This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
A peer review has been undertaken of this article, I think the points raised are valid and need careful discussion and implementation.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a section on BNP members being sacked as a result of their political activities. Some have been sacked simply for membership- in one case for being a councillor- while others such as a teacher face being struck off for specific activities, such as posting on stormfront during work hours.-- Streona ( talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Theunhappymitten ( talk)theunhappymitten why would you want to scare of members wikipedia is not a tool used to change peoples politics it is used to educate people on a none bias bases ...
I had not really seen it like that- I was trying to be conciliatory, but why not? Or should we keep it shtum and get them sacked once they join? Is that kind? Why not just be NPOV ? -- Streona ( talk) 09:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought the news item was the teacher was simply viewing the BNP website during work hours. Sounds like his political (human) rights being violated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7627055.stm
So I see steonas point this section could detail incidences of BNP members human rights being infringed.
Yes. There are several aspects here.
I will look into this and sand box it. Whether or not we support "BNP human rights" or not, we can keep it factual and NPOV-- Streona ( talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Its not a case of supporting them this is irrelevant. Your points except maybe 3. which is ambiguous, are all human rights violations. It would be a POV to ommit "human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 ( talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There are human rights issues. The courts have not necessarily agreed that there have been violations. I will try to look out some facts and leave the reader judge.-- Streona ( talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sterona calls himself an "anti fascist" yet he's more than prepeared to use Fascist tatics on wikipedia. tutut —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.110.39.82 (
talk)
17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This section transcribed directly from the peer review for discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.
Thanks, Lucy-marie ( talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
According to this section, members of fascist and communist organisations are banned from membership of the British armed forces. The source given was THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY ( here) but a detailed search in this document for 'fascist', 'communist' and similar words draws a complete blank. The regs do state that service personnel may not engage in overt political activity for any party (indeed, a serving soldier etc may not be an MP). Perhaps someone can find the exact reference and cite it properly. Meanwhile, I have removed the section. Emeraude ( talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall when I was in the Navy being told this, but this would be OR-- Streona ( talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright is it really right to say the BNP are far-right/extreme right? I don't know if this has already been debated. TJ, 1926 GMT 29/09/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.166.248 ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
NPA please |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If the biased POV pushers such as streona emaurade think that they are keeping the pressure on the BNP and somehow winning a battle against them, they are mistaken. They are actually helping them along this article is the joke of wiki. It has so many citations especialy for the info box contents. When compared with other parties whose political stance is unsourced or taken directly from the parties themselves. Why is the BNP the only party not allowed to say what it is with out 20 BBC citations to back it up. Its as if people in their effort to hammer the BNP are just unaware of how the article looks. If you don't get what I'm saying and stubbornly refuse to write a balanced article you are giving the BNP more publicity then you believe. Do you honestly think anyone but brainwashed saps would not see that lack of neutrality and obvious agenda by people who hate and fear this party. Might I suggest this article as another referance point for neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord notice it dosen't have 20 thousand citations calling it fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I have added two extra sections in an attempt to make the article more empathetic to the BNP (Councillors Achievements and BNP Difficulties with Employment). Your point seems to be that the article is pro-BNP now, which should please the anon contributors to this talk page, whose only contributions are personal abuse. Most people in Britain (and most of the anon IP numbers do not appear to be from Britain) have the impression that the BNP are a vicious, racist party and would be surprised to find an article that does not reflect this. Who was it said- "You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig"? People reading the article will find a great deal of factual information and may make of it what they will. The discussion of attempts to "clean up" seem to be based on the idea of deletion rather than progress, but even so they, like the last unsigned contribution are lacking in specific details, apart from complaining that it is TOO well sourced. My understanding of the Lega Nord is that it IS fascist, but I'll put down my Searchlight and check the article.-- Streona ( talk) 06:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Interesting, but the idea of opening fire on immigrants disturbs me somewhat.-- Streona ( talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia 58.168.3.132! And what is the weather like in Sydney? You would be the same 58.168.3.132 who thinks that I should leave my country because I approve of mixed-race marriages (see Talk:Nick Griffin). You would not have a POV agenda of explicit hardline racism and some atavistic nostalgia for the days of transportation by any chance then? Do you really expect the rest of us to as well? So the article does not suit your POV? Well, tough.-- Streona ( talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have read the number of personal attacks against me, you will realise this is nothing. I am attacking hardline racism. If you take that as personal, then perhaps you might need to consider your own views. As 58.168.3.132 has not been signed on as a user for 48 hours,how could I have attacked her or him in that period? If you would sign your posts I would be able to tell if you are the same person who expects me to leave my country becfause I am not a racist. Now that, is a personal attack, which is incredibly offensive. I am not saying the article is or should be POV - I am saying that the article is not supportive of racism, which seems to annoy a lot of people who are. No doubt a properly referenced article which backs up facts with more than mere assertions is off-putting to some people unused to a level of debate transcending that of a fist-fight.Welcome to wikipedia- keep it clean.-- Streona ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Wow did you actually read what I wrote. I object to being called a hardline racist, I have no problem with mixed relationships but apparently you have an issue with homogenous relationships. Its in my belief its a person choice of freedom to pick a partner. However I don't agree with being forced(bombarded with propaganda) to mix or being labeled a racist if I object to it. In Australia we had an issue with the stolen generation and the belief the aborigines could be completely assimilated(to the aborigines benefit) in a matter of generations. This concept of forced assimilation is abhorrent. I feel a similar event is being forced on whites globally as their have been numerous multicultural displays advocating this. One example I can remember maybe a decade ago was a display in melbourne showing a line up of three faces that had been generated by morphing asian, black, caucasian faces etc to get picture. With the messages "This is the future face of Australia" and " A brown future" etc. The faces themselves could be best described as stock photos of maybe brazilian models with overall brown eyes brown hair brown skin and all identical. This struck me as something the germans would of done during the 1930-40s displaying the ideal "ayran" or somesuch. Only this display was displaying the ideal "multicultural citizen" and there was no diversity. If you have an issue with this maybe you should leave my ancestral homeland of Britian and move to a non-democratic country like Cuba where you can advocate Heterosis to your hearts content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
Lucy-marie took out "Fascism" and "Islamophobia" from the "Political Ideology" section of the infobox. There's no references for islamophobia, and that's not really an ideology anyway; but there are references for fascism. Could someone check those references and add it back if needed? -- h2g2bob ( talk) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Has the Project_Fascism guidelines to determine if a party should be labeled fascist when it has not come to power. It has to meet 6 of the 7 criteria. It already fails 7.declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement. Does it pass the other points?
Welcome to Wikipedia ! You can sign your edits with four tildes ~ although I prefer to click on the signing icon on the task bar above. -- Streona ( talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:
Can we discuss this, before unilaterally hitting the delete button again ?-- Streona ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Standards Board for England found that it was permissible to call the BNP "Nazi" and actions for libel in this manner have failed.-- Streona ( talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So what we ae not the Sandards Board for English.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
We're not the BBC either, but we still use them as a source.The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party. Case no. SBE10144.05 -- Streona ( talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The source no matter how relevant anyone thinks it is cannot be used because it requires original research and interpretation. It says it "could" not "must" or "should" so that is ambiguous.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please prove the source yourself, surley an online version must be avaliable of at least one of them.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but wouldn't findings by this board be unpublished material. Also on streona discussion page he appears to be compiling information on the BNP and adding it to the article this would be original research, synthesis WP:SYN of sources is against wikipedia policy. Does anyone concur? (humbleAnon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Voluntaryslave asks for reasons why the sources would be inappropriate. Well citation 7, 8 and 9 are all prior 2005 the party is regarded as having changed direction at that time (due to the change in leadership earlier Im assuming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 06:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly read source 10. You pretty much answered your own question. Source 10 atleast covers the party changes in ideology during this time the other sources don't because they are out of date. The party has enjoyed success since then so obviously something changed. This is the most up to date source on their ideology out of the 4 citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
fascism to fascism" then it is fascist! Change "in the partys direction, methods etc." does not stop it being fascist. If there has been a signifcant change in its direction, methods etc. the place to mention this is in a suitable part of the article itself, NOT in the part of the infobox dealing with ideology, which, as you say, may have changed from fascist to fascist. Emeraude ( talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Heres hoping you understood that. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.168.3.132 (
talk)
01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The Standards Board case can be found here, under the heading "case 2"
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Standards%20Committee/20050720/Agenda/Item05.pdf
It is not on the SBE website but Buckinghamshire County Council are presumably trustworthy. As for my talk page- I use it to sandbox lengthy contributions before posting an edit. I realise that many of the most vocal editors on this talk page make little substantive contributions to wikipedia, but I do. My recent efforts regarding the BNP have been in order to find something positive to say about them, such as the case of Simone Clarke, being the latest. Is there a problem?-- Streona ( talk) 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
To avoid going over old ground again and again and again (see Archives ad nauseam): 1 The references in the infobox to the BNP being fascist are fully acceptable to Wikipedia. 2 If anyone wants to claim that the BNP somehow changed in 2004 or 2005 or whenever and is no longer fascist, they are guilty of POV or OR unless 3 they provide acceptable third party sources to the standard of the existing sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies. These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed - and the result has been zero. I read a number of academic political studies journals and have seen nothing of the sort. I don't read them all, so it's just possible I've missed something, but I doubt it. So there's the challenge: supply a reliable, independent, academic, third party, accessible source that says the BNP is not fascist. Until you do, there is no justification for removing 'fascism' from the infobox. Emeraude ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Pathetic. You yourself just showed your own biass with "BNP apologists". I can point to sevreal that I posted links to, but they were ignored.
