Talk:British National Party/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Fascism

The label really shouldn't be there. Kevin Passmore's book Fascism: A Very Short Introduction from the Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-280155-4, page 24 says "Likewise, we shall see that contemporary movements, such as the British National Party and the French National Front, are certainly part of the extreme right, but are not fascist".

Nor do they satisfy Michael Mann's Fascist minimum of Nationalism, Statism, Transcendence, cleansing and paramilitarism. (pages 13-17 of his Fascists ISBN 0-521-53855-6).

and in Roger Eatwell's Fascism: A History (ISBN 1-8441-3090-8, page xxx), he warns: "Although journalists have used the "f" word relatively indiscriminatley in the context of parties like Le Pen's and Griffin's, "fascism" and "racism" are not synonyms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.204.139 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, but inconclusive. These need to be put up against the sources already quoted and discussed at great length (see archives of this page) which say the BNP is fascist. Interestingly, if I am right, Mann does not say the BNP is not fascist but you are interpreting what he says to imply that Mann says that (i.e. original research). Eatwell is also right to say that "fascism" and "racism" are not synonyms. Does he actually say that the BNP is not fascist? (Forgive me, I don't know this work). Emeraude (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Passmore is a historian, not a political scientist, so his agonising over definitions is understandable. Emeraude (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Extracts from Mann's book are online here. The anon user above has clearly interepreted this in his own way = original research. (Personally, I think Mann's criteria cover the BNP quite well, but that's my original research!) Emeraude (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that Mann does not discuss the BNP in his book Fascists at all, but he is a Sociologist and it is mainly a sociological study of inter-war and WW2 movements. Indeed, he doesn't mention the National Front, which would definetly hit the Fascist minimum as far as I know. Actually, I disagree with his Fascist minimum, I don't think a party has to have a Paramilitary group, but it is a very vauge term and a damning one to use, nevertheless, the BNP don't hit his minimum requirements. They do not currently have a paramilitary (I am aware of Combat 18, but they do not share an association anymore). They don't seem to hit Statism at all: the leadership principle is not there and they are definetly not Corporatists.

As for Eatwell, it really doesseem to scold the used of the "f" word to refer to the BNP or the FN in the introduction. He does, however, address them under a chapter Neofascism In Britain. Still, Eatwell makes the distinction between Neo-Fascism as being an ideology which seeks to create a "holistic nation and a radical Third Way state". Eatwell sees them as Neofascists rather than Fascists. That may seem likea petty distinction, but AFAIC, it's cause to consider the revision of the word Fascist and the consideration of the replacement term neofascist under their political views.

Passmore is indeed a historian and as such takes a more concrete view of ideology, I don't see a problem with this though, as although ideologies change, it's hard to put the F label on them.

Of course, we all know that if we pick up the right books, we can make the case for only using the word to refer to the goverence of Il Duce. Personally, I would even hesitate at calling the BUF Fascists, because to me seeing as Britain was an Empire and additionally because Mussolini always persued Empire, one must want to achieve more land to be a Fascist.

So I may well be very off the mark, as you can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.204.139 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The BNP are clearly a Fascist party. We don't need quotes from intellectuals to know ths for sure. They use nationalistic rhetoric to turn the poor / workers / those not in power against each other, thus destroying unity amongst different peoples, with the aim of keeping power in the hands of the strong, powerful and rich. This is what all Fascists have done, and what the BNP does today. There is no question that they are Fascists. They represent exactly the strain of thought that the Allied forces fought against in the second world war. If they came to power they would create a one-party-state and therefore would destroy 'freedom of speech' and claim to speak on behalf of everyone. Therefore it is stupid to defend Fascists like the BNP and NF on grounds of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is really only a pacifying illusion of capitalist 'democracy' but it is still better than the iron-fisted rule imposed by Fascists throughout history. With regards the question about whites-only membership, the BNP makes clear on their website that membership is for whites only. Fascists like the BNP want to prey upon the working classes by inflating our fears and turning us against each other. If you don't want to see concentration camps in Britain, don't vote BNP. If you value your democratic right to say whatever you want, to vote for different parties and to make up your own mind regarding political issues, don't vote BNP. However you feel about immigration or 'multiculturalism' (that is, society changing over time, as it always has done in this country), remember that these issues are only fronts for the BNP's fascist intentions. A fascist will cut your throat before they give you the chance to speak for yourself - just look at the Fascist regimes of the past, so don't give them the chance. Just like the Nazi party, the BNP talks about reordering society for the good of everyone, but in truth they want a final solution and will crush those who oppose them wherever they get the chance. There is no debate; the BNP are Nazis and they are leading the British people down the garden path. Many people will disagree with these statements, and that is their right, but in my view the only people undeserving of a voice are those who would use it to turn people against each other, instigate street violence, make children homeless, and remove power further away from the people. Resist the Fascist BNP wherever you can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.237 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the standard for includiotn in wikipedia is verifiability not truth, what is clear to you may not be to other people so to maintain a neutral point of view we refer to what secondary sources say.--Nate1481 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Black members

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

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

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

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

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

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

The constitution explicitly forbids non-white membership --Gordon (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Its leader also recently confirmed they are for whites only in a BBC or Sky News interview the other day, theres certainly plenty of sources and justification for its inclusion in the article the way it is currently. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is, by self-definition, an all-white party. Reference No.17 (currently) is to the BNP's own news website and specifically says: "we do not have, and will not have, any non-white or Muslim members." Can't be much clearer than that. It would be nice if people would actually read the sources they criticise before tapping the keyboard! As for "It's source is quoted as being from a British mainstream newspaper - how unbiased can this really be?" Well, The Times and The Guardian are generally regarded as papers of record and though they have their editorial opinions they are, as the anon contributor states, mainstream papers and reliable. Emeraude (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Far Right?

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The far right claim is clearly a breach of NPOV unless it is qualified as an opinion, or justified with a citation that is not clearly a statement of opinion, or a pejorative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3624472/Letters-to-the-Daily-Telegraph.html "I have carefully re-read the BNP manifesto of 2005 and am unable to find evidence of Right-wing tendencies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." BOMBkangaroo (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You should have made it clear that the above quote is from a letter to the Daily Telegraph by Norman Tebbit. It has no significance in this discussion. Tebbit is not a reliable source for where the BNP lies on the political spectrum. Reliable academic sources, which have been quoted, agrees with the vast bulk of public opinion that the BNP is right, not left. Emeraude (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same issue of the Daily Telegraph describes the BNP as "the far-Right party" and says also: "the BNP - which displaced the National Front as Britain's main far-Right party in 1982..." (Source 1). And the letters column the following day and a few days later contained letters critical of Tebbit and saying the BNP is right wing (Source 2 and (Source 3). Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a link to a page entitled "Letters to the Daily Telegraph". I don't think I could make it clearer than that. You can't rule out the opinion of a former MP and member of the house of lords as being relevant and then go on to cite public opinion. I'm not saying he should be given undue weight, he's only one man, but what that does demonstrate is that there is controversy over whether the BNP is a "far-right" party.

First, as you correctly point out, it's just one man's opinion and shouldn't be given that much weight, whoever he is; it's also characteristic of newspapers that they reserve the right to edit such letters, and they make that clear. But whereas "one man" may express a controversy, our responsibility is to reproduce what reliable sources say. If they articulate a controversy from a third-party point of view, fine; they're doing much of our work for us.

There is no citation provided in the article where the "far-right" claim is made. Under "Right Wing Populism" citations 4 and 5 require paid subscriptions to view, and 6 is dead. If I am missing something here, then please enlighten me, but the appearance here is that the BNP is being called "far-right" because people want it to be. BOMBkangaroo (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

These references need looking at. References requiring paid subscriptions are deprecated by WP:V, but the deadlink may be in the Wayback machine. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No they aren't, there's nothing in WP:V that says anything of the sort. What it actually says is "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". Now it's not rocket science to work out that in fact most of those will not be available to view for free online. If Wikipedia is going to be dragged down to a level where if something isn't available online for free at the click of a mouse button then it can't be used then god help you. It's been a long standing tactic of BNP supporters to claim "it's unverifiable", well it's perfectly verifiable. Pay the money or go to somewhere where like a library where it's possible to get free access. How many books are cited as sources on Wikipedia? Or more appropriately, do you know how many books I've had to order specially as sources I needed because they didn't have them in stock at my local library or bookshop, and they aren't available for viewing on Google Books or Amazon Online Reader? Dozens, and if those can be challenged with the ridiculous "I can't see what the book says" argument then Wikipedia is doomed to failure. There is no requirement that references have to be free to view, in fact I'd suggest adding that to the FAQ at the top. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The WBM doesn't seem to have: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x/abs/ BOMBkangaroo (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've found a PDF for citation 4: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mrg217/cps.pdf This does classify the BNP as a "far-right" political party, but there is no qualitative analysis included as to what makes them a "far-right" party, nor specifically cite another source for the assertion that they are "far-right". I'll readily admit, I'm not a WikiPro, but does this qualify as a RS? (honest question, the guidelines on this appear contradictory, since it's an academic publication, but the "fact" that the BNP are "far-right" isn't demonstrably checked by the author.)

It might be useful to add that as a link in the citations section to make it easier for people to look up, as that link doesn't require a subscription.

Here is a free PDF for citation5: http://www.politik.uni-mainz.de/ereps/download/evans_cea2004.pdf This one explains itself as placing them on the "far-right" because they have reactionary policies. BOMBkangaroo (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish

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

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

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

Questions about Fascism

Could consider... The infobox should not state the BNP has any ideology other than what their own constitution/statements/manifestos openly say- the 7 non-BNP sources given are therefore invalid. INFOBOX IS NOT IN SYNC WITH OTHER ARTICLES: the infobox for the FARC terrorist group for example only says "Marxism-Leninism" as its official ideology- this is taken directly from FARC statements and sources, not Western mainstream media sources who might use definitions such as "Terrorism"; "Bolshevism"; "Atheism"; "Stalinism"- which may be accurate but do not belong in the infobox- and should be mentioned instead elsewhere in the article. All this debate about their Fascist tendencies is very well-reasoned, but I suggest we keep all Wikipedia infoboxes congruous and not fill it will debatable pieces of information. Plus the infobox should generally not be overcrowded with information. People use it for an overall simplified definition- don't put 5 different incongruous ideologies under the ideology category for one organisation. As far as I am aware, the BNP themselves prefer to be called by the euphemism "ethno-nationalist" and refer to their policies also as "socialist"- neither are mentioned in the infobox. They are attempting to distance themselves as far as they can from "Fascism"- therefore it is not justified to say in the infobox that it is their organisation's proclaimed ideology. We could argue all day that the FARC is "Stalinist" and it would be very valid claim, but at the end of the day, the FARC would say that the article you produced must be talking about another organisation and not them, because the ideological definition it gives does not come from its own manifestos or constitution. I stress this: the information under "Official ideology" can come from no other source than the organisation itself. I suggest a cleanup of other articles that have this sort of problem with their infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.173.94 (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements of opinion

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

Taking into consideration the definition of fascist...

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

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

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

Reposted:

Ideology of the BNP:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what Wikipedia tells us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

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

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

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

A lot of trouble to go through to try and convince yourselves they aren't what they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.117.163 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Whites only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way:

Googling "British National Party" - 685000 hits.

Googling "far right BNP" turned up 9390 hits.

Googling "whites only BNP" resulted in 69 hits.

