nick-Griffin-time-line.html. Why would the police raid his hokme beforem the article was published? This makes it even more clear that issue 12 of the Rune must have been published in (or before) 1996). http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan029.pdf it also contains a lot of details about the trial that need to be in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC) In fact as it reads now (assuming the aboce source is true) then the current version of the article may be libalous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the first link and used it to direct my research on this article, but the second link is fascinating. I hadn't seen that. If it can be used as a source (I'll have to look around and check the author's background), it would make a valuable addition.

What may have happened here is that this source, which states 1997, may actually be referring to Who are the mindbenders?, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The telegraph doesn't explicitly mention that the 1997 document was the reason for the trial - but then again, neither does the article, as things stand now (so it wouldn't, IMO, be libellous).

I think a bit of clarification is needed, but it would be superb if this document were judged reliable — whatever the outcome, thanks for finding it. Of course the real motherlode for this article would be freely available copies of The Rune and other right-wing publications to search online. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy I was refering to Mr Griffins co-defedant, who (if the source is true) was not actualy tried (as he had pleased guilty) but only sentanced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Atkins p112 says "He and Paul Ballard, a fellow member of the BNP, were convicted of violating a 1986 law on inciting racial hatred, and a British court gave them nine-month prison sentence and a £2,300 fine. This sentence was suspended for two years".

I'll reword it slightly, to make it clear that Ballard wasn't in court with Griffin. Should be ok in 5 mins. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Its a little ambiguous as to what Ballard did, but no information is better than wrong information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found another source which backs up the PDF file, so I'll try and put that in to confirm that Ballard entered a guilty plea. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to 'hide' the text that mentions 'Jewish Brainwashing', as it seems fairly clear to me now that this is probably unrelated to the trial. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes to the part about Mr Ballard seem fine now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or not, this http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw98-9/uk.htm says that Mr Ballard recived a rather less severe sentance "Ballard was given a six-month sentence, also suspended for two years". I think more work need doing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Another source for the 1996 date fir i8sseu 12 of the rune (I too would like to be able to actualy see these mags) http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4426099.BNP_leader_homes_in_on_new_headquarters_in_East_Lancashire/?action=complain&cid=7756002.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's more about Griffin in the new source I've added (link above), but I'll not add it until you've had a chance to read the article, and until we've ironed out most of the flaws. I'm off out to clear my head for a bit, let me address the sentencing point when I return. I think that source is already in the article, we may have to rule The Telegraph's article as 'suspect'. This is all good stuff by the way. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Some points

“Nicholas John Griffin was born in Barnet, then in Hertfordshire now Greater London" - This reads odd and might need to be re-written. It can be (but is obviously not meant to be) read as meaing being born in two places.

Its a standing convention that has been adopted on many articles, related to the change in geographical boundaries in the United Kingdom in 1974. User:Jza84 is the best man to talk to about that, I believe the convention was adopted after a rather big argument. It still is a bone of contention for many users on Wikipedia, see Talk:Radcliffe,_Greater_Manchester#Historic_counties for more information.

“his photograph was published in a student newspaper. Undeterred,” was there any attempt to deter him?

The inference (IMO) in the source is that the photograph was published as part of a left-wing attack on his political activities, but I agree the word is somewhat pejorative and don't mind it being changed to something less WP:POV.

“he later founded the Young National Front Student organisation.” When?

I haven't a clue.

“[edit] Political career” Still don’t like this perhaps it should be changed to latter life. A small amount of material relating to the eye injury is about his business affairs.

I'm not sure about that - most blp articles about politicians use political headings for sections like this.

“1970s–1990” bit vauge.

I've tried to find the precise date of his graduation, and the dates on which he became politically active, but without success. It doesn't seem possible to give a precise date on which he started his political life, its mixed in fairly well with his private life, and education.

“Griffin travelled to the United States and spoke at Clemson University and Texas A&M University,” When and what happened (especialy given the following statement)?

I don't know, the source doesn't say.