Just put and leave it at, "Fascism (denied by bnp). Or is there a horrific chance that people might think the BNP are not fascist as a result? Your life and Sterona's would be over if that happended eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.131 ( talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be getting a bit academic for some, but hey that's what its all about. Welcome to Wikipedia 79.71.218.131, First time caller? Of course we could just put down "dregs & scum". I'd be happy with that, but let's stick with it, shall we ?-- Streona ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
All this knockabout stuff is great up to a point, but its all a bit one-sided. People like Emeraude make serious points and substantive contributions to the actual article, moderated by some serious editors like LucyMarie and then there are anonymous people who become offensive and take the mick and these are all the pro-BNP POV editors. Why is this? I think some people can actually do better than this and raise the standard of debate here a bit. If you want to mix it with the banter and repartee, then I think you should also contribute in a serious way as well. -- Streona ( talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
oh, yeah- and the spelling-- Streona ( talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is rediculous, it has already been proven by various non biass sources that third positionism isn't one of thier beliefs. We've been through this before. Take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.49 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by SineBot-->
There are no sources to back it up.Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.153 ( talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
One problem with using websites as references is that they change or disappear over time. This is not a problem with printed resources - books, newspapers and journals are always available in libraries and archives. The problem is compounded in this article because the BNP completely revamped its website earlier this year following internal squabbles which resulted in the webmaster of the BNP's site leaving (or being expelled - depending on who says). Unfortunately, a large number of references in this article have now fallen foul of time, the vast majority of them from the BNP. Although all were live and perfectly correctly used at the time they were added, it may be that they now need to be updated. There are several ways this can be done I would suggest:
I have gone through all the references and listed below those that appear to be dead. I will start to search for alternatives and invite other editors to do the same. Please strikethrough those you manage to sort out. I would suggest that in a few weeks' time we review the list and assess progress.
THE LIST
NOTE: Edits may cause these to be renumbered, so the reference numbers here refer to the version of the article dated 10:49, 2 October 2008, numbered version 242468527
Paragraph 2 in the section "Opposition" reads as follows:
Some observations. Firstly, the reference 198 is a dead link to the CRE website (the CRE as such no longer existing), to a press release entitled "CRE Chair calls on Conservatives to see off the BNP", apparently at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, 2003. I have searched the CRE database of press statements and failed to find this. However this suggests that this press release does/did exist, but the link from there is to another item altogether (a PR for a speech to the CBI in Birmingham).
Secondly, regardless that the original PR is apparently unavailable, the assertion made here in Wikipedia is silly. The major parties have always stood candidates in seats they are unlikely to win - it's what elections are for!
Thirdly, the second sentence is almost as silly, but in any case is not backed up the reference given (an article by Trevor Phillips in the Observer).
My suggestion is to simply delete this paragraph. It really adds nothing to the assertion that the mainstream media and parties oppose the BNP. However, it might be an idea to move the final paragraph of the introduction to this section, which seems a more logical place for it. Comments? Emeraude ( talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In the Employment Tribunal Redfearn was represented by Lee Barnes LLB Hons (or "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" as Adrian Davies refers to him ) the BNP legal officer. Barnes contended that Redfearn was being racially discriminated against for his membership of the BNP as it was a whites-only racist organisation. Presumably if one were to assert otherwise one would be accusing Barnes of perjury (although not actually on oath) which would be potentially libellous. I found the case on Cloisters website, but you have to click on a further link to go to the case http://www.cloisters.com/info_case_profile.php?caseID=177&returl=search.php%3F%26amp%3Bkeywords%3Dserco - -- Streona ( talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS that's "Streona LLB (Hons)"-- Streona ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)LLB (Hons)
Its not just my opinion, but it was central to the argument advanced by Barnes according to the judgement. Redfearn claimed that he was a member of a whites only racist organisation and was sacked, but that had he been a member of a blacks-only allegedly racist organisation he would not have been and that therefore he was racially discrminated against. Thus the conclusion that the BNP are a whites-only racist organisation is the opinion of the BNPs own legal officer (or "Director of the BNP Legal Department" whatever that is)and he argued that in court. Thus if anyone says on this talk page that they are NOT a whites-only racist party they are accusing Lee Barnes and Arthur Redfearn of lying to the Employment Tribunal, which would be defamatory and potentially libellous which would never do. I have stated that I am a law graduate in order to take the mick out of Lee Barnes who is apt to style himself as LLB(Hons) and takes on cases which he often loses leaving the likes of the unfortunate Sharon Ebanks to pick up the tab. Its nothing to do with OR or COI; I am not a practising lawyer. I could append it to the article, as a direct quote from the judgement (who are presumably not POV), but I thought I would put in talk first in order to resolve the colourful - and often personally abusive- debate we have so enjoyed here. I would not suggest putting in the "Bonkers Bagel" reference here but it is on the Adrian Davies article and variously appears on Stormfront etc. -- Streona ( talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)LLB(Hons)
This post by streona doesn't make sense the BNP dosen't refer to itself as a racist party or hold itself out to be ( and when does any group want to refer to itself as racist to a court in this day and age ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It seems that the BNP's legal expert has argued before a tribunal that the party is a whites only party and that his client has suffered racial discrimination because he is a member of a whites only organisation. Seems like a potential case of shooting oneself in the foot. Emeraude ( talk) 08:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the racist part. Which is obviously a abit of POV thats been bolted on somewhere inbetween the original statement and streonas comment. Which I think lucy-marie was referring to. One thing needs to be made clear did he use that exact phrase? I can't see how it can be a libellous anyway they're have been plenty of cases when ethnic-only groups comprised of different ethnicities have claimed racial discrimination or have come to the aid of one of their own claiming racial discrimination. For instance recently your black police association has had individuals who wouldn't be classified as black claiming members have been discriminated. Hmm but interestingly you have just argued for a reason to remove the white-only part of the opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have lost the thread of the above argument in that 58.168.3.132 appears to be arguing with the previous post, which is also by 58.168.3.132.