Other queries: "fascist bnp" - 6730

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

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

"fascist british national party" - 3270

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"blacks only" - 77.200 hits

"all-black" - 10.100.000 hits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed, shortened the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pertaining to the label Fascist and NPOV

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

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

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

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

The German NPD

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

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

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

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

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

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

The German DVU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Lawrence Rustem any one of the following?

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

-mixed-race

a non-white character?

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

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

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

According to the Guardian article linked to above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euroscepticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BNP police officer sacked

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

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

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

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

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

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

So just about every British person supports the BNP do they? Does that include non-white British? And I don't know a single person who has anything but contempt for the BNP. Perhaps I move in the wrong circles. Ausseagull (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Spitfire pilot joins BNP

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

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

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

link:[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Would of been a bnp member" - and various grammatical errors. Surely true British patriots can write English? 81.159.70.120Ausseagull (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Walker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BNP councillor defects to the England First Party

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

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

The BNP article needs this information.

Thank you

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

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

Euro Elections Manifesto

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

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

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

Nick Griffin on the Daily Politics show

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

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

Right Wing?

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

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

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

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

The BNP is not right wing, it is a nationalist and socialist party, opposed to private ownership, making it, if anything, left wing. Being racist doesn't make a party right wing, I know Daniel Hannan and I think also Nigel Farrage have stated that the BNP is not a party of the right. (96.228.105.134 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

You mean not right wing like the National Socialist German Workers Party? --Nate1481 08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the Nazi party is a product of the left and that the characterizing of it as far right is incorrect, if right wing is equivalent to conservative principles, which are viewed as strong supporters of religion and capitalism, neither of which the Nazi Party supported. However, this isn't to say you can't make a case saying it's far right, I think it goes to show you how useless the left/right model is. I prefer to characterize in terms of size of government, and, back to the BNP, the BNP is a big government party. In this spectrum, the BNP is much closer to Labour than to the Tories. I think the far right label should be removed and not replaced with far left. 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.113.126 (talk)

Time to unlock this article?

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

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

Ok, thanks for the info.

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

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

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

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

Gurkas, Johnson Beharry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I assume you're talking about the third paragraph in the British Army Gurkhas... section, which seems to have adequate citations. Please state exactly which sources you wish to be referenced in the article, and at which point they should be added. haz (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Done: Added requested {{fact}} templates. Deleted final sentence as original research. Celestra (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I thought I would provide this link which can serve as a citation regarding the claim that the leaflet was a forgery, required by this line in the wikipedia article : "Both Walker and the BNP have condemned this as a forgery[citation/citation required]"

The cited article is an official news posting from the BNP website found here: http://bnp.org.uk/2009/05/bnp-calls-in-police-over-latest-media-ghurkha-lie/ The following quotes; "We have never issued such a leaflet", and "Those responsible for this fake leaflet can be assured that we will do everything we legally can to track them down and see them prosecuted for this forgery." serve well as citations for the BNP's denial.

I'm a novice at wikipedia but I think this would be the citation tag : <ref>{{cite news|url=http://bnp.org.uk/2009/05/bnp-calls-in-police-over-latest-media-ghurkha-lie/|title=BNP Calls in Police over Latest Media Gurkha Lie |date=2009-18-23|work=BNP News|accessdate=2009-06-08}}</ref>

---

Furthermore the initial sentence to this section; "The BNP is opposed to allowing veteran British Army Gurkhas the right of settlement in the United Kingdom." is also without citation, and seems to be, from what I've read, incorrect. And there are numerous posts on the BNP website itself to the contrary.

For example, in the article here: http://bnp.org.uk/2009/05/gurkha-media-lies-exposed-by-adam-walker-and-nick-griffin/ The following quotes can be found; ""I have no doubt that the topic will most certainly be debated at our next conference and I will personally be arguing the case for the Gurkhas" Mr Griffin wrote" and "I am already on record in various interviews stating that a BNP government would look far more sympathetically on the plight of the Gurkhas than the current Labour government." [Also said by Griffin].

These articles seem to contradict the opening sentence of this section. Considering the unclarity of their opinion, I'd like to suggest that this initial sentence be removed since this absolute statement of their belief does not seem to be true and is uncited. I am not necessarily suggesting that the party do indeed take the opposite stance, but merely that since it is unclear exactly where they do stand on this issue an uncited and absolute statement such as this seems out of place in a wikipedia article where the premise is to present the facts.

SUN Admits lies over allegations against BNP about Gurkhas

This needs to be added to the page. Reference:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2528210/BNP-election-leaflet-clarification.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.210 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of comments regarding protests against the NUJ

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

FAQ section

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

White only

This is an inadequate assumption, there are asian and black members of the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.161.181 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC) n there aren't.--Streona (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Clearly from the number of inline references in the infobox there's an eagerness to defend the label of Fascism as a BNP ideology as non-controversial. However just out of interest I took a look at the last reference (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F0038038505052493) and found that the source, which seems to be a very reliable academic publication, describes the BNP not as fascist but Neo-fascist. The rest of the article makes clear the party's link to fascism... since there are already plenty of ideologies listed, may I suggest that including it here as a blanket label where there are conflicting sources and qualifications to be made does more harm to the article than good? Bigbluefish (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While I suspect many of the references are passing mentions of the fascist/neo-fascist connection and no doubt some use inappropriate terminology, the essay by David Renton explicitly calls the BNP a "fascist party" and a "crisis party". Ottre 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain then why David Renton's essay is a more authoritative source on the ideological classfication of the BNP than other sources? The criteria for the infobox is not just that they do hold that ideology or that they have been attributed to that ideology but that it is in some way part of their identity as a party. Otherwise, there should be a separate line for neo-fascism, and probably a whole bunch of other labels. What's a "crisis party" anyway? This makes the essay sound like an opinion piece against the BNP, which I apparently can't read without paying. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Renton is considered an (academic) authority on the BNP - we might put a footnote saying some consider them neo-facist but I see no case for removal.--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Suppose that the case for removal were that fascism isn't central to the BNP's ideology. Has Renton written anything which contradicts this, is there a free version of it and by whose standards is he a higher authority than other writers using other terminology such as Yasmin Hussain and Paul Bagguley. Surely when the term "fascism" is used so frequently for pejorative effect with reference to the BNP you can see the need to carefully verify its use in a much narrower study of ideological orientation. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - your userpage says you are currently at university and yet you need a basic primer on academic citations, domain expertise and academic journals? eh?

Suppose that the case for removal were that fascism isn't central to the BNP's ideology. Do you have any such sources? sounds like you want to use original research...--Cameron Scott (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the academic sources we've discussed so far puts up a little infobox at the beginning and says "the BNP's ideologies are best characterised as fascism". Simply calling a party a fascist party in passing is not equal to an assertion that ideologically they're primarily fascist. To do so and use such sources as citations is synthesising the material to advance a position. This might be a blurry line if there weren't contradictory sources, but if Hussain et al can publish a peer-reviewed paper that bandies around the term "neo-fascist" then we have to look to a higher and more specific authority to make a blanket definition without that being original research. To omit a dubious definition is not original research; ideological classification is always incomplete because there's always a narrower classification that is just about accurate but too subjective. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have sources - you either have to find sources that rubbish them or indicate how those peer reviewed journals are not suitable sources. That's really the start and end of it. Do you have either of those? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Slow down, mate, I think you've missed something I said earlier. At least one of the sources is peer reviewed and says nothing about fascism and everything about neo-fascism. This is not a trivial distinction. Neither source discussed is particularly suitable to back up a contention of a blanket ideological classification according to our policy on source synthesis, a subsection of WP:NOR, especially when they contradict each other on the highest level that the terms are used respectively (I assume this of the Renton source since I'm not paying to read it and you've not suggested anything to the contrary). Bigbluefish (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Check your email, I've just sent you a copy. Ottre 00:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, you'll have to reply back to me before I can attach a PDF file. Ottre 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that legal? I'm really not concerned that anyone's lying about the contents of the source, just that what it says doesn't justify what we use it to back up in the article. A completely separate discussion is that preferably we should find a source of equal reliability which is free to view online. My current feeling however is that we should be saying less and citing less because the sources are too tenuous. To not say the BNP is fascist in the infobox does not mean that the BNP is not fascist. There are lots of things the box doesn't say. That's immaterial. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BNP denies being fascist anymore

Added: Links to Nick Griffins quotes:

The BNP did come from a fascist past, but there is generally now a party-wide understanding that we no longer want a large central state, and that we are concerned about any state having too much power. We need now to roll that out into general policies and our critique of current affairs. For instance, we intend to become more actively involved in opposition to ID cards. It is self-evident that any party which is opposed to ID cards and says that you cannot trust any state – even our state – with such powers cannot be a fascist party.

Eros of Fire (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://seanbryson.com/articles/rn_griffin_turner.htmlEros of Fire (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/3497436.stm

The BNP has denied it is a fascist party and has claimed opposition parties are trying to prevent freedom of speech. The leader of the BNP party in Burnley, Councillor Leonard Starr, said: "I doubt she can even spell fascism, let alone understand what it means.

Eros of Fire (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these sources are sufficient demonstration that we can't categorically define the BNP as ideologically fascist without citing a source which academically discusses whether the BNP are justified in this denial and concludes that they're not. I'm therefore removing the label from the infobox. The addition to the introduction is not the place to state the opposite though, so I've removed it. There may be room for a balanced and well-sourced mention in the context of the Policies section, the Opposition section or both, but personally I'm not seeing the label of fascism present itself as one of the core issues and questions affecting the BNP compared to things like racism, euroskepticism and islamophobia.

Here's the line from the infobox, for the sake of preserving the citations, although most of them are actually unreadable.

Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving to Main Body

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

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

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

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

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

An Old Discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Political_party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it does break NPOV, regardless. Take the Labour Party for example: a party that has embraced neoliberalism, and there are plenty of sources we could find to back up that up. But in order to not court controversy (many people have tried to add it to that article) you stick to the ideology that the party states. Ultimately, however academic a source is, it is still opinion. Just do it for parties which openly flaunt their Fascist sympathies in regards to policy (e.g. Tricolor Flame) and parties which are accepted as Fascist by historical consensus - discuss that the BNP has been opposed by anti-Fascists, labelled Fascist by some in the article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I sort of think what you're proposing is sensible, Yohan, but it seems to me there isn't a WP policy that backs it up. It doesn't break NPOV, as long as it is reliably sourced and repsects general neutrality. It may be controverisal, but that's not the same thing. WP includes plenty of information that may be considered controversial. Infoboxes on other parties do use sources other than the parties themselves. --78.150.195.24 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

does not accept practising Jews as culturally or ethnically British?

How does citation 22 support the assertion that the BNP does not accept Jews as culturally or ethnically British, when the "Asians in Britain" article does not mention Jews at all? I corrected the article long ago so it no longer made this claim, and the claim has made its way back into the article. Boris B (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. The source does not support the statement and I have removed mention of Jews. Emeraude (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone ever tried turning up to synagogue with a BNP badge?--Streona (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

snipped: Wikipedia is not a forum

Here is the section from the current constitution describing who is eligible to join. It seems as though Jews cannot be members.