“Griffin has frequently expressed views on anti-Semitism” has he expressed views on or that are?

I don't understand your question.

Given tha the rest of the section seems to be about his political views on a given subject has he expressed view on anti-semitism? or views that have been described as such. The other two areas mentioned are Islam (not islamaphobia) and Homoseuxality (not homophobia), why the distinction?Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, in that case I'm not sure what the best word would be - Judaism sounds ok? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep that seems better.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

“The BNP however has a Jewish councillor, Patricia Richardson,[75] and spokesman Phil Edwards has stated that the party also has Jewish members.[76] The BNP has stated that it does not deny the Holocaust, and that "Dredging up quotes from 10, 15, 20 years ago is really pathetic and, in a sense, rather fascist."[77] However at least one BNP representative maintains ties with Roberto Fiore and other openly fascist groups across Europe.[78” Given that this is about Mr Griffin not the BNP is this relevant?

Griffin is the leader of the BNP, and is wholly responsible for its conduct, but mainly the text here is intended to offer some balance to the information about his anti-semitic comments. He has the authority to get rid of people who meet with Fiore if he wishes, but so far as I can tell has not.

“In a BBC interview on 8 June 2009 he claimed that "global warming is essentially a hoax" and that it "is being exploited by the liberal elite as a means of taxing and controlling us and the real crisis is peak oil".[88] On 9 June 2009 the Royal British Legion wrote an open letter to Griffin asking him not to wear a poppy lapel badge.[89]” I think theres two should be ion their own paragraphs.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. These are pretty much orphaned sentences that I couldn't find a place for. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states: "..amongst more moderate speakers, one of those invited was Abu Hamza al-Masri, a fundamentalist Muslim cleric." This is a biased comment as Abu Hamza al-Maari is regarded as an extremist in most circles.

That threw me for a loop at first, too, until I caught the intended meaning: that, among a group of otherwise moderate speakers was to be found Abu Hamza al-Masri. The article's actually saying that he isn't moderate, though it could probably be clearer on that. Steve Smith (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Views

Hi8s views or others views of him. If the former (which I suspect was the intention) then the part about “On 9 June 2009 the Royal British Legion wrote an open letter to Griffin asking him not to wear a poppy lapel badge.[89]” should be elsewere, perhaps in a section about public reaction to him.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a sentence in there about him accusing RAF servicemen of mass murder - how about I move that sentence down to 'views', and have those two sentences together in the same paragraph? Obviously with a short line reiterating that there is no direct connection between the two? Accusing the RAF of mass murder would I suppose be a 'view'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Still not sure that line is about his views (however we try to squeze it in). This is even more of an issue as the two may be (I suspect they are, but that is OR) but cannot be shown to be linked.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Clemson U

date http://www.wvwnews.net/printer.php?id=2161 Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Some info, seems it went off with out a hitch https://www.msu.edu/~moonphil/Wiginton-Griffin%2012-07-1.pdf.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC) This (and it is a bit dodgey seems to say it went well http://heritagelost.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/sc-cofcc-co-sponsors-nick-griffin-at-clemson-university/ http://www.mndaily.com/printpdf/3353. Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Pizza

Our local pizza house is getting on the bandwaggon and has introduced a pizza called The Griffin: roasted chicken, pepperoni, roasted red onion and sliced green and red peppers. Should this be mentioned in the article, on the grounds that he would seem to be the first UK political leader to have a pizza named after him? Ausseagull (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RU SRS??? Rodhull andemu 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest "Nick Griffin in popular culture" section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in several reliable sources? I doubt it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it in under popular culture, along with the reliable source, the take away menu for the pizza parlour, website and all. Or does this contravene some wiki-guideline on advertising? Ausseagull (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that one pizza house qualifies as "popular", and yes, linking to the menu might be considered advertising, just as mentioning it at all might be considered a breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Rodhull andemu 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree. This seems to hardley be notable, and hightly trivial. If it were a nation wide frnachise, or represented a nation wide trend perhaps this could be used as an example. It seems to be niether, so I would say leave it out. By the way is it named after the politician or the Mythical creature?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the most important piece of information which could possibly go in the article! Any chance we can squeeze it into the main intro? —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?country=GB&partNumber=1&zone=North+West&language=EN&id=96751

gives his date of birth as 1 March 1959 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravediggers (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll add it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