Lee Barnes has certainly held out that the BNP are whites-only (Rustem et al. notwithstanding)although only the decision is available rather than the text of Barnes' submission, as this is the nub of the case for racial discrimination. The finding of "facts"contains the following "...Unison, amongst others, complained to R'schief executive that C's continued presence within the workforce was a significant cause for concern, bearing in mind the BNP's overt racist/fascist agenda". I doubt that Barnes said that but I think it implies that the chair of the Tribunal characterises the BNP in this way as part of its finding of fact, not just the opinion of Unison. I shall look for such a reference in the higher courts as well such as ASLEF v UK.-- Streona ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The details of Janaway's resignation from Manchester Police do not belong here. I deleted them with the comment: "If he wasn't a member, it's not relevant)" but another editor has reinstated commenting: "yes it is!". Now, Janaway's story may belong somewhere, but not in a section titled BNP Difficulties with Employment which leads with the sentence "BNP members have suffered various difficulties in employment". As the text says, it was accepted that he was not a member. His inclusion can similarly not be justified under the subhead Organisations which ban BNP membership - he was not a member. In light of this, I have again deleted any reference to him. Emeraude ( talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This construction ("although the BNP rejects a foreign policy that would support Israel") seems pretty clumsy. I doubt a party that is overtly rascist/nationalistic would be pro any other country. So to go out of your way to tenuously suggest antisemitism, (without a citation I might add) seems a stretch. Not that simply not supporting Israel would be antisemitic of course. Plus "supports Israel" is biased, "would not be pro-Israeli" seems more fitting. Not to mention the relevance of such a specific issue in the intro; Israel and (all)Jewish people are not synonymous. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed that the word fascist hasn't been used to describe the BNP in the article. Shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.108.101 ( talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You guys should look up the definition of facism, the BNP has no facist policies or tendancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.131.4 ( talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
you can't use a party's past and previous ambitions as a moral weapon on them in the future. I noticed emmrulde you called everyone who dares say the BNP aren't the same as they used to be, "BNP apologists". Tut Tut! (xtheowlx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.172.158 ( talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We have been over this ad nauseam.If there is any more to add then, fine. I did find the website of the "American Fascist Movement", who would probably classify the BNP as Nazis (they don't like them). However this classification has also proved unpopular with a certain sub section of wikipedia users - unregistered as ever.-- Streona ( talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Are they really fascist? If you read their manifesto, they have very left-wing policies mixed with far-right racial policies. More of a National Socialist party than a fascist party (Kentish)
Can someone provide a good definition of Fascism?. This article seems to be taken Fascism as any way of White Nationalism, which is not true. Eros of Fire ( talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if these will be enough arguments to remove the fascist label from Ideology'" infobox section of this article, anyways, here I go:
Should it be enough?
While I would accept something like "BNP was fascist" (Tyndall was probably a true fascist), I do not think the 200 000 persons that voted BNP on 2005 are a bunch of hateful jobless bigots, indeed, I think Andrew Glover is just an example of the current face of the BNP. To Keep the "fascist" label on this article is just to follow the game of the mainstream media Eros of Fire ( talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop making things up. The media does not, as you claim, call everyone from the right a fascist. In fact, they rarely call anyone a fascist! Of course the BNP has not expressed a wish to create a totalitarian government. Its aim currently is to achieve power through the electoral system, so no way is it going to say "Vote for us and never ever vote again". The infobox refrences are cast iron, academic sources. Over and over again, those like you who claim the BNP is not fascist have been invited to provide a single contrary quality reference that it is not fascist - to no avail, quite simply because none exists, and, trust me on this, I've looked in the journals. (See the archives of this discussion page over the last two years.) I've also seen people say Bush is a fascist. They're wrong. There is no independent evidence to support this and that's why Wikipedia does not say Bush is a fascist. On the other hand, there is justification in the case of the BNP. "The meaning of Fascism has been diluted with time." yes, it has in some circles. That well-known anti-fascist George Orwell even said this 60 years, but that does not mean we cannot use it accurately and precisely. Emeraude ( talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Emmeraude, you called us lot BNP apologists for saying the BNP isn't fascist. when a peer review was heald, the person agreed that fascism should be removed. Yet you put it back up.
Biass dummy- (chris) Signing anonymous edit by Special:Contributions/89.168.226.64 ( talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008
Look I think we need to get something straight here. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source. I was told earlier, when I tried to suggest that the BNP should not be labelled as fascist, that the fascist label was "well-sourced". Under this logic, I could go onto the Global Warming article and write "imaginary" in the infobox, and pick out over a hundred sources on the internet claiming that it is a farce, and then say that it's fact. Fascism is NOT one of their policies. Since it is not one of their official policies, and there is a large section of their supporters who I wouldn't call "fascist", we shouldn't put that. Anyway, this is pretty irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to argue for the BNP on this one. The point is that a party has to go behind the banner of a fascist party to be labelled fascist. Continuing with ridiculous examples, I could go onto the Democratic Party (USA) article and write communist in the infobox and find another 100 sources off the internet all agreeing with me. That does not mean that it is true. Therefore, stating that the BNP is fascist in the INFOBOX is opinion. Wikipedians must know the difference between fact and opinion if we are to have a NPOV. There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it.
I think if you want a "single contrary quality reference" you ought to go to [1]. IT IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIANS TO "DECLARE" IF A PARTY IS FASCIST. Nor is it the job of "respected academics". So are you saying that their word counts as fact. Hitler went to University! How "respected" they are makes no difference to whether their opinion counts as fact. I'm not sure what "no independent evidence" means. The words "no" and "evidence" are easy to counter, just go to [2]. But now you're saying "independent". Well if that means independent from governments or official institutions then I believe my source provides evidence. If, however, you are talking about "unbiased", then I can't really see how you can hide behind you're four "respected acedemics". I'm not sure if the following article counts as "reliable" to some of you but here goes. [3].
On the subject of the BBC, I would say that yes, the BBC are a biased source on certain subjects. This should not be a problem if editors can differentiate between opinion and fact. Bias alone should not be problem, if care is taken and the other half of the story is coming from elsewhere.
I don't want to go into arguing why the BNP doesn't resemble fascism because it isn't remotely relevant to what we put in the infobox. However, how can you call giving Ghurkhas full citizenship "fascist". [4] (It's about half way down).
I havn't signed in but I'm User:HandGrenadePins -- 86.148.145.163 ( talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want another reason not to class this as fascist, then read the following guidelines taken from the Wikipedia:WikiProject fascism page:
For purposes of this project, I propose the following criteria:
In the case of a movement which came to power, such a movement shall be called "fascist" if it fulfills all of the following criteria:
In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:
Obviously there will be many POV arguments, and much debate as to whether a particular person or movement is in fact "fascist" by the correct definition of the word. It should be noted for more specific fields, which are not one and the same as Fascism, such as Nazism has its own separate set of categorys. -- HandGrenadePins ( talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the large amount of debate and opposition to the facist label, wouldn't it be fair to remove the facist label as its clearly not a neutral stance. Besides if the BNP are facist then shouldn't the UK Labour party be considered very facist considering their discriminatory policies towards BNP members ie. leaked membership list & banning of BNP members joining the police force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invader Nat ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the section, BNP difficulties with employment, says:
This is incorrect. The ECHR case was brought by ASLEF, not the BNP member, and concerned the right of unions to decide who could or could not be a member. The court was examining whether the UK government was infringing the Convention by allowing courts to punish unions for exercising this right, and found in favour of ASLEF. There was no question of the BNP member's human rights being breached. I will alter the wording to reflect this.
In the same para, another editor has tagged the phrase "many have expelled them from the unions", asking that 'many' be specified (not unreasonable) and for a citation for the whole. The citation is really not necessary, since the following sentence on ASLEF effectively covers ths. As for many, I feel that altering this to some removes the need to specify, the ASLEF case again providing sufficient background along with the following paragraph about Unison. Emeraude ( talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the section has become long- for which i am in a great part responsible. However given the subsequent furrre over the membership leak, this has become unexpectedly topical.-- Streona ( talk) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet found any reliable sources, but if this is true no doubt they'll be along soon. Please note I'm not affiliated with the BNP or their views, I'm just a wikipedian on the hunt for knowledge. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me.
I have already cited it as a reference. It's a rather better reference than a news article! 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Arpitt ( talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No way. There is no justification for including a link to the membership list in the article. It's easy enough to find it online independently anyway, via wikileaks, many servers and mirrors, and even as a torrent. WKP is an encyclopaedia, and linking to the membership list does not come under encyclopaedic information. In addition, I feel it's morally wrong to promote the dissemination of such personal detail of so many people against their will and without their permission, no matter what one thinks of them. Centrepull ( talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Please notice: Someone is posting links to the BNP membership list in this page. I do not think it is good and may raise privacy concerns. Should this page be protected? Eros of Fire ( talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless a reliable source details where to find the list, we shouldn't link to it, for that simplest of reasons. Once that happens, though, it can be discussed. UK law would have no authority here, as WP is not under any UK jurisdiction. It would be a strictly internal decision on US law first, and our policies second. UK law is irrelevant. rootology ( C)( T) 07:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Intellectual property? This is obviously using the adjective in a rather specialised sense, isn't it ? Have you ever read Lee barnes "epic" poetry?-- Streona ( talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Some very strange expert legal opinions here, none fo whose providers will be getting my business. 1 Publishing anything, anywhere, does not place it in the public domain. If it's copyright, it's coyright. 2 Wikipedia may not be subject to English law, but its editors in Britain certainly are. (And any non-UK residents planning to visit ought to check their liability in this regard.) 3 "Intellectual property": I very much doubt that a list can be defined as such, though the database it came from is. 4 Quoting from copyright material for non-commercial academic purposes is specifically allowed (and, let's face it, Wikipedia could not exist otherwise).