1)The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of

Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL. 2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

3)Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2 http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When I checked the BNP website it appears that they are campaigning for halal & kosher slaughter or food to be banned. So any practising Jew who is a member of the BNP would have to be a vegetarian.--Streona (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They do appear to call for the banning of 'ritual' slaughter with out the animal first being stunned http://bnp.org.uk/manifestos/mini-manifesto-2007/. Now under Rabinic law does an animal have to be conscious when killed (under Halal there is no such rule. Try as I might I have found no such requirment just statments that Kosher is not cruel.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Update this http://www.important.ca/jewish_judaism_laws_prayers.html seems to be saying that not all practasing jews regard Kashrut as binding, so banning it wouold not deny Jews membership of the BNP[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)]]

The Lead

The lead is rather long and a bit unwieldy. Could we remove a paragraph or two? The one starting "Historically..." perhaps belongs in the main body rather than the lead? Setwisohi (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

National Health Service

There was something else confusing in the BNP leaflet I received. It quoted "a doctor" (presumably medical) saying that he was going to votr BNP because of what immigrants were doing to the NHS. But I'd always thought that the NHS relied on immigrants, not least Asian doctors. A case of misdiagnosis, perhaps? Ausseagull (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The doctor in question was a photo taken off the internet, just as the photos of a soldier and old people were. The actual doctor from the stock photo is actually an American. The BNP claim was entirely made up,, i.e. a complete fabrication or as it is technically known "Lying".--Streona (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The soldier photographed wrote to the Sun condemning the BNP when he saw it, and is apparently considering suing. --78.150.195.24 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The most hilarious aspect of this is that the stock photo of a construction worker also appeared on a Conservative candidate's leaflet!

This is not a forum or conjecture and unsubstantiated proof.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conjecture? Unsubstantiated proof? This has been in countless newspapers and magazines. Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

many errors in BNP article NBias detected

(edit semiprotected) Specific errors an unsupported innuendo found in article on BNP ! definition of party as far right far right defined per wikipedia LET ME QUOTE FROM WIKIPEDIA "The term far right has been used by different scholars in at least two somewhat conflicting ways:[3]

1. Reform-oriented right-wing movements or rightist factions of conservative political parties. These are sometimes called the dissident right, activist right, or right-wing populism. They are positioned between traditional conservatives and the extreme right. These participants are found outside mainstream electoral politics, but they generally produce a movement of reform rather than revolution. 2. Neo-fascists and neo-Nazis are usually labeled extreme right or ultra right. Such groups are generally revolutionary in character rather than reformist. Neo-Nazi and Neo-fascist literally means "new Nazi" and "new fascist", implying that they are from the period following World War II." ENDQUOTE

Definition 1, which could be only applied to the BNP if one was a communist or socialist and looking from that perspective is not by its terms correct in the first place. one cannot define "right" as a political direction using the terms right wing, rightist dissident, right activist ,right, or, right wing populist. In the second place the terms used in Wikipedia's definition as "reform" is NOT correctly labeled as specific to the right or the left. Reform has a moral connotation to to with promoting honesty or opposing criminal corruption and is applicable either to the right, center or the left of the political spectrum.

Then let us look at the second definition the first sentence tells us that neo fascist or neo Nazis can be used a synonyms used to further explain far right. That is correct but uninformative. the basic term Nazi or Facsist is not given a definition.

I have often noticed your bias, but these explanations would not pass muster on a 12 year old's school paper. You cannot define something either as in 1. by using the word to define itself, or as in 2. connecting it to another undefined pejorative. A definition is a descriptive sentence or two about the word or the term defined, not a series of repetitions of the word itself!! I have to ask and I AM NOT BEING FACETIOUS, do you really expect to create a respected source reference using this kind of GARBAGE? I know you have protected another this page against editing, but how can you proceed to write hundreds of words of slurs and innuendo, using a series of inaccurate definitions as supporting descriptions? You should know that this process just leads to the type of intelligent people I would presume you want contributing to your material, or to recommend it as a reference, avoiding you like the plague. You will further note that I have not even gotten through the first sentence of your article on the BNP. Explaining and correcting all your errors would take much more time than I am willing to give people who write so poorly. Find someone who knows how to properly use the English language, and bring the standard of your material up to at least the college undergraduate level. Finally instead of just repeating poorly defined labels you could print The BNP's political principals which are on its web site and have been unchanged for eight years. Then you could explain how each of these positions on the various issues fits onto the political spectrum , giving current and historical examples for comparison. JJB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.146.20 (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me say that for somebody lecturing others on "proper use of the English language", your use of "principal" is a bit surprising. How many headmasters does the BNP have? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the main problem complained of here one of grammar?--Streona (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Funding

Driving through depressing (and depressed) towns near where I live, I see large BNP adverising hoardings; there was also a big advertisement in my local paper. Who funds these? I can hardly imagine that the BNP have the support of big business let alone the unions. They are opposed to both. Ausseagull (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some BNP news articles that should be included

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6375915.ece - Fascist Nick Griffin likes breaking race laws

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6375493.ece - this needs to be put somewhere, as it is evidence of the racist's fraud.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/30/boss-ko-for-boxer-amir-115875-21400286/ - Griffin's racist rant against Amir Khan

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/hope-not-hate/2009/06/02/fake-bnp-leaflet-shows-there-is-no-lie-too-big-for-the-bnp-115875-21408640/ - BNP and their fascist lies on its election material

Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

re the flyer - it is against the law to use real people (ie not stock photos) in election flyers - in fact the same builder apeared in leafets for the other parties as well Bihco (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

European Parliament

Now that we have two BNP MEPs it will be interesting to see what they do. They wish to free us from what they call "the EU dictatorship", but dictatorships don't normally have elected MPs. So, will they take their seats? And/or claim expenses? And who will their allies be? I'm not sure what political grouping their UKIP friends are in and the UK Tories have already opted for some strange bedfellows, but is there a Euro-Fascist grouping? The BNP's French allies, the Front National, did very poorly, as did fascist groups in Belgium. But extremist and populist parties polled well in the Netherlands, Finland and Hungary, where the extreme nationalist, anti-gypsy and allegedly anti-semitic Jobbik party won three of the country's 22 seats. Enjoy your goulash, Mr Griffin, but don't charge it down to expenses, please. Ausseagull (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a chat room (WP:NOT#CHAT), this page is for discussion general improvements to the article. magnius (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't for improving the article, it's for making the article as anti-BNP as possible, no matter how many times neutral observers comment that the article is biased against the BNP.

No, it's not a chat room, and it's perfectly valid to ask what stance the BNP will be taking to their membership of the European Parliament, since the article should refer to this, at least when it's known. Ausseagull (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ausseagull, this article should be highlighting if the BNP will join a Euro-Racist group. We should get a consensus on this point of view as soon as possible Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some sourced material about the BNP's relationship with Jobbik. How and whether this "makes the article as anti-BNP as possible" is not for me to say. Ausseagull (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done mate we'll kick all of the fascist white trash out soon Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is'nt the phrase white trash a tad racist?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

How can it be bleeding racist if I'm a pure-bred white Cockney ffs? Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your not multiculteral then?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Just because I'm a white Cockney doesn't mean I can't be multicultural or multiracial; different cultures and races have enriched my traditional Cockney upbringing. To suggest otherwise is frankly racist and furthermore I ask you to deny that you are racist unless you want to be compared to the BNP. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would ask you to rerfrain from personel attacks. You state you are pure white, how does that tie in with being multi-racial?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

You think I can't be "pure" just because I'm not white? That's disgusting racist filth, if that is what you are suggesting. I also notice that you did not deny that you are racist. I think we all know where we stand now, unless you come out and make a proper, sincere denial. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am confused are you pure white or not? I would also ask you to refrain from personel attacks. You are a new usser and as such ceretain leeways are allowed but I feel that you should perhaps read wikipedias rules on civility and talk pages.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't even think of myself in terms of race, like any normal non-racist person does. So why are you so keen to find out what colour of skin I have? Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Move on from this race issue please, its not needed here and certainly not allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf of Slatersteven and also myself. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would again ask you to stop taking into your own hands to make statemetns on my behlaf it is very rude.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

BNP a far-Right or far-Left Party

"A brief skim through BNP manifesto literature brings to light proposals for the following: large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection; state ownership of key industries. Under Griffin, the modern-day far right has positioned itself to the left of Labour."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/04/24/new_statesman_bnp_is_to_the_left_of_labour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.206.153 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Increases in state pensions and more money for NHS are agreed on by ALL parties in the UK - it's no longer a question of left/right but an accepted part of the country's political culture. The BNP is not stupid enough to say the opposite and expect to get votes! State ownership of key industries is not incompatible with fascism, but how well-known does the BNP make this policy? No, the BNP is known for its racism which it is happy to promote, as anyone who saw Brons and Griffin interviewed in the last 24 hours will have seen. Emeraude (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Left" and "Right" labels are liable to be blurred on occasion. Remember that the Nazis were the National *Socialist* party. I don't think that the BNP can be described as Socialist in any way, but remember that they claim to speak for the "underprivileged" (white), the "disenfranchised", etc. Coming from Australia, I have experience of a similar party, Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" and in her agenda there is a lot of hostility towards big business, bureaucrats, fat cats, the "top end of town", etc. Some of these views would go down well on the traditional left. Perhaps "populist" might be a better label.Ausseagull (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism or prejudice of any kind is a common factor on the political right of the spectrum, this is undeniable. BNP will not improve worker protection as they will make it almost illegal to be an ethnic minority by tearing up civil rights and race equality legislation. Furthermore, that source is from Daniel Hannan's blog, a right-wing Tory who will be sitting with fascists and gypsy-haters in the EU, and so isn't a reputable source. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick history lesson will tell you that Stalin was involved in more ethnic cleansing and cultural oppression than just about any other historical leader bar Hitler. The likes of Pol Pot and Chairman Mao hardly have a clean slate on this either. Which parties the Conservatives have aligned themselves with in the EU's complex grouping system has no bearing on the specific politics of one of their politicians. Unless you're one of those who feels that any kind of national borders are racist, anyway....--MartinUK (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Nazis were responsible for the holocaust, are you saying you would prefer that? And I would definitely say that the Conservatives choosing to align with gay-bashers, disabled-mockers and Christians in a time when when we need to show solidarity with Islam against the corporate fascist murderers of Israel is absolutely racist. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I said that Hitler was worse than Stalin. Read more closely. I'll leave you to show solidarity with a murderous ideology which is fundamentally at odds with western values (which, last time I checked, produced far greater nations than Islamic values, in terms of wealth, equal opportunities (especially for disabled and homosexual people), scientific progress and technological advance). If just ONE of the many Islamic nations offered citizenship and full rights to the Palestinians, there would be no Israeli aggression. However, because many Muslims view Palestinians as being ethnically similar to Jews (and thus, in their minds, subhuman) that will never happen, and 15 million people will never have a home.--MartinUK (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "extremist" is a better term than allocating left or right labels. The BNP 2005 manifesto clearly has a left wing/socialist agenda whereas their racial policies are more often seen as right wing (doesnt exclude the left though) Sputnik 9 Jun 09

The BNP's manifesto peddles hate and is intended to stir up division and make recycling illegal. Don't believe their lies. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly most of the people that voted for the BNP probably didnt even bother to read their manifesto which shows what a right wing radical and extremist party they are and thats just the stuff they are prepared to tell people about.. its what they dont put in their manifesto that worries me. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole thing, but you must understant that th "socialist" in the national socialist party (Nazi) did not actualy mean socialist, Hitlersaid that he wanted to return the word "socialist" "back to it's true meaning". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.77.103 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Views on transexuals

Does anybody know the status of this? I'm aware that the BNP are fairly homophobic, but what's the stance on transexuals? 90.198.6.146 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an FAQ or manifesto for the party, but to discuss the article. But needless to say, they most definitely would take a strong, intolerant stance against transsexualism and the thriving LGBT scene we have in the UK. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

is ther a source for this?[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Sure is.