British Conservatives category

This article used to be in said cat, but no longer is. Shouldn't the category be re-added? Many (but not all) of his (party's) policies are conservative, for example: mass repatriation of illegal immigrants, increased border controls and enforcement of them, reduction in taxation, reintroduction of the death penalty, abolition of civil partnerships. Politics a (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No. They are socialists.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

11 May 2009 interview

In this Daily Politics interview, Nick Griffin clearly states that "there's no issue with the Jewish community at all" the interviewer right after says "but you deny the Holocaust", Griffin replies "no I don't", further he says "of course it happened" and "there's no doubt that millions of Jews were murdered just because they were Jewish in one of the worst crimes in history". He claims to earlier have said "very rude things about how the Holocaust have been used and abused mainly by gentile leftist to stop sensible debate about immigration". Further he explains when met with the "Holocaust-Flat earth statement" that "I can not discuss why I thought those things and why I said it and why I've changed my mind because European law does not allow me to, its as simple as that so we have to move on from it". I think it should be made more clear in the article that Nick Griffin has now moved away from his earlier, at least claims, of antisemitism and Holocaust denial. -GabaG (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It already implies as such, read the 'views' section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry butm it implies that the BNP are no longer (at least officaly) anti-semi9tic, it says nothing about the above, or that Mr Griffin may have changed his views.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That was what I thought too, I don't really understand why the entire Nick Griffin/BNP moderation-part only consists of the BNP's opinions in a Nick Griffin article. It can't stay in its current state were it first only says about Nick Griffin being an anti-semite, and then only that the BNP has moderated itself. It is not hard to misundersatand this article to think that the BNP has moderated itself but that Nick Griffin still is an hardcore anti-semite etc. Also I strongly suggest that if all the anti-semite stuff are to be stated in the lead, so should also at least a short line about how Nick Griffin now seems to have more or less turned away from at least his earlier most extreme opinions. -GabaG (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state that Nick Griffin is an 'anti-semite' (whatever one of those is).
Nick Griffin is wholly responsible for the political position of the BNP, which has a Jewish councillor and Jewish members. You cannot separate the political stance of the BNP from Nick Griffin, they are one and the same.
I don't object to his reply in that interview being used, but its a weak argument to use as the basis of any 'Nick Griffin is no longer anti-semitic'. If however we saw Nick Griffin making a public apology—well, that would definitely suggest his views have changed. What I'd do is put his quote at the end of the Jewish section of 'Views'. I'd do it myself but I'm busy with other things, but I'll happily copyedit anyone's edits. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The artciel amy not say he is anti-semitic, but its discuses his comments that are hoholcasut denile. So it should also say he has now retracted them (or at least changed his attitude (which I have taken the liberty of doing, not at the end of the section but at the end of the part discusing his views).

Is there a rule iun the BNP constitution to thie effect that Nick Griffin is soley responsible for the policies of the BNP?

I would agree that it does not prove he is anti-Semitic (but then niether do his ealier comments prove he is).Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent I've had to remove the YouTube as a source because it's a plain breach of copyright. Since we know the date of the broadcast, I'd suggest {{cite episode}} be used instead. Rodhull andemu 12:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that according to the constitution, passed under Griffin's leadership, only members of the following groups can be members, which would seem to deny membership to Jews.-i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this European law that he says prevents him from discussing his change of mind regarding the Holocaust? He mentioned it again last night (22 Oct 2009) on BBC's Question Time. Patrick lovell (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue may be that Belgium has laws against holocaust denial, and that if he explains himself, even if he's moderated his views, he'll still suggest that there was some exaggeration of the figures. If he does that, perhaps he then becomes liable to arrest? I don't know, but whatever the reason it obviously doesn't stop him apologising, which he so far (AFAIK) has not done. Parrot of Doom 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GA?... BA