Incidentally, now that the list is available online at Wikileaks, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin has declared that is genuine in several papers and on TV, it ought to be acceptable to say that X is/was a member of the BNP, citing the list and Griffin's statement of its provenance. But I would like a real legal expert to confirm this. Emeraude ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Emeraude's right. At the very least it requires someone higher in the Wikipedia food chain to make a decision on this as there seems to be a weakness in the decision making process at this level. It's a shame such a fairly straightforward issue is taking so long to resolve as the list obviously doesn't invade privacy as the data has been mirrored relentlessly for a couple of days now. Yesterday the UK cops were supposed to be scouring the lists to see if any of it's cohort were members so obviously they believe it's real. Like Emeraude said even the leader of the BNP has acknowledged it's validity so where on earth is the problem? Another factor to put in the mix. The controversy about the list has become part of the BNP's history. Because the leak has become a phenomena in it's very own right it should be seriously considered for inclusion. Take the http://bnpnearme.co.uk/ that appeared last night. It's a unique example of information activism. Perhaps these novel behaviors deserve a page entirely of their own? Irritant ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, says that he knows who leaked the full membership list of his far-Right organisation onto the internet...
Mr Griffin claimed that those responsible for posting the 12,000 names, along with a wealth of personal details, on Sunday night were extremists who felt that the line the party was taking under his leadership was too moderate..." Times: BNP leader Nick Griffin says he knows who leaked membership list. Nov 10, 2008 [1]
"The list is essentially genuine, but has been slightly modified..." BNP Website: Membership List Leak – Urgent Update from BNP leader Nick Griffin. Nov 18, 2008 [2]
The list has been in the wild for four days. This seems an unreasonable amount of time for a decision to be made either way on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irritant ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law." If you live in Scotland, you are covered by Scots law as well as UK-wide legislation, but not specifically by English law except in unusual and/or near-unique cases. As far as I know (from a years' study of law, admittedly not much to go on), the information on the database is not anybody's intellectual property, as it is devoid of any creative or technical input which would render it so. It is not libellous to state that an individual is a member of a particular political party when this is in fact the case. However, distributing the information from the database is likely to breach the Data Protection Act, as the information both makes it possible to identify any included individual, and is not guaranteed to be used solely for legal purposes by someone coming across the relevant webpage.
Therefore, linking's not such a good idea, if only for caution's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.25.39 ( talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and for correcting me on not mentioning Scottish law). Are you sure though about the Data Protection Act? My understanding is that using information does not contravene the Act; the BNP has though almost certainly failed in its duties under the Act to protect the data it holds on individuals electronically. Emeraude ( talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Will, would of done it myself but still not allowed to edit semi protected pages yet :\ BritishWatcher ( talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with the ability to edit the article mention that PC Steve Bettley has been suspended following the BNP members list leak.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7740817.stm BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he probably is a BNP member, but that's not the point. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about the BNP, not a current affairs headlines grabber. It is not appropriate to make any edits to any article based simply on response to the latest news item (however accurate it may be). Emeraude ( talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact he has been suspended is not gossip, a statement was given by the police force in question. In no way is it calling him a member of the BNP, it is simply saying he has been suspended whilst inquiries are ongoing. I agree with your tone when it comes to the gutter press, but these are reliable sources such as the BBC BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the fact suspended has now been added, but i do not see the need to remove the police officers name, which is now fully in the public domain. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
[EC] Note to Rodhullandemu: Referring to edits as "good faith" doesn't give you a licence to revert them as you please, nor does the fact that some people argue on a talk against the inclusion of a piece of cited information make it OK for you to repeatedly remove that information from the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies and verifiability, we should not add to the article anyone from the leaked list unless they have also been mentioned in secondary sources such as the media. A list such as this may contain errors or coincidentally shared names, or have other issues which make it a problematic primary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A small computer file appeared on the Internet last week, purporting to list the 13,000 members of the racist, far-right British National Party. ... A host for the list is Wikileaks, a site that has become a home for orphaned material, ... (After much debate, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is unrelated to Wikileaks, has not linked to the material.)
Its funny looking at the graph showing article traffic and the huge spike that took place on the 19th with over 50,000 viewing the page. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/British_National_Party BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Those of us familiar with Redwatch will know that much of the material the fascist-right publish on their opponents is wrong or out of date. The problem with this list is that there may be people on it quite innocently or even with similar names. One of them even has my name - but its a different address. If people can be directed to another site fine, but I do not think wikipedia should underwrite the truth of this list without further verification. As far as I am aware I do not know of any attacks on BNP alleged members, but I understand that BNP sympathisers have threatened the host of the bnpmembership.blogspot and they have taken down the list If I can source this I can post it on the article. It is available elsewhere-- Streona ( talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph to Section 1: History, the first instance of the abbreviation NF should be clarified as NF( National Front). I would have made this minor edit myself had I the privilege level to do so. I suggest that someone with such privilege make this change to make the text clearer for those of us not already familiar with UK party abbreviations. Godhner ( talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Streona and Emeraude should be banned from editing this article. They have very specific opinions about the BNP and they are using it as a way to push their liberal anti-white agendas.
I do not know what you have against white people, or why you think they can not have their own nations just like asians and africans do, but please keep your hatred out from the wiki. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BNP Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worthy explain that they do not consider themselves fascists. That it the only thing I want... is that too much? Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that this needs to be taken higher. The sources need to verified independently of people involved with this article and as such WP:RS is the place to take, these sources. I though doubt this will satisfy both sides. If this fails then formal mediation or a form of arbitration could be necessary.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
COPIED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICE BOARD WHEN THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED
Broadly the [Copsey] paper talks about attempts to rebrand the party, that this is just a branding exercise and does not represent any real change to their view. and concludes with "Griffin's ideological revamp underpins the party's normalization in the eyes of the thousands of Britons who vote for it, making it even more difficult to pin the 'fascist' or 'Nazi' label on the well-groomed bespoke suits of Britain's latest generation of neo-fascist extremists." -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point, but what we are discussing here isn't an exceptional claim - it is not exceptional that parties have ideologies, it's not outlandish that they might be fascist, everyone accepts they *were* (at teh very least) fascist, and so it doesn't demand truly otustanding references to prove it (incidentally, Copsey's 2007 article is that sort of gold dust, an article directly related to assessing whether the BNP is fascist (rather than assuming it, or asserting it out of hand) that we could only dream of on otehr articles, it is a very high quality source. It is the quality of the soruce that amtters, and its relative weighting within the academic discussion (if a gereat many reliable, third party published sources existed saying the BNP are not fascist, then it *ouwld* be an exceptional claim, to date, though, none have been produced).-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, it is the only party whose infobox does not match the official statements of the party. That is not fair. I am moving fascism from the infobox to the main body. It makes more sense. Eros of Fire ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Eros of Fire on his User page lists the BNP as one of the organisations Eros defines as "white resistance against white extinction." Has the white population of the world declined then? -- Streona ( talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would have see colonialism: Global European population explosion. To decline in colonial powers. Followed by China and India's population explosion for instance. Basic history that is a fairly ignorant comment you have posted Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Should also add Western birthrates drop contributing further to a decline. Thats fairly well know. Aswell as increased immigration or better known as mass immigration. Also this an article titled "Whites outnumbered in a generation as immigrants change face of US" So it is something that has been covered by the mainstream media (for all of you who need a Multicult stamp of approval on your information). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4535138.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So if the white population is in decline due to falling birth rates in what way is the British National Party likely to make any significant contribution ? I would have thought lager-swilling oafs were probably going to restrict their own reproductive potential rather than promote the genesis of hordes of Fascist mini-mes. Perhaps thats how evolution works. That said, I have nothing against the rest of the white population reproducing. Some of my best friends- including my parents and most of my family - are white and none of them have ever felt the need to join the BNP.-- Streona ( talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but every act of miscegenation (which results in procreation)will self-evidently result in an equal diminution of one other race at the same time. As for alcohol and fecundity I was thinking partially of former BNP councillor Luke Smith, whose details have unfortunately been deleted from the article, who after getting drunk and bottling a senior BNP colleague at one of their RWB festivals went on to hang himself in front of an Indian restaurant, thus depriving the white race of his potential progeny. Point is how are the BNP relevant to reversing a declining birth-rate? There is insufficient love in the World, Martin and I think this may be the crux of our problems.-- Streona ( talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the birth rate, I think their ideas include: increasing the number of jobs available, thus helping people to feel economically secure enough to raise children; providing financial incentives to raise children, and raise them well; promoting the family unit, thus increasing the percentage of the current generation who can contribute positively to the next one; discouraging intermarriage-- MartinUK ( talk) 10:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And the topic was...?"-- Streona ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats how you'd expect a normal country to behave MartinUK. Well, thats how all western countries used to behave.