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article:1166-Campaign-urges-LGBT-voters-to-stop-BNP-gaining-in-European-elections http://www.lgf.org.uk/news/1085/590/HOPE-not-hate-urge-LGBT-voters-to-stop-the-BNP/ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12458.html http://www.queeryouth.org.uk/community/index.php?act=Events&CODE=25&e_id=212 http://www.lgbtgreens.org.uk/news/2009/votegreenstopbnpnwengland.aspx

As you can see from these many sources the BNP are of course homophobic and transphobic. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but there are politically motivated and attempts to undermine support (by their own admission) for the BNP, any third party impendent sources? Nor do they reference any comments made in BNP literature they are opinion. Some of these sources even claim it’s not a legitimate political party, which it is just a rather morally dubious one.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

How is queeryouth.org.uk not an independent third party? Are you sure you're not homophobic? Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its quite clear that it is opposed to the BNP (so its not neutral), its gay (soi its not third party, its an invloved party),they claim hat the BNP are not a legitamte party (it is under UK law) so clarly are not unbiased about its policies. It also says they will not be tolerated (very tolerant) which clearly statres they are not independant but have an ani-BNP agenda. Nor does it state that the BNP are homophobic (as far as I can see).[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Deny that you're homophobic. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

s it then you accept that this was not an independant third party source[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Those are not independent third party sources, however this is all pointless we already have a section in the article on the BNPs hate for homosexuals. There may not be reliable sources on their view on transexuals so it shouldnt be added to the article, but we all know the BNP is hardly likely to view the two things differently. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources are independent for people who aren't queer-bashers. Deny that you are homophobic.Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not independent 3rd party sources no matter how you feel about these matters. Just as a paper like the guardian, mirror and the Sun are not independent or reliable on BNP matters as far as im concerned. Whilst i understand ur anger for the BNP you need to be careful about ur comments here, u dont have to be so aggressive to other editors because they disagree with your point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I accept responsibility along with Slatersteven. I apologise on behalf of him and the both of us. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly do not make appoligise on my behalf not accept responsiiblity on my behalf. I would ask for the same level of respect you expect.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

There doesn't seem to me to be any reason in principle why LGBT sources could not be used here. Third party means independent of the subject. The subject, in this case, is the BNP.

To assume that the source will be biased for the claim that the BNP is homophobic etc sort of involves the assumption that the BNP is homophobic etc, doesn't it? In any event, there is no WP guideline that demands complete neutrality from sources. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Independant means that it describes a topic from a disinterested perspective, which clearly from its tone LGBT does not. News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The LGBT site fails most these. It is a site that specificaly is promoting an anti-BMP campign, thus its netrality is open to doubt.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Okay, I admit I started typign without actually looking at the sources... Clearly they should be treated with caution because they are anti-BNP (not because they are LGBT). However, they don't need to be dismissed out of hand if they contain verfiable factual information. Do you have any information to suggest that any of the sources have a "poor reputation for fact-checking"?

There's a need to be careful here. As as been pointed out above, most mainstream sources are, to some extent, anti-BNP. If the rules on neutrality start getting interprested over-restrictively, we will end up with a very short article, because nothing will be citable. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

True but mainstreeam media are (generaly) regarded as RS. But the tone of the above websites is clearly promotional, they are not just opinion tehy are activly campegning against the BNP. well http://www.lgf.org.uk/news/1085/590/HOPE-not-hate-urge-LGBT-voters-to-stop-the-BNP/ refers to http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ which is run by searchlight which is considerd by some as unreliable http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5550801/Searchlight-Exposed and http://www.archive.org/stream/SearchlightExposed/searchlightexposed-web_djvu.txt. So the ansewer is yes. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

There is not mention of Transsexuals on any of the websites cited as sources for the BNP’s attitude towards them. So they are not reliable sources for that claim.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Searchlight exposed

A bit off topic, but Searchlight Exposed is an anonymous, self-published website, and the PDF can also be found here: http://bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/searchlightexposed-web.pdf. Not really evidence of Searchlight's unreliability. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arnt the LGBT websites all self published (but at least not anonymous, is Seachlight anonymous?)? There is this http://www.scribd.com/doc/15236235/Searchlight-Political-Violence-and-Terrorism (which may have the same fault). As well as http://www.thirdway.eu/2008/02/25/searchlight-disinformation/ and http://www.aryanunity.com/redwatchonline//sliesexp.html but the name gives away its origin. But as political bias is not an issue it can't be dismissed as biased.[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

No, the LGBT webistes above are published by UK LGBT organisations. This doesn't necessarily make them neutral, but it means they are not self-published. Third Way is also a fascist organisation, just FYI, (Nick Griffin was one of its founder members) and anyone can upload to scribd. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well certain sikh gruops seem unhappy with searchlght http://www.rajkaregakhalsa.com/sikhsrejectbnp.htm[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Noted. But that hardly makes Searchlight or the Guardian unreliable. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No but it does quesation its fact checking.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Here is why Searchlight is unreliable (for the purposes of sourcing an article about the BNP): Searchlight is an explicitly anti-fascist and anti-racist publication. Searchlight considers the BNP to be both a fascist and a racist organization. Hence, any articles written about the BNP, taken from Searchlight, will be of a hostile, non-NPOV nature. One doesn't go to anti-communist publications in order to write an article about communism, or to a racist publication in order to write an article about Black people. By the same token, one should not be using Searchlight to substantiate articles about the BNP. While one may question the sincerity of the BBC, or The Guardian, when they claim to cover the BNP objectively, at least they do claim to cover the BNP objectively. The Searchlight makes no such claim. They start off from an innately hostile, anti-BNP perspective. I don't really understand how a reasonable person can claim that using articles taken from Searchlight, in order to substantiate claims about the BNP, can possibly be regarded as within an NPOV context. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an arse-about-face argument. True, Searchlight exists to oppose fascism. But, it does not say the BNP is fascist because it doesn't like the BNP; it doesn't like the BNP because it is fascist. The reliability of any source depends on the accuracy of its research and in this Searchlight has an impressive record - not just with the BNP but over many years before the BNP existed and in countries all over the world. Following the logic above, we should not go to the Journal of Chemistry to write an article on chemistry, because the journal is too closely tied up with its subject and must be biased and NPOV. No, Searchlight has a proud record and is regarded as a reliable source by academics and writers. Emeraude (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what an "arse-about-face argument" is, but it is not objectively true that Searchlight dislikes the BNP because they are fascist. Rather, it is objectively true that Searchlight dislikes anyone they believe to be fascist, and they are of the opinion that the BNP is fascist. Yet I am unaware of any objective test by which it can be demonstrated that the BNP is fascist, while it is a certain fact that they claim they are NOT fascist. Their party program may vaguely remind some people of fascism, but that's not quite the same thing as it being actually and innately fascist. While its true that British journalists & academics embrace Searchlight, modern Britain has sadly degenerated into the sort of parochially authoritarian society where if one were a writer or an academic, and openly agreed with the BNP, one would almost certainly find one's self no longer holding the position of journalist or academic. You might as well claim that Soviet-era Pravda was a reliable source on capitalism, because all the members of the Soviet Communist Party swore by it. British journalists and academics are not actually allowed, outside of fairly modest boundaries, to be in disagreement with Searchlight. If they disagree with it on a fundamental level, and say so publicly, they are rendered unemployable within their field. How that constitutes an endorsement of Searchlight, and its status as a neutral source on info pertaining to the BNP, is beyond me. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But a Chemistry journel does not seek to undermine the science of chemistry but to discuse it in an open and fair fasion. To improve the science of chemistry through open debate about . the subject,Searchlight seeks to undermiine the BNP and makes no claim to fairness, its sole aim is the destruction of a political entity. It does not seek to debate with the BNP but to call it evil. It is not unbiased. We have seen the mentality on this page[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Emeraude has explained why those sources are reliable and notable. Can we include a transphobia section near the homophobia section? Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

More right wing attacks on Searchlight.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/a20-1.html http://www.searchlightexposed.com/ http://www.searchlightarchive.com/s_a_gables_technique.html Questions about Searchlight and its methods, this seems left wing but who knows? http://www.redaction.org/anti-fascism/secrets.html So it is not ture that it is universily regarded as reliable.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

No one has said that Searchlight is universally regarded as anything (or even "universily"), nor even suggested that, like any other publication, it doesn't sometimes get things wrong. However, to deal with some of the slanders made about it above: Searchlight's "sole aim" is not and never has beeen "the destruction of a political entity". This can only be said by someone who has never read it!! Searchlight exposes and opposes fascism and has done for decades - from before the foundation of the BNP. Each issue contains articles about fascism in countries around the world - it does not exist solely to oppose the BNP as its (non-reading) critics always claim. Of course it doesn't make any claim to fairness; neither does a chemistry journal or a newspaper! What would that mean? ("I abhor fascism and regard it as an evil philosophy. On the other hand......!!) Why should it debate with any fascist group? It's a magazine. Emeraude (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have been clearer and said that it sole aim with regards to the BNP is it destruction, not to present a balanced view of the subject. Although it could be argued that its sole aim is the destruction of the political entity that is Fasism, but that was not what I meant. Chemistry Journals do not make claim to bias ewither, they are mean to (and try) to present a blanced view point, for example artcile are sent for pere review by accepted experts in the field. Moreover they are not dedicated to undermining a rival branch of science. The point is that they are policaly motivated, and as such are not independant of the subjet matter. They are pressinig an agenda, like almost all of the anti-seachlight material, and as such are questionable as a source.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Searchlight does indeed have an agenda, and I don't think its opinions can be stated as fact, or probably at all without the qualifier "according to Searchlight...".

However, as has been stated above, it is a publication which is produced to professional standards. It has also done more research and holds more information about the far-right than probably any other source that is available to us. So, for purely factual statements (eg Nick Griffin used to be in the National Front) Seachlight is likely to know what it is talking about, and it also knows that it would be discredited if it lied about simple facts. So I don't see that there is any reason to say that it can't be used as a source within the article. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL Searchlight is led by Gerry Gable, a convicted criminal known for his marxist positions. Trevor Phillips is the chair of "The Equalities and Human Rights Commission". He called the BNP members "less than human". You can read about it here [6]. That is dangerously POV. "Professional standards?" They have been accused of using legal and illegal means to harass the party...you think these people are reliable source for info on the BNP? Why don't we just cite the Communist Party website, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.250.108 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Double LOL. The BNP is led by Nick Griffin, a convicted criminal known for his fascist positions. Emeraude (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Length

This article is far, far too long. The suggestion is for 10 printed pages in length, but it comes out to 20 pages of prose at the moment. I don't know how it can easily cut down, though maybe many of the incidental 'stories' related to the history of the BNP should go in their own articles. - ARC Gritt^TALK 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article could probably doing with splitting in two but that should probably only be done at the same time as a major clean up of the article which is in a mess right now. Also not sure which bits would be taken out of this one, the legal issues perhaps but apart from shortening some of the other sections i think they are all useful on here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't stop it being notable every time when the BNP shock the public by showing their true fascist skin colour. Although I bet you'd love to see a pro-BNP "white-wash" or "ethnic-cleansing" for this article, wouldn't you? When the BNP stop being racist white-trash this article will stop growing (and we could finally celebrate multiculturalism without the constant threats of racial violence from Nick Griffin and his party of skinhead farmers). Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I share your hate for the disgusting BNP and their leadership but i dont think we need the "white-trash" comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How about reducing the amount of coverage its election performance recives?[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Very strange how you saw "I think this article is too long" and read "I support the BNP"; I simply think this article needs a cleanup. Anyway, I think the History and Legal Issues sections should be summarised and chucked into separate articles. Far too much detail for this particular page. - ARC Gritt^TALK 02:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess that some of us are just against fascism and racism more than others are against bigotry and gender oppression. I recycle every day. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the suggestion for 10 printed pages is just that, a suggestion. It is obvious that many articles will need substantially less than this to comprehensively cover their subject and others could use significantly more pages to barely skim the subject. However, I tend to agree that the article is too long, or at least is unwieldy, and have said so before. Somewhere in the archive (I can't be bothered to look) one will find discussions where myself and other editors, of various political persuasions and none, looked at what could be done. The problem is that the article has grown paragraph and paragraph to counter claims of NPOV. This has generally been a BNP apologist saying that such-and-such is NPOV and after debate a para or even section being added to counter the argument. A classic example is the section on Employment, created by an editor who was trying to be fair and show all sides. It is totally unnecessary and worth, at most, a sentence or two. (That section is now considerably shorter than previously, thankfully, its originator having accepted this.) The problem is that any proposal to remove anything immediately attracts a rant, generally though not always from the BNP apologists and that is why the article is so long. Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A susgestion for (a still too long) but shortened political success section.