The above is a strong failing point for making this into a GA. Much of the intro especially is based on political opinions he held before his party was a relevent force in British politics and which he seems to have expilictly publically rebuked. This is spliced in with various dodgy rumours (ie-the odd "homosexuality" claim in the early life section). From the intro you'd think he was the current head of the Waffen-SS, actively participating in mass murder or something (so is the extent of the bias vilification). Its the equivelent of going on about Soviet Gulags or Holomodor in the intro of Jack Straw or the majority of Labour politicians with hardline Communist pasts in their pre-Blairite years. When taking into consideration WP:BLP, I think if Nick Griffin wanted to he could press legal action against our project for defamation of character. While the length has recently improvemed it is so potentially riddled with libel, rumour, other politically motivated failings of the BLP policy and neutrality problems that theres no way it should be a GA in present form. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the parts about his political views should represent (in the introduction) his curretn ones, or at least make it clear that whilst noted for certain vieews he has now repudiated them). As to the rest, thats rahter harder to dismiss.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the references are in order, there is no reason not to describe what he has said and done in the past. This is not meant to be a political manifesto, but the biography of a politician. How can his repudiation of past views be described, without describing those views. To quote the commission for racial equality - "The commission believes the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are discriminatory and, further, that the continued publication of them on the BNP website is unlawful.

It has therefore issued county court proceedings against party leader Nick Griffin and two other officials." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8218397.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Commision for Racial Equality" is an unelected quango put in place by the Labour Party. It is not a neutral, non-partisan think tank but essentially the Labour Party's (an opposing party) arm in a cultural war. Its leader Trevor Philips is a former black power activist and Marxist-Leninist. Its about as neutral as using Adolf Hitler as a source on the article about Jews. The intro also manipulates language with newspeak like "controversial" and "criticised", as an attempt to blacklist, without saying specifically who it is that finds his views controversial and who it is that is criticising him. This violates the NPOV policy in a major way, stopping this from being a GA. Unlike Trevor Philips and the unelected quango he heads, Griffin is actually a democratically elected politican, which seems to suggest that a significant amount of the general populance (in the North-West atleast) support his views, rather than criticise them.- Yorkshirian (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

lol if you class 8% as significant :) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article is 'Nick Griffin', and not 'Nick Griffin but only the bits after he became leader of the BNP'. There isn't anything 'dodgy' about this article, in fact I've gone to great lengths to ensure that it prevents as many sides of the argument as are possible. The homosexuality claim may be 'odd', but it is true all the same, and its also true that Griffin has denied it. There is nothing libellous there, since the article doesn't state that he is or may be homosexual. If Nick Griffin thought this article libellous, one would wonder why he did not think the multiple reliable sources on which it is based are similarly libellous. The one source used that the BNP claimed as 'lies' has been largely expunged from this article - a matter I discovered myself, and a matter I largely resolved myself.

Frankly I find your argument ludicrous, and your presumption of bad faith disingenuous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the article on the Labour Party-an organisation, which against the wishes of the general public made the UK join the US in an illegal war in Iraq which has killed 1 million people. This is far more "controversial" than anything about Griffin. Why doesn't that article say in the intro "the Labour Party have been criticised for their part in the illegal deaths of over a million Iraqis"? Why doesn't that article use newspeak like "controversial" in the intro to describe their views which are extremely unpopular in the UK at present? All articles are to be treated with the same amount of neutrality, that is the basic concept of the WP:NPOV policy. Especially essential for making something into a GA.