Streona you'd have to clarify your last comments relevance to MartinUK's comment i am afraid it doesn't make sense on its own. Martin made no mention of breeding. I'd also refer you to Godwin's law also Reductio ad Hitlerum
Has anyone talked about the BNP supporters names going on the internet? Jim Hanratty ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reference to Godwin's Law (yet again) but I am not sure of the relevance, The topic at the head of the paragraph is whether of not Emeraude and I should be allowed to edit wikipedia. I suggest that the person who queries this has a racist agenda since s/he says so on their user page and their name is suggestive of a KKK symbol.I have not, in this section mentioned Hitler or Nazis but in a discussion as to whther or not an organisation is the intellectual (in the loosest sense) heir of Hitler, Godwin's Law is hardly applicable is it? Likewise any discussion of, say the SS, is going to have innumerable reductiones ad Hitlerae in it due to the subject matter.-- Streona ( talk) 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahh streona Britishwatch cleared that up a few comments ago its ^ up there. I'm amazed you manage to fit the KKK, Nazi, hitler, SS into one paragraph and have impressed me with your incoherant argument. Perhaps this is is why people think you shouldn't edit this article and don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, if you are going to refer to previously stated four things ad nauseam.
Again I'd refer you to both the Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum article perhaps you should read them.
You'll have to explain the bit about an Eros of fire being suggestive of a KKK symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe a Cross of Fire is a KKK symbol. I have not introduced the Nazi reference here anyway, but you can read the wiki article on Godwin's Law, wherein it says "The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable." Obviously it will be more probable in a discussion about Fascism or alleged Fascism than in a discussion about bird watching. Now forgive me for taking this a tad personally but the topic ar the top of this increasingly futile (and it started off futile)paragraph was upon the question as to whether or not Emeraude and I should be censored by someone who is a self-confessed white-racialist. Now you say that I am not supposed to even have an opinion on that either. You can see where this is going in the Reductio ad Godwin department can't you? Because that's just what Hitler would have done. (You see what I've done there?)Or Nick Griffin in expelling "Ramblin'Sid Rumpo" Colin Auty from the BNP for opposing him in an internal party"election".-- Streona ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The state that the BNP would create if they gained power would be Nazi but would be called something else - such as "British Democracy". This is implicit in their policies. They find it convenient to disguise this for political opportunism but it does not alter the objectve position. The BNP "discourage" inter-racial marriages. They attribute all the nation's problems to a particular ethnic minority -presently "Muslims". They would "encourage" ethnic minorities to leave the country and those that did not would be denied any benefits or social housing - or jobs. Where would they live? In Camps? If people fought back -as they would - the BNP government could declare a "state of emergency" suspending all democratic rights. The Nazis claimed that the concentration camps were humanely run - no doubt many BNP members still claim to believe this. The racial nation state would be glorified. Dissent within the BNP is interpreted as treachery.These similarities with the policies are not examples of a logical fallacy - they are examples of similar policies in the same way that Arsenal are similar to Spurs not because they drive cars but because they are football teams. Don't worry though - it ain't never going to happen.-- Streona ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
For easy of reading, I've had a look at the sources discussed above and collated them here.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
The BNP estimates that it has 100 councillors, the BBC estimates only 56. It is a sad reflection on Britain in 2009 that most people would now believe the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.197.233 ( talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've moved the detail from the introduction and placed it further down witout the claims 100 bit. I don't think that's a controversial edit. However, I notice that elsewhere in the article there are other mentions of councillors and local elections that might also benefit from a definite figure. There's also a whole paragraph on the 2006 elections, obviously dated now with local elections being held every year. Emeraude ( talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's very ironic who you BNP supporters say you support freedom of speech, and yet you want to ban people you don't agree with you from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.255.104 ( talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it? People are blocked on every other article on wikipedia. Numerous people are banned, blocked and censored. For things like "sock pupperty" or being vexatious or vandalising articles. Also benefiting or having personal interest in editing an article or displaying an extremely biased POV. Sometimes simply because of their opinion. I'd say your comment is ironic Also how do you know they are BNP supporters.
It's not ironic to want to ban people if you are a fascist.-- Streona ( talk) 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just come to this article by accident, and it feels really lop-sided to me, especially in the heading paragraphs. The BNP is not best known as an anti-semitic party, and I've never, ever, heard this referred to in public or on the TV. It might be true, but the heavy loading of this one issue unbalances the whole article. The focus of the BNP is and always has been on opposition to immigration; that's what it campaigns on, that's what it is attacked for. It's unfair to portray them in terms which few ordinary people would recognise from TV coverage, surely? The article should present the party calmly, and in terms that members would consider fair, as well as the rest of us. I'll make some edits, but it sounds as if an edit war is in progress and they may be reverted.
One other point... I know some people hate the BNP with an extraordinary passion that (in honesty) I don't quite understand. Political hate is a nasty business, whoever the victim is. But ... this article needs to have the tone of an encyclopedia, not a diatribe. It feels too much like that latter at the moment. It is good that statements are referenced; but that's not enough by itself. I know someone will probably scream at me, but please don't. I don't care about the subject of the article. I do care that it's fair and reasonable. Roger Pearse ( talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is now officially pro-BNP viewpoint, and needs amending back to an accurate, sourced, neutral version.
Previous:
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right and whites-only political party in the United Kingdom.
New:
The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration. The party is described as far-right by its opponents
They are whites only by their own admission, why has this been removed? It is not described as far-right by its opponents, it is described as far right by every mainstream source going, to suggest it is only their opponents view is advancing the BNP's fringe view that they are not far right.
Previous:
It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation
Why has this been removed?
Previous:
The BNP is rebuked and ostracized by mainstream politicians, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair, and current Labour Party Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
New:
The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians and TV and mass media journalists of all other parties.
Does. Not. Make. Sense. Also it is more relevant to show that the leaders of all three major parties criticise the BNP, not remove their names.
Addition:
Some press comment at the time displayed unease with the idea of prosecuting the leader of a legal political party for statements made in private, and they were in the end acquitted. It is thought that the BNP has been heavily penetrated by the British police and intelligence services.
Other than the acquittal, which was covered in the previous version, get that unsourced crap out of the article.
Previous:
Examples of more direct action against the BNP include obstruction of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.
New:
Members of the BNP have also complained of intimidation and violence. BNP events are routinely met with counter demonstrations, which often become violent. Examples of this "direct action" against the BNP include obstruction and initimidation of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.
The Scotsman source already cited does not support the new text, quite the opposite. It confirms that a stall was blockaded, but the BNP regarded the blockade as "friendly banter". So get rid of the unsourced pro-BNP crap, and back to the previous version please.
This editor needs to be watched carefully, those edits are clearly pro-BNP not NPOV. 86.155.245.189 ( talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that the arguement over the BNP aparently being a fascist movement. I suggest (again) that it be put in brakets 'Denied by BNP' OR 'disputed' with a link to this wikipedia article that argues over the definitions of fascism. I think this would be fair and make this article look a little less biass (which it very much is).