Electoral performance Main article: British National Party election results [edit] National parliaments The BNP has contested seats in England, Wales and Scotland. Since 2002 the party has expressed interest in contesting elections in Northern Ireland but has so far failed to put forward candidates. No BNP candidate has won a seat as a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. In the 2005 General Election, the British National Party stood 119 candidates across England, Scotland and Wales. Between those candidates the BNP polled 192,850 votes, gaining an average of 4.2% across the several seats it stood in, and 0.7% nationwide — more than treble its percentage at the 2001 election. In those seats in which the BNP stood, it was the fourth largest party.[135][unreliable source?] However, it did not stand nationwide, meaning that its national share of the vote was substantially lower than that of other minor parties and exit poll predictions of 3%.[136] In the 21st century, its electoral successes have generally come from winning former Labour voters and former Labour council seats. [edit] Local government As with other minority parties in the UK, the majority of the BNP's electoral success has come in local government elections. The BNP's first electoral success came in September 1993, when Derek Beackon was returned as councillor for Millwall (in London) on a low turnout. He lost his seat in further elections the next year. The party's biggest election success to date was a gain of 52% of the vote in the Goresbrook ward of Barking on 16 September 2004. However, the turnout was just 29%, and the councillor Daniel Kelley retired just 10 months later, claiming he had been an outcast within the council. A new election was held on 23 June 2005, in which this time the Labour candidate gained 51% of the vote, and the BNP came second with 32%.[140] In the 2007 Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections the BNP fielded candidates. In the Welsh elections the party fielded 20 candidates, four in each of the five regional lists with party chairman Nick Griffin standing in the South Wales West region.[144] It came fifth behind the major parties in some areas. It did best in north east Wales, polling 9% in Wrexham and 7% in both Alyn and Deeside and in Clwyd South. However, it did not win any seats in the Welsh assembly. In the Scottish Parliament election the party fielded 32 candidates which entitled the BNP to public funding for its campaign and an election broadcast, prompting criticism from various groups.[145] The BNP received about 1% of the vote and no seats. In the UK local elections which took place on the same day as the Scottish and Welsh elections, the BNP fielded a record 754 council candidates, more than double the number the previous year.[146] It won increased support in Windsor and Maidenhead but did not increase its number of councillors in Sandwell from 4 and saw its seats in Burnley reduced from seven to four. It won both Hugglescote[147] and Whitwick - the first seats to be won by the BNP in Leicestershire. Nationally, the BNP won over one hundred seats throughout the United Kingdom in the May 2008 local elections, which is less than 1% of the total number of seats available.[151] [edit] London Assembly and mayoral election, 2008 BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook gained a seat in the London Assembly in May 2008, after gaining 5.3% of the vote in the mayoral election. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Nazi's

They have been compared to Nazis and are very unpopular. Some people think they should get the message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.150.82 (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions their association with other nazis and some of the BNPs policies, im sure people can clearly tell theres certainly alot of similarities between the two. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to find some references that state the obvious? That the BNP are a national socialist (Nazi) party.

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article:230-BNP-launches-national-socialist-manifesto

This should be enough, surely? Wouldn't be hard for someone better to find more. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alas, the source you provided is more-or-less the epitome of non-NPOV. The simple fact of the matter is, the BNP's status as a national socialist ("nazi") party is a matter of controversy, ergo it is structurally impossible to find an NPOV source that states they are definitively a party of national socialism (or fascism, for that matter). One could make a pretty strong case that the BNP founded by John Tyndall in 1982, was such an organization, but the BNP claims to have changed under the leadership (since 1999) of Nick Griffin. Obviously, not every person is inclined to believe these claims, but there is no question that the BNP's platform and rhetoric have been altered substantially since the more-or-less explicitly national socialist period of Mr. Tyndall. One could claim the BNP is a far right party of past nazi origin, but neither the supporters of the BNP (who are disinclined to acknowledge the reality of their party's past), nor the critics of the BNP (who are reluctant to let the BNP be perceived as merely "ex-nazi"), are liable to find that a particularly appealing formulation. Never-the-less, it seems to be the one closest to what one might term "the objective truth." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin, but any BNP apologists (I am not saying that you in particular are a racist) will be saddened to know that my source is just fine. This quote from Emeraude is applicable to HopeNotHate: Of course, the suggestion for 10 printed pages is just that, a suggestion. It is obvious that many articles will need substantially less than this to comprehensively cover their subject and others could use significantly more pages to barely skim the subject. However, I tend to agree that the article is too long, or at least is unwieldy, and have said so before. Somewhere in the archive (I can't be bothered to look) one will find discussions where myself and other editors, of various political persuasions and none, looked at what could be done. The problem is that the article has grown paragraph and paragraph to counter claims of NPOV. This has generally been a BNP apologist saying that such-and-such is NPOV and after debate a para or even section being added to counter the argument. A classic example is the section on Employment, created by an editor who was trying to be fair and show all sides. It is totally unnecessary and worth, at most, a sentence or two. (That section is now considerably shorter than previously, thankfully, its originator having accepted this.) The problem is that any proposal to remove anything immediately attracts a rant, generally though not always from the BNP apologists and that is why the article is so long.

I'm afraid your source is an editorial ie., an opinion piece, irrespective of whatever evidence it seeks to use in order to justify the opinion of its author. Its not even intended to be from an NPOV. Its intended to push an ideological agenda. The fact of the matter is, short of a tape recording, or film, of Nick Griffin and the other BNP leaders, all agreeing that they are indeed a national socialist party, and that all their rhetoric to the contrary is a sham, there simply is no way to objectively and definitively prove that a party actually stands for something other than what it claims. It can not be done. It is a logical impossibility. Its akin to setting out to prove a negative. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me just add that while its apparent to all, I should think, that the BNP has elements of its platform that are nationalist in nature, and elements of its platform that are socialist in nature, the term "national socialist" functions practically as a single word, with a very specific meaning ie., an association with the old NSDAP of Adolf Hitler. But I'm sure the old Labour Party, which was very much socialist, had expressed some nationalist sentiment from time to time. Does that make them a national socialist party in any meaningful sense? Of course not. ALL British political parties embrace some degree of socialism, and most embrace some degree of nationalism. Its just a question of where they draw the line. You may not care for where the BNP draws the line, but to suggest they are "national socialist" in the sense of being markedly similar to the party that reigned in Germany from 1933-1945, with their present-day platform, is a matter of opinion. Its non-NPOV. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So can someone edit the info box or make this clear in the article? Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you needc to re-read that[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

British National Party Language and Concepts Discipline Manual, July 2005

Should reference be made to this? http://wikileaks.org/wiki/British_National_Party_Language_and_Concepts_Discipline_Manual%2C_July_200593.96.148.42 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm not heard about this one before, thanks for the link. Should be interesting reading. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That was an interesting document, do we know for sure this is definetly BNP material and not a fake? Dont know how it could be mentioned in the article itself, except as another source for certain things.. Theres a huge debate on if the BNP is far right above, that document says they consider themselves far right (if its not a fake) so it might be a useful source. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/04_april/22/bnp.shtml supports it's validity.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should use this as a source for describing them as Far right then. Was a very interesting document BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's genuine, and the link above gives a further link to the BBC validating it. Emeraude (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this exposes the BNP for who they really are. I'll raise a traditional mug of Cockney tea in favour of that! Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see there just as bad os the National front in the 70's now that was bad. They show them self for what they are. Next they will start spray painting walls. They think they can win and until they start getting more seats in London they will go nowere, GOOD!. Likelife (talk)

As London is less than 50% white, they have little chance of winning an outright election in London. But who can honestly say mass immigration over the last 60 years has improved London? There never used to be no-go areas, or gangs, and the crime rate was a fraction of what it is now - despite far worse poverty in real terms. And the BNP have already gone far further than the National Front ever did - and, unless fascism is suddenly on the rise, a majority of their voters are not fascist or racist.--MartinUK (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you point but the National fronts people would do more than what the BNP are doing like spray painting a black persons house. There are no go areas but the BNP forget there was white gangs before and white on white crime is very big. Likelife (talk)

Members of which Folk Communities allowed to Join the Party

Here is the section from the current constitution describing who is eligible to join. It seems as though Jews cannot be members. I think that references to "Norse folk ", etc, should be added to the article, as it sheds light on the nature of the party's beliefs.

1)The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of

Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL. 2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

3)Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2 http://bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all the confirmation we need, surely, to put "anti-Semitic" in the lead somewhere? This is good detective work, guvna. I'll raise you a Cockney pint of beer in our traditional way! Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And reference = http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/08/bnp-racist-membership-policy = "The party leader, Nick Griffin, was more blunt when Sky asked how the party could tell if someone was British. "You just look and you just know," he said." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a great interview, certainly worth watching. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for that sauce. If you could apply it in the racial policies section it would make them look like they are, completely mental. That is a non-lie admittance that that I assume distinguishes its policies is the basic way that they find out that the race of a person that wants to join or not, can join! Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to find out where all the "Folk Communities" come from. The terms do not seem to be used by anyone else. I think it important that the article makes clear that only members of i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community are allowed to join the BNP.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

“Folk Communities” is a phrase heavily linked to Naziism http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/183 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Folk+Communities+%2B+nazi&aq=f&oq=&aqi= http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/will/detail.php?content=05-persecution . As well as other back to tradition types.