Articles such as Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher are good examples of various balanced, correctly written, with no libel, presententations on democratically elected politicians. The focus on "antisemitism" and the Holocaust in the intro of this article clearly shows that the violations of BLP have a politically motivated undercurrent. Under Griffin's leadership of his party, they have changed their policy to allow Jews to become members (and have an elected Jewish councillor), Griffin has revoked the previous views he held over a decade ago on the Holocaust and has openly said so in the national media (shown in a link a user presented above). Reading the intro this reality is not presented to the reader at all. IMO it reads like an attempt to blacklist by manipulating a popular form of mass media (this project). - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is still the sick twisted party they have always beeen, but ofcourse this article should be as neutral as possible, its just there aint alot of "good" things to say about the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the Labour Party. I don't agree with your version of events surrounding the war. Why are you asking me about that C-class article? Its irrelevant. None of the figures you mention are well known for being former National Front members, convicted racists, and leaders of nationalist parties that have racist policies enshrined in their constitutions.

You might think that he's revoked his views on Judaism, but he never actually did. He refused to discuss it, stating he'd "changed his views", and quoting some obscure 'law'. There is no law which stops a person from saying "I was completely wrong to say those things, I accept the historical fact of the Holocaust". You tell me, if he's changed his views, why hasn't he authored an article, or sent a letter to a national newspaper stating as such? Maybe he has. If you know where such a thing might be, give us the details and it'll certainly go in. Your comment about Jewish membership is ironic since it was I that added such information to the article in the first place.

Quite honestly, why you don't just get the sources you feel are lacking, and go and edit the article, is beyond me. I notice you ignored the parts of my previous post that you weren't prepared to respond to, and invented new arguments. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if they are/or were out and out "racists" (subjective claim), Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. It is not a pro or anti-"racist" lobby group. Wikipedia isn't here to "dismiss" or blacklist any politicians opinions with newspeak, no matter which side of the spectrum of orientation. Have a read of the hagiography on terrorist serial killer Che Guevara. On articles about politicians its pretty simple — present their argument and then its down to the reader to decide whether they agree or not.

The point I was trying to make with the comparison to the Labour Party is, those people are regarded by large swathes of the planet as war criminals, for the illegal participation in the killing of over 1 million Iraqis (against the wishes of most UK citizens). Yet their articles have absolutely non of the politically motivated, hostile derision you see here. Labour Party members have been involved in Trotskyite and Marxist extremist organisations in their youths, ideologies which have killed far more people than rag waving nationalism. So BNP members involvement in NF doesn't mean we throw the WP:NPOV policy out the window.

In the link that was posted by a user above, Griffin is asked specifically whether he believes the Holocaust happened and he said "Yes, of course it did". To people not from the UK and not aware of politics here, reading the intro you'd think Griffin and his party are somehow an anti-Jewish crusade group, when in fact they seem to focus purely on Islam, not mentioning Jews at all. This is clearly an attempt to manipulate this form of mass media, because in Western society, BNP's anti-Islamist focus is uncontroversial, while antisemitism is widely controversial. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Take your self-aggrandising essays elsewhere please. I'm perfectly aware of Wikipedia's stance on neutrality, and have no interest whatsoever in being lectured upon it. You're not speaking to a child. Griffin is known almost singularly for his involvement with the NF, his controversial views, and his leadership of the BNP. That isn't judgemental, its fact, whether you like it or not. I have no real-world political motivations on this project, so stop implying that I do. My personal views are my own and this article does not in any way reflect them.

You want a more balanced article? Find material that demonstrates the less controversial things that Griffin has been involved in, and add it. Your argument does not advocate neutrality.