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.21.230 ( talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah right Emmurald the last time this article had a peer review fascism was removed, but you put it back on calling those who say they aren't fascists 'BNP appolgists' It wasn't rejected, but only stopped, by you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask the few who can edit this article to add a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? As a glance at this discussion alone shows it most certainly is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.70.151 ( talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
We can't though, the moment we dare hange it Emmeruld will remove it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.109.136.175 (
talk)
20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Emeraude, you must then agree that this article needs a, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? A look at this discussion shows it definately is disputed. Please add this now, Britwatcher, in the name of even handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.146.148 ( talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any suggestions on how this article can be neutral -assuming that it isn't - that do not involve whether or not it has a Fascism tag? I have not seen any yet. Maybe that's because it is already neutral, but that as a result some people do not like what they see i.e. that the BNP is a very nasty organisation with ends and goals that are morally unacceptable to people who do not see non-white people as inferior or with any less rights in the UK as those with the same skin colour as the BNP membership.-- Streona ( talk) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The BNP are not necessarily Fascist, there just racists that enjoy judging people on the colour of there skin. There mostly small minded and petty, many are prone to acts of violence and most are rather unintelligent persons. It is no wonder most people in the army are BNP thugs. Why don't we include that in the article eh? (Eros of fire you have no right to go around on this talk page telling other people there way of thinking is wrong while at the same time defending you own opinions from attack. Your a hypocrite). Celtic Muffin&Co. ( talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Uhhhh. This really irritates me. Why can't people just look at EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view. No, they are not "fascists". They are only "fascists" if they call themselves that. The American Republican party call the Democrats "communists" but I don't see that on Obama's page do I. We are not here to teach people NOT to vote BMP. They can vote whatever they want. That's why the UK is a democratic institution and should be treated as such. Personally, I find the BMP a dispicable bunch of people, but they still have a right to be treated neutrally.-- 81.151.248.191 ( talk) 12:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire BNP article by wikipedia is and example of falsely categorizing an organization by using selective extreme examples without any balance, for instance the BNP has currently 63 candidates for the European Parliament. Did wilkipedia or the rather the leftist who write for it and who have established its rules do a comprehensive interviews on those 63 before and gain a spectrum of their views , attempt to catogorize those views and address the party as say " currently amongst the BNP political candidates for the European Parlaiment x percentage have the view of thus and y percentage feel this way and z percentage express this view", NO they cherry pick the worst examples of extremism they can find, over a twenty year period including non BNP members and those who were removed for extremism and present it in the worst light.Then they use the term far right?? A political party that is going to nationalize the banks and the public transport system and Improve funding for the National Heath system and stop development on green belts can be called several things, but one of them is NOT "far right". They also want to re establish the right of free speech in the UK.. You could label them Nationalist In the US they would be called socialist or left center but far right is unfair.Then you try to smear the leadership by presenting something Griffin said eleven years ago all the while insinuating dark motives behind the statement and refusing to use more current material to give balance. I will give you an example they represent Nick Griffin view as published in the Rune in 98 as an example of how he feels now but fail to print ANY of the many subsequent articles in which Mr Griffin has explained his views then and now Also his 98 conviction for publishing material likely to incite racial violence is a monument not to Griffins venality but to communist style censorship of free speech and the laws that made that conviction possible in the UK over something as trivial as an uncaptioned cartoon are widely condemned by civil libertarians all over the globe. I will note you did not mention any of that in your so called unbiased article. I dare you to present that ENTIRE case complete for public scrutiny now. You won't because people would see what a bunch of anti free speech facsists You people at wikipedia are!! The whole WIKIpedia publication IS AS ONE SIDED AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT AND ESCAPE ACTION FOR LIABLE. You are a bunch of socialist Globalists masquerading as objective writers while publishing propoganda. and unlike you I am not afraid to sign my name John Bambey —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.116.255.137 (
talk)
22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)<!
Amongst us Anglo Saxon history types we only ever refer to William as 'William the Bastard'. He was never known as the Conqueror in his lifetime -either "the Great" by his supporters or to his face and "the Bastard" by everyone else.-- Streona ( talk) 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
To get back on topic... Streona, are you one of the people who can edit this article (seeing that it is locked)? Your open hostility to this group suggests to the observer that perhaps you should restrain yourself and leave this article to more neutral editors. Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.181 ( talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I can edit the article, however I tend to over compensate by being too favourable to the BNP. Also, given the contriversy it has to be immaculately sourced.-- Streona ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I find it totally bizarre that a party whose most recent election manifesto was titled "Rebuilding British Democracy" is being described as fascist in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.102.236 ( talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the emphasis maybe on "Rebuilding" (as in Demolishing)here, rather then "Democracy".-- Streona ( talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This article to me, actually looks too kind to the party. In attempting to be neutral, the editors seem to have disproportionately represented the positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently reads:
This is too long, although all true. How about this?
Can we get it shorter? Roger Pearse ( talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In what respect is it one-sided? By all means offer suggestions. The current one seems dreadfully biased against the BNP. Roger Pearse ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’". The BNP also accepts white immigrants that are assimilated into one of those ethnicities.
"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom, described as far-right by its opponents. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and has a stated ambition of "stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration" to the UK and to making the country "overwhelmingly white" again. In the late 2000s it has opposed Islam especially strongly, and actively recruited Jewish members. [14][15][16] The party has no members of parliament, achieving 0.7% of the popular vote in the 2005 UK General Election, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections. The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27] Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]" (Still shorter than before, but doesn't miss anything vital. If anything else can go from the intro to the main article, I'd suggest the 'bank account' sentence. Note that the references might need moving around)-- MartinUK ( talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The two big problems I have here are a) the qualifier "described by it's opponents" - we aren't relying on their political opponents or the media, we are using multiple peer reviewed sources for that identification - to say those academics are their opponents represents original research and synthesis and is a weasel phrase to boot. b) The other problem is that once again, you are removing the fact, that that they have a colour bar on membership - making then unique in mainstream. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The BNP are known for publishing misleading articles to suit their own position. Take Whites Are the Majority of Racial Crime Victims, Research Shows which states a report by "well known researcher" Tony Shell provides various facts and figures. What that does not tell you is that the contents of the report do not exist apart from on the BNP site and blogs and forums reporting it, similarly Tony Shell and the name of the report, or that Tony Shell is actually the BNP's Plymouth organiser. Other than undisputed statements of fact or direct quotes, anything should be sourced from someone other than the BNP. 86.155.245.189 ( talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"... it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British." The link provided does not mention Jews. How do we know the BNP does not accept Jews as British in some way? Boris B ( talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added unreliable source? tags to a number of potentially contentious claims, presented as fact, regarding the BNP that are referenced only to BNP material and thus lacking third-party verification. Also, reworded a couple of claims to reflect what was actually in source, and added a failed verification tag to a claim entirely unsupported by the web address provided as a source. FrFintonStack ( talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
A peer review has been undertaken of this article, I think the points raised are valid and need careful discussion and implementation.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a section on BNP members being sacked as a result of their political activities. Some have been sacked simply for membership- in one case for being a councillor- while others such as a teacher face being struck off for specific activities, such as posting on stormfront during work hours.-- Streona ( talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Theunhappymitten ( talk)theunhappymitten why would you want to scare of members wikipedia is not a tool used to change peoples politics it is used to educate people on a none bias bases ...
I had not really seen it like that- I was trying to be conciliatory, but why not? Or should we keep it shtum and get them sacked once they join? Is that kind? Why not just be NPOV ? -- Streona ( talk) 09:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought the news item was the teacher was simply viewing the BNP website during work hours. Sounds like his political (human) rights being violated. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/7627055.stm
So I see steonas point this section could detail incidences of BNP members human rights being infringed.
Yes. There are several aspects here.
I will look into this and sand box it. Whether or not we support "BNP human rights" or not, we can keep it factual and NPOV-- Streona ( talk) 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Its not a case of supporting them this is irrelevant. Your points except maybe 3. which is ambiguous, are all human rights violations. It would be a POV to ommit "human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.167.14 ( talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There are human rights issues. The courts have not necessarily agreed that there have been violations. I will try to look out some facts and leave the reader judge.-- Streona ( talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sterona calls himself an "anti fascist" yet he's more than prepeared to use Fascist tatics on wikipedia. tutut —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.110.39.82 (
talk)
17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This section transcribed directly from the peer review for discussion.
I've listed this article for peer review because major POV and serious MOS concerns riddle this article. Very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article. I would like to the article to be at least GA standard.