But what is the "The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community"? There must be a definition somewhere!93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A link to Volksgemeinschaft might be in order.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well its Pan-germanic conotations give a clue to its origins. But it should be noteed that the concept is well over 100 years old. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/440618/Pan-Germanism . The Nazis mearly latched onto it. But the phrase itsself does appear to be newjua new way to say pan-germanism.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Patricia Richardson (politician) is Jewish and is a BNP councillor so I'd scratch that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.75.136 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

She is either violating the constitution, or a member of i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; or x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear she has thus been accepted as a member of one of those said folk communities, then (presumably the "Anglo-Saxon Folk Community"). This is not a particularly far-fetched notion, since Benjamin Disraeli was (and presumably still is) widely considered to have been an Englishman in good standing. The question of Jewish ethnic identity is a tricky one, for if you claim Jews explicitly are an ethnicity unto themselves, one is often accused of anti-Semitism. If, on the other hand, one explicitly claims that the Jewish identity is strictly of a religious (and associated cultural) nature, then...one is often accused of anti-Semitism. The bottom line is that the BNP does have not only Jewish members, but also (successful) Jewish candidates for public office. It is thus reasonable to infer from this that the BNP does not regard adherence to the religion of Judaism as a bar to membership in one of its applicable folk communities. And why should it? It remains unclear, after all, that an objective definition has yet been formulated for these various "folk communities," be they "Anglo-Saxon," "Celtic Cornish," or what-have-you. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is clear that they are anti-Semitic by not allowing ethnic-Jews into the party. I think this definitely needs to be included in the intro, seeing as it talks about Muslims, it should say they are against blacks and Jews too. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me all we have established is that they allow Jews into the party. But we do not know if those Jews are ethnic Jews or not (whatever an ethnic Jews). [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)]]

(let's just start over on the colons, shall we?)

I'll tell you what, Anti-Racist Cockney, if you get the authorities at Wikipedia to agree on an objective definition of "ethnic Jew," one that does not include any of the various Jewish BNP members, then I'll be happy to write up how anti-Jewish the BNP is myself. But the fact of the matter is, the BNP does field Jewish candidates for public office. If the candidates for public office happen to be assimilated into English (or Scottish or Welsh) culture, well gosh, I guess that makes them pretty much like the other political parties. Its not like Labour or the Tories are fielding ultra-Orthodox rabbis, straight off of a kibbutz, for public office, now are they? Of course not; such candidates wouldn't win for them, any more than they would for the BNP. Why would any political party field candidates for public office that had not assimilated into the dominant culture? Labour and the LDP may occasionally do so, when fielding a candidate to run in some slum where law-abiding White Britons fear to tread, but as a general rule, all candidates for public office in the UK, Jew and Gentile alike, are assimilated into mainstream British culture. I guess you could call that "anti-Semitic," if you wanted...but I'm not sure people won't just edit stuff like that out, as being nonsensical, if you try to include it in an article about the BNP (or anywhere else on Wikipedia, for that matter). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the BNPs own rule book say that only members of the Folk Communities in section 2 can be members? If Richardson is not such a person, how can she be a member of the BNP? She may be a councillor without being a full member, just as when the Tories wanted to expel Neil Hamilton from the party they found that he was never actually a member. On the other hand should I wish to convert to Judaism, since I am of, as far as I am aware of pure Anglo-Saxon stock, that would not stop me from being eligible to join up or would that put me outside the "folkish" community?--Streona (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say if Richardson is or is not a member of one of those stated "folk communities," as those terms are not defined. Thus they mean whatever the BNP wants them to mean. Ergo we can take it as prima facie evidence that Richardson is considered to be a member of one of those "folk communities." Nowhere is it explicitly stated, or even directly implied, that adherence to the Jewish faith, and/or having ancestors who adhere(d) to the Jewish faith, makes one ineligible for membership in said "folk communities." Unless I'm mistaken, "Richardson" is an English surname, correct? Is it so unreasonable to suppose that a native speaker of English, with an English surname, born & raised in England, able to trace their lineage back through several centuries of English history, and having lived, gone to school, and worked in England for their entire life (I'm not certain that Richardson falls into that criteria, but let's assume so, for the sake of the argument; certainly many persons identified as Jewish within the UK would so fall), might not be considered, say, part of the "Anglo-Saxon folk community," whatever that is? And if not, why not? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, there should be a section explaining what 'Indigenous Caucasian’ means to the bnp, referencing, I think, "The party leader, Nick Griffin, was more blunt when Sky asked how the party could tell if someone was British. "You just look and you just know," he said." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/08/bnp-racist-membership-policy93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"I have a dream by john bull" on the bnp's Ideology section says "it would be bizarre to say that

people who are not of European descent can join the party" http://www.bnp.org.uk/organisers/store/ideology/i_have_a_dream.pdf93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Richardson is her married name. I believe off the top of my head, that her maiden name was Feldman. What Kevin O'Keefe seems to be saying is that if the whole "volkisch" schtick means anything the BNP wants it to mean, it is essentially nonsense. Since the BNP aspire to become a government of this country this would have to be legally defined -or maybe not. If Nick Griffin does not like the cut of your jib, you can be declared a "guest worker" and denied all yor civil rights. Yes, I can see that would work.--Streona (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a source for ths person being in the BNP, and still an active member (and that she is in fact a practasing Jew). By the way many European Jews are of European decent. It has often been tha case that many racists count Jews as white, whilst others do not, do we hyave any statement on the BNP with regards to this?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Is there a source for " The BNP also accepts white immigrants that are assimilated into one of those ethnicities" - it is referenced to the constitution, which says "The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain", but that membership is reserved to "2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them. - hence assimilation would seem to be impossible for Jews or Slavs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Iasked for a source stating that there are Jewish members of the BNP, not that they are anti-Semitic (which the source provided does not say, it implies). It does not say that Jews are non-white, whilst it does seem to indicate that the Non Aryan (whatever that may mean) Europeans are excluded. But it also precludes (if we apply the same strict interpretation) the Mediterranean, The Romany, the Alpine and all the other wild and wooley definitions that have surfaced over the last 100 years or so. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I think that, given the lack of credible sources for this, the paragraph from the constitution regarding membership, and Nick Griffin's description of the procedures used to asses membership should be added to the article, with mention of the equality bill.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

don't libel the Liberal Democrats!

reference 122, in endnotes and also in main text (homosexuality section) refers to Nick Clegg as leader of the BNP. It should be Nick Griffin. Nick Clegg is leader of the most tolerant of the main British parties; Nick Griffin is chairman of a far-right intolerant non-mainstream party. 90.192.248.205 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - looks like it was some vandalism that was fixed a few minutes later. Mdwh (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Policy and Ireland

There is a substantial omission in the article in that it doesn't mention the BNP's foreign policy (presuming they have one). As far as I can see it's "get out of the EU and re-establish a white commonwealth". I have a feeling, though I might be wrong, that it's also anti-Israel. On Ireland, which presumably they wouldn't consider foreign anyway, it seems to be "we hate terrorism" (eg IRA), "but like the Irish and perhaps you'd like to come back to the UK?"

There are innuendos about links between Loyalist para-militaries and the BNP, but I'm not sure if there's proof. If there is, the article should include it. However, as far as I can see, there's one part of the UK where they didn't stand in the Euro-elections, and that's Northern Ireland. I might have missed something, but if they didn't, why not? Ausseagull (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not like the rest of the UK, for political purposes. One of the two Unionist parties is affiliated with the Conservatives, but Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Greens, etc., all eschew running for office in Northern Ireland, not just the BNP. I'm not certain why this is, but I think it has to do with the various parties that are active there already commanding the loyalty of the electorate, thus denying "oxygen," as it were, to any parties from mainland Britain, so to speak. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they like Israel, but for all the wrong reasons.--Streona (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

on Israle http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/%E2%80%9Cisrael%E2%80%99s-gaza-affair%E2%80%9D-by-bnp-leader-nick-griffin/ This seems to imply they have no real ppolicy, and definatly no hostility. But they seem to prefer it to Islam, it also does not smack of Anti-semitism (unless you include Arabs in that term).[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]

[Ruth Smeed, of the Board of Deputies, commented that "The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world. They are actively campaigning in Jewish communities, particularly in London, making a lot of their one Jewish councillor, their support of Israel and attacking Muslims. It is a poisonous campaign but it shows a growing electoral sophistication."http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race93.96.148.42 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Health and Education

This flame war departed from the subject of the article long ago. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think we need more in the article on these two issues. How will the BNP replace the tens of thousands of NHS workers they've "persuaded" to leave (the country)? And what will they do about the appalling literacy standards of their supporters? Ausseagull (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I voted for the BNP, and I can tell you that I am far from illiterate. I do not believe I am lacking in education concerning the relevant subjects either.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I'm glad you're not illiterate; neither are Messrs Griffin and Brons; nor was Sir Oswald Mosley. So perhaps you could use your literary skills to explain to us in the article, the BNP's policies on education, the NHS and foreign affairs. Ausseagull (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It's simply about moving towards the political right and reinstating real conservative values whilst doing away with political correctness. Education will be focused on discipline and subjects of value, with a curriculum focusing on worthwhile subjects such as the sciences, mathematics, language and so on - not hairstyle design, music engineering, or how to cook a curry. The NHS can be better funded by cutting off foreign aid, unnecessary benefits being given out and suchlike. Foreign affairs would be conducted cordially, allowing for trade and suchlike, but not as part of a supranational union, and seeking no illegal, pointless wars in the manner of Iraq/Afghanistan. I can't see why people would disagree with that unless they want the UK to disintegrate further into corruption.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) So, will you be putting this into the article? Your mask only slipped when you referred to "cooking a curry". Will children still be taught how to cook fish and chips, roast beef & Yorkshire, etc? But presumably when you've hounded out people from the Indian sub-continent and/or their descendants, there won't be any Indian restaurants, so we'll need to be taught how to cook our own curries, if we are allowed to import the ingredients (or will they be put on a banned list?). All this needs to go into the article. Isn't the UK a "supranational union"? Ausseagull (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Wow, paranoia at work there. I was simply referring to the fact that this is not a particularly valuable thing to be teaching. I sometimes enjoy eating curry, Chinese food, and so on. The idea that a nation/ethnic group's cuisine is equivalent to them, as some leftists seem to believe, is actually the more racist viewpoint. There was a story in the news concerning a child who took a disliking to eating curry at school or something like that, and the child was seen as 'racist'. To be honest, I'd say that equating a race, ethnic or religious group with a type of food is in fact more racist than not doing so - it's playing on old stereotypes. Potatoes and chocolate came from South America. Coffee comes from Ethiopia. None of these are particularly today associated with these lands. Also, the supranational union in question was of course the EU.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Also, whatever happened to the idea of ethnic groups having a homeland? On top of that, 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) At first I thought you were joking - albeit distastefully. You obviously have a real problem. I see plenty of mixed race couples who seem quite happy, and I can't think that killing one of them would benefit anybody, let alone thier children. You will, of course, have a problem defining race, which caused various difficulties in apartheid South Africa. Doubtless the BNP would set up a quango to deal with this issue. Anyhow, as we will surely be told, correctly, this forum is for discussing improvements to the article, not your own views, unless they are BNP policy, in which case they should be in the article. Finally, yes I know that the supranational body you referred to is the EU. But you presumably agree that the UK is also a supranational body, on which we have never had a referendum. Will we be allowed one by the BNP? Ausseagull (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) That would be racist and fascist, and disgusting, would you force all disabled people to ring bells as if they were nothing more but lepers?. What about people with rickets, would you force them to walk off of a cliff? British people don't have an ethnic homeland we're multicultural now let's celebrate it, so why do we have the right to kick people out of this country just because they are "foreign"? Would you kick half-Jews out from the cricket team? Our fastest runners are black. There is a kebab shop on every corner. There were black people in this country hundreds of years ago, in fact in one BBC TV series DNA tests showed that some white people were actually Iranian or from Zimbabwe. What about Bangladeshi kids whose parents and grandparents were born here, surely they have turned British now? How do you even know what British is? What is a British person? Isn't it racist to exclude other ethnicities from being English? Ergo we are multicultural. As soon as the BNP get into power they will start wearing their blackshirts and parade around in black Mercedes' visiting concentration camps. Steak and kidney pie? Will you enforce black people to eat pie and mash? White people can't dance. I bet you'd even cut back the NHS, so unhealthy people die instead of continuing to live on and contribute to society. That's intolerant and fascist. Me and Ausseagull are the only ones willing to admit to reality, which is that the BNP are fascist and racist or knuckle-dragging thugs for trying to point out flaws in multiculturalism or talking about it as if it is illogical. They wear suits now but believe me they used to have skinheads and walk about beating up people. Good luck making friends if you're not a liberal. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Cool story bro.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC) In a small town a few miles away from the village I live in in Somerset there is a well-mannered Chinese guy who runs a small takeaway. Would you threaten him with violence even though he is making a contribution to society, or would you just discriminate him because you don't think he is "British" enough. Please choose from those two options only. Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC) You got work to go to tomorrow? Evidently not. I know I do. Goodnight.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) The fastest runners are black. The best gymnasts are from East Asia. Hence, the genetic and undeniable differences between races.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Race has nothing to do with running fast, they are just happen to be better motivated. To say that they can only run fast just because they are black is a gross, unacceptable generalisation, and also is insulting to their abilities. It's just skin colour we're all the same deep down. Except that white people can't dance or invent good music! lol Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Hence proving that you're probably black, due to your anti-white racism. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were the leader of Unite Against Fascism or someone like him. Personally, I'm white, Scottish, 6'4" and do weights in my room every day. Music? Hahaha, you don't even know. I like Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix and so on too, you know. And guess what? I still support the BNP.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Remember folks, we're just here to discuss improvements to the article, not to discus the BNP. As for the issues Ausseagull raises, we can't say anything in the article of we don't have sources for it. Unfortunately, there probably aren't any that address those topics.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I've never seen any aspect of BNP policy which proposes to address that which the questioner refers to. I assume the idea must be that the NHS will simply struggle by, massively understaffed, for many years until plenty of white Doctors and Nurses are trained up? But there seems to be no official line. As with the great majority of their policies, in lieu of considered policy there is bold statement and little else. Setwisohi (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) And you think it's moral to continue to rob the undeveloped world (I don't like the term 'developing world' for lands that never will develop) of their doctors and other professionals who are desperately needed in their home countries? That's exactly what those people (i.e. the mainstream political parties in most western countries) in favour of globalisation and corporate totalitarianism want - a system of permanent inequality.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Interesting suggestion from AgglutinativeSerfdom about the death penalty for miscegenation there, which neatly illustrates my point that BNP voters are threatening not only my family, but also wish to kill me. Perhaps outside the wiki guidelines there, but good to see the cloven hoof exposed for a moment. However what you have to consider Mr. Glutinous is this - do you feel lucky?--Streona (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"whites-only" political parties to be banned in the UK.