Oh and in case you missed it the first time - stop implying that I have an agenda incompatible with Wikipedia's core policies. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So why not just opt for the compromise and just add a couple of caveats saying that he has now said that he has moderated his views or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you, that's all it takes (rather than unfounded accusations such as Yorkshirian's comments) Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The changes are good I think, but the wording is a little off - "although lately he appears to have moderated his views", lately needs to be defined, and moderated may be open to POV. The spirit of the point is fine, just thinking of the GA/FA police. --Jza84 | Talk 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "in recent intervies he has distanced himslef from some of his earlier statements"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is that "lately" and "recently" are breaches of WP:DATED. We need something more precise per that guideline. --Jza84 | Talk 14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer "has tried to distance himself"... BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then how about "He has now tried to distance himself from accusations of anti-semitism"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote from recent edit: although lately he appears to have moderated his views. Rather strange wording that. "Appears" - to whom? (Not me.) "Moderated" - is this neutral? "His views" - but he has never actually come out and recanted the statements he made earlier. Has anyone actually got a reliable (in the Wikipedia sense) piece of evidence that Griffin has substantially changed his mind from being an out-and-out holocaust denier and anti-semite? Certainly, I've never found anything beyond bland half-assertions and excuses. I understand the rationale behind this edit, but don't see that it does the job. Emeraude (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wello there is this "... that he is not an anti-Semite, ..."http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/sep/01/features.magazine37 Well that says that Mr Grffin denies he is anti-semitic. We also have this http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1117131_bnp__the_truth and this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-enemy-within-fear-of-islam-britains-new-disease-859996.html. So he has attempted to distance himself from his anti-Semitic past. the lead should refelct that (as should the section on anti-semitim. It is not for us to determine how genuine these claims are, that is for the readers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes im ok with that being added. tried or attempted is fine with me rather than stating it as fact that he "has distanced himself". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The MEN article is nothing but a hate-filled rant. I wouldn't add that, but the other two appear better. They're still rather vague though, a stance which suggests to me that Griffin has not made an explicit apology for his comments on the Holocaust; not that he should be obliged to, mind, but if he is sorry, you'd think he'd have said so. I think any additions to this effect must bear that in mind. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute.. Where in that Guardian article does it say that Griffin denies he is anti-semitic? And note that the Independent merely states that he has "tried to distance himself and his party", not that they have changed ther views. Emeraude (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of them do. They hint vaguely at a 'distancing', but nothing more. As I said above, they're no explicit retraction of earlier statements, and obfuscating his replies by quoting 'the law' as a reason why he can't continue...? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

eye eye

Are there any other witnesses to the loss of his eye thaty have come forward, was there a police investigation? are there any public records avaibile realting to this incident? If not then all we have is inudendo and rumour, much of which is vauge and rather inexplicite.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually all we have is Griffin's version of events, as the GAC reviewer pointed out, and they should therefore be taken in good faith. He has, as far as I understand, been explicit on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but as a doubt had been raised I felt that there should at least be a discusion about other versions verifiability, by the way the full paragraph from the times profile says"At any event, the loss of his eye changed his fortunes. The accident, he said, “knocked me out for a full year so I couldn’t finish the renovation work, interest rates went sky-high and I lost the whole lot”. He was declared bankrupt, owing £65,000, and dropped out of politics for a while." therefore it does not say that the loss of his eye caused his bankrupcy but that it was a contributing factor, as was the change in the wider financial sector. As su8ch the passage should reflec this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A good point well made. What about changing from "The accident was responsible for his inability to work, and his subsequent declaration of bankruptcy (the accident occurred in France, where he later lost money in a failed business project)", to "The accident was responsible for his inability to work, and owing to other personal problems he subsequently declared bankruptcy (the accident occurred in France, where he later lost money in a failed business project)"? Let me know what you think.

The GAC reviewer has made a few good points, issues of POV that I hadn't noticed, I'm just trying to address those problems. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

From The Time's profile: "By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later." In their profiles, The Guardian and the BBC don't go into details of the accident, although The Telegraph does state it was caused by a shotgun cartridge. Should this alternative be included? I don't think so as a quick search using google hasn't turned up any other reliable sources and the alternatives don't seem to be taken seriously. Nev1 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Its been argued over before now. The problem is that The Times doesn't actually say who 'the others' were. The Times has also published some less than reliable information on Griffin, based IIRC on an unauthorised biographer who Griffin thinks is a bit of an idiot. We had to remove that article (its up there somewhere) Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Parrot, Its better but I would prefer "other financial probloms" to "personel" ones.