Thanks, Lucy-marie ( talk) 10:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I am going to read through and comment as things arise.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
According to this section, members of fascist and communist organisations are banned from membership of the British armed forces. The source given was THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS FOR THE ARMY ( here) but a detailed search in this document for 'fascist', 'communist' and similar words draws a complete blank. The regs do state that service personnel may not engage in overt political activity for any party (indeed, a serving soldier etc may not be an MP). Perhaps someone can find the exact reference and cite it properly. Meanwhile, I have removed the section. Emeraude ( talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall when I was in the Navy being told this, but this would be OR-- Streona ( talk) 22:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this: http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright is it really right to say the BNP are far-right/extreme right? I don't know if this has already been debated. TJ, 1926 GMT 29/09/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.166.248 ( talk) 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
NPA please |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
If the biased POV pushers such as streona emaurade think that they are keeping the pressure on the BNP and somehow winning a battle against them, they are mistaken. They are actually helping them along this article is the joke of wiki. It has so many citations especialy for the info box contents. When compared with other parties whose political stance is unsourced or taken directly from the parties themselves. Why is the BNP the only party not allowed to say what it is with out 20 BBC citations to back it up. Its as if people in their effort to hammer the BNP are just unaware of how the article looks. If you don't get what I'm saying and stubbornly refuse to write a balanced article you are giving the BNP more publicity then you believe. Do you honestly think anyone but brainwashed saps would not see that lack of neutrality and obvious agenda by people who hate and fear this party. Might I suggest this article as another referance point for neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord notice it dosen't have 20 thousand citations calling it fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 02:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I have added two extra sections in an attempt to make the article more empathetic to the BNP (Councillors Achievements and BNP Difficulties with Employment). Your point seems to be that the article is pro-BNP now, which should please the anon contributors to this talk page, whose only contributions are personal abuse. Most people in Britain (and most of the anon IP numbers do not appear to be from Britain) have the impression that the BNP are a vicious, racist party and would be surprised to find an article that does not reflect this. Who was it said- "You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig"? People reading the article will find a great deal of factual information and may make of it what they will. The discussion of attempts to "clean up" seem to be based on the idea of deletion rather than progress, but even so they, like the last unsigned contribution are lacking in specific details, apart from complaining that it is TOO well sourced. My understanding of the Lega Nord is that it IS fascist, but I'll put down my Searchlight and check the article.-- Streona ( talk) 06:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Interesting, but the idea of opening fire on immigrants disturbs me somewhat.-- Streona ( talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia 58.168.3.132! And what is the weather like in Sydney? You would be the same 58.168.3.132 who thinks that I should leave my country because I approve of mixed-race marriages (see Talk:Nick Griffin). You would not have a POV agenda of explicit hardline racism and some atavistic nostalgia for the days of transportation by any chance then? Do you really expect the rest of us to as well? So the article does not suit your POV? Well, tough.-- Streona ( talk) 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have read the number of personal attacks against me, you will realise this is nothing. I am attacking hardline racism. If you take that as personal, then perhaps you might need to consider your own views. As 58.168.3.132 has not been signed on as a user for 48 hours,how could I have attacked her or him in that period? If you would sign your posts I would be able to tell if you are the same person who expects me to leave my country becfause I am not a racist. Now that, is a personal attack, which is incredibly offensive. I am not saying the article is or should be POV - I am saying that the article is not supportive of racism, which seems to annoy a lot of people who are. No doubt a properly referenced article which backs up facts with more than mere assertions is off-putting to some people unused to a level of debate transcending that of a fist-fight.Welcome to wikipedia- keep it clean.-- Streona ( talk) 12:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Wow did you actually read what I wrote. I object to being called a hardline racist, I have no problem with mixed relationships but apparently you have an issue with homogenous relationships. Its in my belief its a person choice of freedom to pick a partner. However I don't agree with being forced(bombarded with propaganda) to mix or being labeled a racist if I object to it. In Australia we had an issue with the stolen generation and the belief the aborigines could be completely assimilated(to the aborigines benefit) in a matter of generations. This concept of forced assimilation is abhorrent. I feel a similar event is being forced on whites globally as their have been numerous multicultural displays advocating this. One example I can remember maybe a decade ago was a display in melbourne showing a line up of three faces that had been generated by morphing asian, black, caucasian faces etc to get picture. With the messages "This is the future face of Australia" and " A brown future" etc. The faces themselves could be best described as stock photos of maybe brazilian models with overall brown eyes brown hair brown skin and all identical. This struck me as something the germans would of done during the 1930-40s displaying the ideal "ayran" or somesuch. Only this display was displaying the ideal "multicultural citizen" and there was no diversity. If you have an issue with this maybe you should leave my ancestral homeland of Britian and move to a non-democratic country like Cuba where you can advocate Heterosis to your hearts content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 13:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
Lucy-marie took out "Fascism" and "Islamophobia" from the "Political Ideology" section of the infobox. There's no references for islamophobia, and that's not really an ideology anyway; but there are references for fascism. Could someone check those references and add it back if needed? -- h2g2bob ( talk) 13:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Has the Project_Fascism guidelines to determine if a party should be labeled fascist when it has not come to power. It has to meet 6 of the 7 criteria. It already fails 7.declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement. Does it pass the other points?
Welcome to Wikipedia ! You can sign your edits with four tildes ~ although I prefer to click on the signing icon on the task bar above. -- Streona ( talk) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:
Can we discuss this, before unilaterally hitting the delete button again ?-- Streona ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Standards Board for England found that it was permissible to call the BNP "Nazi" and actions for libel in this manner have failed.-- Streona ( talk) 22:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So what we ae not the Sandards Board for English.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
We're not the BBC either, but we still use them as a source.The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party. Case no. SBE10144.05 -- Streona ( talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The source no matter how relevant anyone thinks it is cannot be used because it requires original research and interpretation. It says it "could" not "must" or "should" so that is ambiguous.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 19:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please prove the source yourself, surley an online version must be avaliable of at least one of them.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 23:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but wouldn't findings by this board be unpublished material. Also on streona discussion page he appears to be compiling information on the BNP and adding it to the article this would be original research, synthesis WP:SYN of sources is against wikipedia policy. Does anyone concur? (humbleAnon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Voluntaryslave asks for reasons why the sources would be inappropriate. Well citation 7, 8 and 9 are all prior 2005 the party is regarded as having changed direction at that time (due to the change in leadership earlier Im assuming). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 06:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Certainly read source 10. You pretty much answered your own question. Source 10 atleast covers the party changes in ideology during this time the other sources don't because they are out of date. The party has enjoyed success since then so obviously something changed. This is the most up to date source on their ideology out of the 4 citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 08:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
fascism to fascism" then it is fascist! Change "in the partys direction, methods etc." does not stop it being fascist. If there has been a signifcant change in its direction, methods etc. the place to mention this is in a suitable part of the article itself, NOT in the part of the infobox dealing with ideology, which, as you say, may have changed from fascist to fascist. Emeraude ( talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Heres hoping you understood that. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.168.3.132 (
talk)
01:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The Standards Board case can be found here, under the heading "case 2"
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Standards%20Committee/20050720/Agenda/Item05.pdf
It is not on the SBE website but Buckinghamshire County Council are presumably trustworthy. As for my talk page- I use it to sandbox lengthy contributions before posting an edit. I realise that many of the most vocal editors on this talk page make little substantive contributions to wikipedia, but I do. My recent efforts regarding the BNP have been in order to find something positive to say about them, such as the case of Simone Clarke, being the latest. Is there a problem?-- Streona ( talk) 09:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
To avoid going over old ground again and again and again (see Archives ad nauseam): 1 The references in the infobox to the BNP being fascist are fully acceptable to Wikipedia. 2 If anyone wants to claim that the BNP somehow changed in 2004 or 2005 or whenever and is no longer fascist, they are guilty of POV or OR unless 3 they provide acceptable third party sources to the standard of the existing sources in accordance with Wikipedia policies. These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed - and the result has been zero. I read a number of academic political studies journals and have seen nothing of the sort. I don't read them all, so it's just possible I've missed something, but I doubt it. So there's the challenge: supply a reliable, independent, academic, third party, accessible source that says the BNP is not fascist. Until you do, there is no justification for removing 'fascism' from the infobox. Emeraude ( talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Pathetic. You yourself just showed your own biass with "BNP apologists". I can point to sevreal that I posted links to, but they were ignored.