Harriet Harman told the Commons: "We have all been shocked and horrified by the fact that two great regions of this country - the North-West and Yorkshire and Humberside - are represented by the British National Party - a party who have in their constitution a provision that you cannot be a member if you are not white. See discussion above on folk communities. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23706702-details/Bill+will+ban+%27white-only%27+BNP/article.do93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BNp statement confirming "indigenous population membership criteria"- http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/bnp-membership-qualifications-still-wholly-legal-says-bnp-leader/93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the UK continuing its slide towards a one-party police state? The BNP are still not a major party, and can surely be fended off with the right words and the right policies.--MartinUK (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Martin, I think you're right. As long as we address them in the kind of language these people understand. Shame the Government is still committed to faith schools.--Streona (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What black, asian or any non white person would join the BNP anyway? Likelife (talk)

Lawrence Rustem, Patricia Richardson and Sharif Abdel Gawad all come to mind, depending on your definition. Specifically, anybody opposed to Islamic influence in Britain has no other party to turn to - be they Apostate, Jewish, Hindu, homosexual, swinger or whatever.--MartinUK (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What White British person in their right mind who is not an utter piece of scum would join the BNP either? --Streona (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remember folks, this is not a forum for the discussion of the BNP. We're here solely to discuss improvement to the article. Unless this thread has anything to do with the article I'll delete it.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This information is currently lacking from the article, it should be added, as part of a section on membership criteria/eligibility It is important.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the party have a purity criteria?[[Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]]

There is the definition of the various "folk communities". Griffin has said that there is no such thing as Black or Asian British and that "you can just tell". I also believe that there is a system of probationary membership, which would allow the leadershiop the discretion to let sdomeone in, so even if a black or Asian person wanted to join, this would ultimately be at Griffin's discretion, which would scupper any attempt by Harman to "pasteurise" the BNP. Obviously Griffin is going to have to tighten up a legal definition as to who can stay in Britain come the glorious day that the BNP seize power as lives will depend upon it. Brons said on TV that only people who can trace residency & citizenship back to 1948 would be permitted to remain, but they also favour the white Commonwealth and diaspora.--Streona (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So I take it then that there is no criteria as to what racial make up a person needs to qualify for membership of one of those "folk communities", other then "you can just tell". So (and this does seem to be the case if some of the examples are to be belived) that some one of partial Caucasian heratige can be a member. Thi8s would tend to mean that if such a law as proposed was brought in the govenment or courts would have to define the racial heratige of mixed race persons or accept that they belong to both races (and thus enabaling the BNP to obey the law without having to let in 'pure' non-whites). [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Gawad is accepted as British but just happens to have an unusual name. Rustem is the Chair or whatever, of the Ethnic Minority Liaison Team which was set up some years ago by Griffin in order to windup Sikhs & Hindus etc. to hate Muslims. However he remains its only member. This does not necessarily confer actual party membership, for what that's worth seeing as you don't actually get to vote on anything. I am informed -mostly by BNP supporters on this page- that the BNP do not approve of mixed-race relationships, so presumably wish that mixed-race people had never been born, let alone apply for membership. My own son, who is Anglo-Asian, fortunately has a more progressive attitude and suggests feeding BNP members live to Komodo dragons at London Zoo. This would undoubtedlty boost ticket sales. He might think that,but I could not possibly comment, but I would pay good money to watch that, but only if the dragons were protected from ingesting Griffin's plastic eyeball.--Streona (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The system of probationary membership is described in the constitution =5)All new members of the party shall remain probationary members for twenty-four months from the date of joining and can have their membership terminated by the party’s National Chairman or by an officer authorised by him to do so without recourse to the disciplinary procedure laid down in Section 6. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Rustem has also stood in both council and parliamentary elections. He is a BNP counsellor in the Barking and Dagenham council http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/elections/results/election-results.cfm?id=65078F32-D56B-8B67-E3B78017093DCB1E clearly states that he stood as a candidate for the BNP.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=172678&sectioncode=26 describes as a senior BNP official.

Mr Gawad may be considerd British by the BNP, that’s my point. Mr Gawwad is not ‘pure’ Caucasian he has in fact an Armenian Grand Father http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/08/uk.race . Now the source also makes it clear that there was opposition to his selcion on the gounds he is not white enough. So what we have is a situation were Mr Griffin seems to think that Mr Gawad is whitewhilst many in the grass roots of the party do not, so it is not clear cut that the racial criteria are. Now what would he be classed as under the proposed legislation?

[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Brons said on TV that people should only be allowed to remain in Britain if they have ancestors who were British citizens in 1948. Whether this is the same as the criteria for BNP membership is unclear. I think that Rustem, Richardson & Gawwad would meet this criterion.--Streona (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then a source to that effect would be usefull, otherwise we are dealing with OR.[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]]

here is a source for deportations http://bnp.org.uk/2007/12/countering-the-smears/ for party membership qualifications see "members of which folk communities..." above. BNP party documents are not OR.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should have made my self clearer. We need a source that establishes the membership citeria for the BNP. Thre are already a number of 'non-whites' in the party, at least in one sense that they have one 'non-white' parent or granparent. So the question becomes (and this is what we need the source for) what are the racial makeup criteria for being considerd white in the BNP. It seems that being 50% white counts (abnd lower).Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't need this at all. The article states that the BNP is a whites-only party, and gives a reference which any reader may follow to the source on the BNP's website. There is no need for Wikipedia to go into any greater detail about what percentage of "white" makes "white" or whatever - this is pure racist eugenic nonsense that is best left on the BNP's site for them to explain. Emeraude (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy the source does not use the phrase white, so it is extrapalation to claim it does. "those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain" does allow for 'non-white' membership, as the examples above demonstrate. No were does it ban or restict membership to only those who are 'white' because it niether uses the phrase nor defines the meaning.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the times and guardian http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article703310.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/apr/08/uk.race in 2004 Nick Griffin tried to force through rule changes allowing non-whites to join the BNP". According to the Griffin File in 2004 Griffin attempted to push for a change in the very rules of membership the pretext for this being anticipated new legislation that would force the party to accept non-white members - a supposition for which there was not the slightest foundation. Less than three weeks after that, Mr. Griffin altered direction again, announcing on the BNP website that the change in membership rules would not be made after all - this being in response to massive grass-roots opposition from the party. http://www.aryanunity.com/WNP/griffinfile1.html .93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But (I shall ask it again) is there a source for that they consider 'white'? The question is not that they are an all white partry but how they difine it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They do not say, but neither do they seem to dispute, that they are white only, defined by the constitution obliquely as "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of 'Indigenous Caucasian'", see http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/08/bnp-racist-membership-policy - according to brons ""It's the people of this country who were descended from people who were in this country say from the period after the second world war when the country was relatively homogenous.", Nick Grifin -""You just look and you just know,".93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But they do have members (and councilers) who are of ethnic origin. As such it cannot be proved that they are 'all-white' unless you define (they do not have to as they are not the one making the claim) what it measn to be white. To be included in the artcile it must be demostrable that they are resticting mebership to whites only, not that they might be (that is supersition).Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is all totally redundant. The issue of the BNP being a whites-only party has been discussed here several times (see archive, and section 6 above: Talk:British National Party#Whites only and it was concluded that, yes, the BNP is whites only. But never mind what Wikipedia editors say. Nick Griffin himself has said as much when asked on TV after the election (justifying himself by saying that the Black Police Association is all black so the BNP can be all white). See, for example, interview with David Dimbleby. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous British and assimilable aboriginal members of the European race

This isn't the place to discuss the integrity or consistency of the BNP's citizenship or immigration policies. Bigbluefish (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a bit unsure about what Indigenous British means for the BNP. If I understand it correctly they would like to see the Jamaicans, Indians and Africans leave, as well as the Polish, the French, the Swiss and all those Germans, this obviously also includes all the Angles and Saxons, but should Celts be allowed to stay in Britain, or do they also have to leave, for obviously the Picts were the first here, right? Iago212 06:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) “DNA shows that most white people can trace a link with Britain back to just after the last Ice Age." SO Neanderthals then? -Nick Griffin on Channel 5--Streona (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC) So according to Mr Grffin all you need is a DNA link to be counted as indigenous?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)]] I have lots of Polish mates so I for one am not racist.Anti-Racist Cockney (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Its also not relevantSlatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Nick Griffin said "You just look and you just know", but Celts are ok according to the constitution," - "The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain."93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) So is 1066 the line you draw then? Everyone who had arrived by then is indigenous, and anyone who came later is not? Iago212 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Which month?--Streona (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Why not? It is an important part of the party's policy, and needs to be understood in order to feature in the article. If it is inconsistent, or unclear this should be mentioned in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC) If it is inconsistent or unclear in any notable way not already covered in the article then notable sources will exist from which we can draw. At no point is there any need to resort to veiled debates between the BNP's supporters and opponents to source this information. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I would partialy agree with both of you. It is inportant (given the nature of, and accusations against, the BNP) to know exactly how they define 'white' (given the accusation that they are an all 'white' party), taking into account the fact that at least one of the ethnic groups that need to be made mebers of the BNP (jews) already do appear to be allowed in. By the saem token it seemed that the above debate did n ot use or relly upon reliable .sources but seemed to degenerate into a ridicule not Reliable source argument.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with Slatersteven- this is an appropriate place "to discuss the integrity or consistency of the BNP's citizenship or immigration policies", which are not adequately covered in the article, but the debate above did not add to the knowledge in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Because that's not what talk pages are forWP:N --Nate1481 11:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Folk Groups