Reply to Nev ) Parrot. I agree that it would be nice to include the other versions (I have also seen one that cliams he was shot whilst crossing a style). But the sources are so vague about it (they almost seem to be trying to avoid making libalous comments) that I do not feel there should be more then say "this vesion has been questioned".Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, there are no facts here! None of the papers which refer to Griffin's eye have any source other than Griffin himself, and it would be wrong to assume that his account is true (or false) without some corroboration. The loss of his eye is worthy of mention, as is the fact that he claims that it was caused by a shotgun accident (all papers agree thus far). Whether it was because of a discarded cartridge in a bonfire is not verifiable. As to his bankruptcy: to say this was caused by the loss of his eye is equally unverifiable - he could have been going bust in any case - but is it relevant to the article anyway? This was some time ago; he ought by now to have been discharged from bankruptcy. The link betweenthe two needs to be removed, if the bankruptcy issue needs to remain. Emeraude (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably he must have discharged bankrupcy to stand as an MEP.--Streona (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And unforunatly when it comes to real people he is a relaible source for himself. JNow thye fact that the other claims regarding the loss of his eye seem to be rather evasive indicates to me that they have in fact been looked into and that there is not a shred of evidacne to back up the claims and that to claim them as fact (rahter then unsubstatiated rmour) would have been libalous. There are sources that he said it knocked him out for a year, thus he was unable (or unwillinig) to work. The article as written seems to me to reflect the fact that his eye loss had an partial effect on his finances. As to weither it should be here is a different matter, I would susgest we find out if a bankrupt can stand.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "And unforunatly when it comes to real people he is a relaible source for himself." So, if I say I am the King of Exland, I am a reliable source? Come on. Griffin's claim has been looked into by whom? What claims? The only claim made into the source of his injury has been made by him;no other sources attest to the cause of his injury. Now, he may be telling the truth, but equally he may not (and, let's face it, if there is the slightest possibility of any questionable activity it is likely he has lied). I'm not saying he has; I'm not saying he hasn't, but let's be careful what we include as encyclopaedic fact. After all, most mass murderers deny their guily, but we do not accept them as reliable sources on themselves. (And before anyone goes apeshit, I am not suggesting that Griffin is a mass murderer!)/ Emeraude (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you made the claim that you're King of Exland it would of course be unreliable because it's obviously untrue, however, in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, Griffin's version of events should be the one given prime position. In this instance, he is the most reliable source available. I think that stating "this version has been questioned", as suggested by Slatersteven, could be an acceptable compromise. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also the only eye witness, indeed verfiable, account. A mass muderer can only be called guilty if that guilt is proved, no guilt (or indeed evidance) has appeared to contradict Mr Griffins account, only hearsay and rumour. We can only use what we can verfiy. Now perhaps we should say "In the same year he lost his left eye in a serious accident which, according to Mr Griffin, involved a discarded shotgun cartridge explodeing in a pile of burning wood at his home. Others have questioned this version of events" then a couple of citations to the various accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If we add "according to Mr Griffin" do we need the caveat "others have questioned this version of events"? The first phrase implies that others speculate about it, or at least that there may be other alternatives. It's arguing semantics though. (Also, there must be a better term to use than "eye witness"!) Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)n

I think it is important for the reader to kow that the version we have is Mr Griffins own account, and that others have questioned this account. If we do not I think it will look odd. Either we are saying that there are other accounts (in which case whos account are we repeating, amnd what makes it 'offical'), or that this is Mr Griffins account (so what are the other versions, indeed is there another version?).Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we need to be careful about imputing guilt by the overuse of phrases like "others have questioned" - it implies "we" editorially distrust his statement more than is perhaps appropriate. So, we want to find a way of presenting the less flattering theories alongside his explanation without suggesting one or the other is presumptively a lie. Has Griffin ever actually explicitly responded to the "survivalist" claims, etc? If so, we could work something with that to tie them together. Shimgray | talk | 14:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has really questioned Griffin's claim. I suppose if you had to insert some kind of caveat, you'd also have to insert one at, for instance, the point where he makes anti-semetic comments. Its impractical and messy, and there is always the citation for readers to click on. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

EHRC

This will likely develop into something we can use to add to the article. I suggest waiting until official statements are made before editing however. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact given this recent invitation I think it may be likely that this page will be visited by a great many people in the next few months (if it happens). Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

the nick Griffin protection league

If this keeps up we may need to protect the page, its just getting anoying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Its been done a few times in the past, I think a few admins have their eyes on it so I'm sure it'll be semi-protected at some point. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

24 edits in the past 3 days, and only one of them was constructive. I've semi-protected the page for a month. Griffin is very unpopular and I don't see the vandalism going away any time soon. The log for the page shows that it's been protected a lot. It might be worth considering something longer than a month, maybe six months. Nev1 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite protection more like, Hitler has Indefinite semi protection we need it here too, although some of the vandalism to this page is very amusing to see and its nothing less than the guy deserves. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support indefinite semi-protection, but I'll ask Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) what he thinks of the situation as he's the main one who's been protecting the page before. Nev1 (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if the vandalism wasn't completely shit. At least we should have some entertaining edits to read. :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

< Much as I like a good laugh, if Adolf Hitler is permanently semi-protected, there is a strong case for the same here, because WP:BLP applies. I can live without cheap schoolboy humour. Rodhull andemu 18:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to have consensus so I've extended the semi-protection to indefinite. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalin has been indef semi protected since january so shouldnt be a problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

mein kampf

I know that it's fairly obvious Griffin is a facist, but unless there's some kind of obvious link between his reading of mein kampf and his own views is it really NPOV or even just notable enough to mention it? Surely it isn't that significant to have read it when millions of other people have done so too. 92.238.128.101 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Elmo

The source for that is the Andrew Marr show, the fact it was mentioned on there and Griffin commented on it seems valid enough to point out. I dont think we should remove interesting and informative information, aslong as it sourced. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to read it? Its awful! No wonder they shot the editor!--Streona (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

lol im sure it is, out of interest do we know which chapter Griffin didnt find extremely boring? if thats on the record somewhere it would also be worth noting, BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The obvious link would be that he read it at about the same time he became involved with the National Front, and coupled with his later views on the Holocaust, and that his reading the book has been mentioned by several sources... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

True but do any of the sources make a link between the two, which came first the kamph or the fascism? If No sources make the kink its a bit synthesisy don’t you tthink?Slatersteven (talk)

Well my comment here probably is, but the article only mentions it amongst other facts, in order of 'age'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If its worthy of being mentioned on the main sunday morning show i see no reason why it shouldnt be mentioned in the article. It would be more useful if we knew which chapter he didnt find boring. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can help out here, the Daily Mail on Wednesday October 21st had a two-page article on pages 8-9 on Nick Griffin including a section "The bigot damned by his own vile words". It quotes: "At 13, I read Mein Kampf, making notes in the margins... the chapter I most enjoyed was the one on propoganda and organisation - there are some really useful ideas there". This was originally quoted in the Mail on Sunday, April 2006.

A couple of other quotes that may (or may not) be helpful to the article: "Fundamentally I regard it as quite irrelevant and wrong that at a time when the British people are going to be a minority in our own homeland in 60 years, in other words we're going to be genocided... at that time along come the liberal media with this big club marked Holocaust and bash me over the head with it." Panorama, 2001

"Asked whether the Gurkhas should be allowed to stay in Britain, he replied: 'Our policy position is the country is full. No more immigrants.'" Daily Mirror, May 2009.

RichyBoy (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

I was wondering if this article needs a Talk:Nick Griffin/FAQ, in a FAQ box at the top of this page? It might help reduce the intent to vandalise. While vandalism may not now be as concerning a problem as it once was, it might help explain why the article may seem to lack certain details, the most pertinent of which I would presume at the moment to be his proposed appearance on the BBC's Question Time. It might also be a useful summary of some of the discussions that have happened on this talk page. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful yes BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to start adding questions to it. First one, an explanation of why IPs and new editors can't edit the article. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)