Under the Discussion" on Nick Griffin, there's a reference to "Folk Groups", with an implication that we're all to be divided into groups such as Celt, Norse, Anglo-Saxon etc. Is there any truth in this? Ausseagull (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the Red White & Blue Nurnberg Rally is given to encourage Morris Dancing and they claim the support of Winston Churchill ("Try anything once except incest & Morris dancing" - they would probably aspprove of racially pure inbeeding too). I don't know if they have any Colin Auty CDs left (since they chucked him out for challenging the Fuhrerprinzip) at Excalibur, but I would prefer to be part of the Steeleye Span Folk Group.--Streona (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

or Ralph McTell --Streona (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See "Members of which Folk Communities allowed to Join the Party" above.93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The bbc confirms it too - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114619.stm93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all very folksy and homespun, but the trouble with such policies and labels is that they're not clear cut. Presumably some sort of quango will have to be set up to resolve who is "white" (and welcome) and who is "non-white" (and unwelcome). I believe that there are precedents and case law to be drawn from South Africa in apartheid days (and probably in Nazi Germany). I doubt if the BNP has addressed this issue, but if they have it needs to go into the article.

The other issue that would have to be addressed is how to fill job vacancies created by the departure of hundreds of thousands of vacancies non-whites who have been "encouraged" to leave. This will need a massive and expensive programme of education and training. Again, has this been addressed and should it be mentioned? Ausseagull (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discused already at some length, please stop draging it up. Ther es little o o iformation avaible as to what the BNP mean by this, and even less about how they actualy intend to enforced it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be added to the article in some form, which may be controversial, and has yet to happen. Some sources -"the party’s constitution states that only people belonging to folk communities which arrived in Britain before the Battle of Hastings in 1066 can join" http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/109619/BNP-leader-face-jail-for-ban-on-non-whites- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that the partys constitution does not say that, it just says that you have belong to one of the folk commnities to join, now how they are definied.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Express is a reliable source, even if it is wrong.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No if a source is wrong it is not reliable on that subject. But I do take it then you accpt that the BNP makes no such claim about hastings within its consititution?Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in the constitution I have seen, but we have to respect Reliable Sources, and the article is proof that people believe it, which is noteworthy in itself.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have to repect what peopel say about say about themsleves, not what otehrs accuse them of.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Accusations are acceptable in wikipedia, if presented as such, and reliably sourced.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that we are dealing with a source that has claimed that a document the BNP published contains something it does not, that is a lie no matrer what the source. Now if you can rpovide the section of the latest BNP consitutioin that makes the claim then please do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be original research.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What would be? It is no OR to say that the BNP's current constitution does not say what your source says it says (you can read the consitutioin for yourself).Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

BNP faces legal threat over membership policies

Perhaps this should be added to the article.... "The Equal opportunities commission thinks that this requirement is contrary to the Race Relations Act, which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation," a statement released by the commission says. "The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally."

Other potential breaches of the law raised in the letter include concerns that the BNP's elected representatives may not intend to offer or provide services on an equal basis to all their constituents irrespective of race and their membership criteria. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/23/bnp-membership-policies-legal-threat93.96.148.42 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But the Labour Party supports the establishment of more faith schools that openly discriminate on a similar basis. addition to the thousands I already pay for but cannot send my son to. I await the outcome with interest and look forward to a few Labour MPs being treated in a similar manner. --Streona (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the right's and wrongs of the politics, (and while I agree it is daft) an encyclopaedia reports the idiocy contraction facts and leaves it @ that. We can report on other peoples published views of the policy and contradictions. --Nate1481 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its also not been resolved, what happens if the BNP say they will comply, and then find some dodge (like employing some one who is half Turkish). Indead this has not yet been tested in court. As such it is (at this time) an unsubstantiated accusation (and if printed here and poorley worded could be libalas). I feel at this time perhaps it should be left out untill we know the outcome.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Griffin set up the "Ethnic Liaison Committee" for this very contigency some years back. What has changed is that with EU funding the BNP will be in a position to actually employ people using public money for which they are required to be - at least in theory- accountable for, although given the record of our representatives in employing close family members, we should not depend upon that. What the BNP would like is to achieve a sanitised version of themselves, whilst still retaining their racist & fascist core intentions.--Streona (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Which to an extent means that the The Equal opportunities commission has jumped the gun a bit as at this time the BNP are still to recive this money. As such the article could also be accused the same, publishing an unsubtantiated accusasion, one that technicly the BNP may not have even had the chance to break. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether they are jumping the gun is not for us to decide, the fact the a statutory body is considering legal action against a political party (on a subject the party is already controversial for) is notable. As long as we stick to reporting what they have publicly said then it is reasonable and a report of their views published in The Guardian is easily classed as an 'exceptional reference' to support an for the exceptional statement. --Nate1481 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

its the Equality and Human Rights Commission--Streona (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wopse wrong Qango, thanks for spotting that! --Nate1481 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that they have not sadi they are thinking of leagal action. thye article says that "We await a response from the BNP to our letter before deciding what further action we may take, ". the full text is here by the way http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/bnp-commission-takes-action-over-potential-breach-of-race-discrimination-law/. It makes it clear that no legal action is threatned and that the commision has just asked for an undertaking from the BNP to comply with the law. As I have said if we put this in we have to be very sure of how we word it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I had got the gave the wrong impression, I was summarising. From the phrasing it sounded like the EHRC the felt there was a case unless the BNP gives assurances and follows through, which would necessitate a change in its constitution and comments from the BNP imply this is unlikely. Both sides are stating legal opinions that they are right, so the EHRC would be considering (in the event the BNP don't back down) legal action; a little bit of a [[WP:Synthesis] possibly, but for a 2 sentence talk page summary let me a have a little space for interpretation :D. I have written a section in the article which in light of these comment may want to be moved from the legal section if you feel it is the wrong place I think the content is ok (diff) if you could read it for neutral phrasing that would be great. --Nate1481 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That would rather depend on how the BNP reacts. But we cannot preempt any desicion by either party. At this time no threat of legal action exists, 0ne may be implied but is not specific. oreover with the exception oif the employment issue much of the letter seems to be aboout ifs and maybes. This seems to be the only area were the commision actualy (and definalty) thinks the BNP may (but they do rather seem to hedge their bets with this as well) be in breach of the law.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the bbc "In a statement, the commission said the BNP's constitution and membership criteria appeared to discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, in breach of the Race Relations Act.

The party's rules appeared to restrict membership to those within what the BNP regarded as particular "ethnic groups", the commission added. It also said the party's website asked job applicants to supply a membership number, which appeared to be in breach of legislation banning the "refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114619.stm93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have supplied the actual letter, that is all that should be used.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the primary source, however wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and they should be used too.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that we are dealing with a quote, and a source that mis-qoutes cannot beaccurate about that subject.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that Original Research, or is it sourced?.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven's source threatens "an application for a legal injunction against the BNP". That IS a threat of legal action -"The Commission has demanded that the party address potential breaches related to its constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to the public and constituents.The letter, sent to the party chairman Nick Griffin, outlines the Commission’s concerns about the BNP’s compliance with the Race Relations Act. The letter asks the BNP to provide written undertakings by 20th July that it will make the changes required by the Commission. Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/bnp-commission-takes-action-over-potential-breach-of-race-discrimination-law/93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It also says (the full sentance). "Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." So it is not stating they are considering legal action but that there is the posibility that legal action may occour. If it said that legal action will occour then we could say its been it has been considerd. Both this line (when quoted in full) as well as the rest of the text makes it clear that no such undertaking has in fact been made or considerd. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a threat-An act of coercion wherein a negative consequence is proposed to elicit response - failure to comply with the instruction may lead to a legal injunction against the BNP. You can argue as to what kind of threat it is, but it is a threat.93.96.148.42 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a threat of legal action. It is a threat (if you can call it that) that they may take legal action, but that they have not decided. They have not proposed they will take legal action, they have propsed that they will think about thinking about taking legal action. That is the point, it wouold seem tha tthe4y have not discused or decided upon their next course of action. Nor are they even sure that legal action is actualy validSlatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

<-Sorry but saying "It is not a threat of legal action. It is a threat ... that they may take legal action," is a contradiction or semantics, either way I think the current phrasing is fine, but if 'threatening' works better then 'Considering' please change it. My view was that 'considering' implied that no decision to act had been made, where threatening implies that if the circumstances fit they have already decided. --Nate1481 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.50.85 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Here's some welcome pages if you want to find out about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Welcome and Wikipedia:Introduction.

Sadly, the British National Party page is currently protected from edits by new users, but please feel free to suggest improvements on this talk page. Get an account and make a few edits and you will automatically be able to edit this page. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

At last, a source...

Here you go, a published third party (you decide on the reliability) source that claims, with explained reasons, that the BNP is not fascist.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jul09/page10.html

"Others, on the Far Left, want to take a more confrontational attitude towards the BNP. They say it is a fascist party and that it should be physically "smashed" before it has a chance to smash political democracy. One problem with this is that the BNP is not a fascist party. Some of its leaders have expressed pro-Nazi sympathies in the past (and may well still harbour them) but, unlike the Nazi party in pre-1933 Germany, the BNP is not blaming parliamentary democracy for causing working-class problems. If it did, it wouldn't get the votes it does. It blames workers' problems on immigration and immigrants. So, it is anti-foreigner and racist, which is objectionable enough, but that's not the same as fascism."

Socialist Standard, July 2009, Author Adam Buick.

--Red Deathy (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Published in the monthly newspaper of a political party with 150-500 members.93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The SPGB has always had a worthy but idiosyncratic take on many matters. I suggest that if we look at the implications of a BNP state and compare what they say they will do with a fascist - opr better yet a nazi state and look for similarilities and differences. Griffin may go around claiming that he is not a fascist for PR purposes yet at the same time wishes to introduce a state based upon racial purity, denying all civil rights to ethnic minorities who fail to leave the country (including housing, employment, education & medical care) which will lead to them being accommodated in camps. The right to vote will be dependent upon having completed National Service. Capital punishment will be introduced for "treason". I do not recall Trade Union policy right now, but I doubt whether beer & sandwiches will be on the menu for anyone except Pat Harrington's "One Big Union". If that is not fascism then it might as well be.--Streona (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer is to put a paragraph in that says, "they are often called fascists this is disputed by other commentators and denied by the party" part of the problem is that the definition of fascist is not clear, often to people who using it in this context, but if we get into that, it's a world of research & synthesis. --Nate1481 08:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which "other commentators"? That is not the right way to write the article, esp if there is only one!93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing, Im not suggesting that wording be used only the gist of it. If it's a disputed point report both sides (saying who they are) & leave it @ that, unless one is an irreverent minority (which the subject it is not) or if there is a broad consensus for one side (e.g. on humans causing global warming, still disputed enough that the dispute is relevant) then that should be reported to.--Nate1481 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)