Just put and leave it at, "Fascism (denied by bnp). Or is there a horrific chance that people might think the BNP are not fascist as a result? Your life and Sterona's would be over if that happended eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.218.131 ( talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be getting a bit academic for some, but hey that's what its all about. Welcome to Wikipedia 79.71.218.131, First time caller? Of course we could just put down "dregs & scum". I'd be happy with that, but let's stick with it, shall we ?-- Streona ( talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
All this knockabout stuff is great up to a point, but its all a bit one-sided. People like Emeraude make serious points and substantive contributions to the actual article, moderated by some serious editors like LucyMarie and then there are anonymous people who become offensive and take the mick and these are all the pro-BNP POV editors. Why is this? I think some people can actually do better than this and raise the standard of debate here a bit. If you want to mix it with the banter and repartee, then I think you should also contribute in a serious way as well. -- Streona ( talk) 10:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
oh, yeah- and the spelling-- Streona ( talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is rediculous, it has already been proven by various non biass sources that third positionism isn't one of thier beliefs. We've been through this before. Take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.49 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by SineBot-->
There are no sources to back it up.Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.153 ( talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
One problem with using websites as references is that they change or disappear over time. This is not a problem with printed resources - books, newspapers and journals are always available in libraries and archives. The problem is compounded in this article because the BNP completely revamped its website earlier this year following internal squabbles which resulted in the webmaster of the BNP's site leaving (or being expelled - depending on who says). Unfortunately, a large number of references in this article have now fallen foul of time, the vast majority of them from the BNP. Although all were live and perfectly correctly used at the time they were added, it may be that they now need to be updated. There are several ways this can be done I would suggest:
I have gone through all the references and listed below those that appear to be dead. I will start to search for alternatives and invite other editors to do the same. Please strikethrough those you manage to sort out. I would suggest that in a few weeks' time we review the list and assess progress.
THE LIST
NOTE: Edits may cause these to be renumbered, so the reference numbers here refer to the version of the article dated 10:49, 2 October 2008, numbered version 242468527
Paragraph 2 in the section "Opposition" reads as follows:
Some observations. Firstly, the reference 198 is a dead link to the CRE website (the CRE as such no longer existing), to a press release entitled "CRE Chair calls on Conservatives to see off the BNP", apparently at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, 2003. I have searched the CRE database of press statements and failed to find this. However this suggests that this press release does/did exist, but the link from there is to another item altogether (a PR for a speech to the CBI in Birmingham).
Secondly, regardless that the original PR is apparently unavailable, the assertion made here in Wikipedia is silly. The major parties have always stood candidates in seats they are unlikely to win - it's what elections are for!
Thirdly, the second sentence is almost as silly, but in any case is not backed up the reference given (an article by Trevor Phillips in the Observer).
My suggestion is to simply delete this paragraph. It really adds nothing to the assertion that the mainstream media and parties oppose the BNP. However, it might be an idea to move the final paragraph of the introduction to this section, which seems a more logical place for it. Comments? Emeraude ( talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
In the Employment Tribunal Redfearn was represented by Lee Barnes LLB Hons (or "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" as Adrian Davies refers to him ) the BNP legal officer. Barnes contended that Redfearn was being racially discriminated against for his membership of the BNP as it was a whites-only racist organisation. Presumably if one were to assert otherwise one would be accusing Barnes of perjury (although not actually on oath) which would be potentially libellous. I found the case on Cloisters website, but you have to click on a further link to go to the case http://www.cloisters.com/info_case_profile.php?caseID=177&returl=search.php%3F%26amp%3Bkeywords%3Dserco - -- Streona ( talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS that's "Streona LLB (Hons)"-- Streona ( talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)LLB (Hons)
Its not just my opinion, but it was central to the argument advanced by Barnes according to the judgement. Redfearn claimed that he was a member of a whites only racist organisation and was sacked, but that had he been a member of a blacks-only allegedly racist organisation he would not have been and that therefore he was racially discrminated against. Thus the conclusion that the BNP are a whites-only racist organisation is the opinion of the BNPs own legal officer (or "Director of the BNP Legal Department" whatever that is)and he argued that in court. Thus if anyone says on this talk page that they are NOT a whites-only racist party they are accusing Lee Barnes and Arthur Redfearn of lying to the Employment Tribunal, which would be defamatory and potentially libellous which would never do. I have stated that I am a law graduate in order to take the mick out of Lee Barnes who is apt to style himself as LLB(Hons) and takes on cases which he often loses leaving the likes of the unfortunate Sharon Ebanks to pick up the tab. Its nothing to do with OR or COI; I am not a practising lawyer. I could append it to the article, as a direct quote from the judgement (who are presumably not POV), but I thought I would put in talk first in order to resolve the colourful - and often personally abusive- debate we have so enjoyed here. I would not suggest putting in the "Bonkers Bagel" reference here but it is on the Adrian Davies article and variously appears on Stormfront etc. -- Streona ( talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)LLB(Hons)
This post by streona doesn't make sense the BNP dosen't refer to itself as a racist party or hold itself out to be ( and when does any group want to refer to itself as racist to a court in this day and age ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It seems that the BNP's legal expert has argued before a tribunal that the party is a whites only party and that his client has suffered racial discrimination because he is a member of a whites only organisation. Seems like a potential case of shooting oneself in the foot. Emeraude ( talk) 08:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the racist part. Which is obviously a abit of POV thats been bolted on somewhere inbetween the original statement and streonas comment. Which I think lucy-marie was referring to. One thing needs to be made clear did he use that exact phrase? I can't see how it can be a libellous anyway they're have been plenty of cases when ethnic-only groups comprised of different ethnicities have claimed racial discrimination or have come to the aid of one of their own claiming racial discrimination. For instance recently your black police association has had individuals who wouldn't be classified as black claiming members have been discriminated. Hmm but interestingly you have just argued for a reason to remove the white-only part of the opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 ( talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I have lost the thread of the above argument in that 58.168.3.132 appears to be arguing with the previous post, which is also by 58.168.3.132.
Lee Barnes has certainly held out that the BNP are whites-only (Rustem et al. notwithstanding)although only the decision is available rather than the text of Barnes' submission, as this is the nub of the case for racial discrimination. The finding of "facts"contains the following "...Unison, amongst others, complained to R'schief executive that C's continued presence within the workforce was a significant cause for concern, bearing in mind the BNP's overt racist/fascist agenda". I doubt that Barnes said that but I think it implies that the chair of the Tribunal characterises the BNP in this way as part of its finding of fact, not just the opinion of Unison. I shall look for such a reference in the higher courts as well such as ASLEF v UK.-- Streona ( talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The details of Janaway's resignation from Manchester Police do not belong here. I deleted them with the comment: "If he wasn't a member, it's not relevant)" but another editor has reinstated commenting: "yes it is!". Now, Janaway's story may belong somewhere, but not in a section titled BNP Difficulties with Employment which leads with the sentence "BNP members have suffered various difficulties in employment". As the text says, it was accepted that he was not a member. His inclusion can similarly not be justified under the subhead Organisations which ban BNP membership - he was not a member. In light of this, I have again deleted any reference to him. Emeraude ( talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This construction ("although the BNP rejects a foreign policy that would support Israel") seems pretty clumsy. I doubt a party that is overtly rascist/nationalistic would be pro any other country. So to go out of your way to tenuously suggest antisemitism, (without a citation I might add) seems a stretch. Not that simply not supporting Israel would be antisemitic of course. Plus "supports Israel" is biased, "would not be pro-Israeli" seems more fitting. Not to mention the relevance of such a specific issue in the intro; Israel and (all)Jewish people are not synonymous. ʄ!• ¿talk? 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I've noticed that the word fascist hasn't been used to describe the BNP in the article. Shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.108.101 ( talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You guys should look up the definition of facism, the BNP has no facist policies or tendancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.131.4 ( talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
you can't use a party's past and previous ambitions as a moral weapon on them in the future. I noticed emmrulde you called everyone who dares say the BNP aren't the same as they used to be, "BNP apologists". Tut Tut! (xtheowlx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.172.158 ( talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We have been over this ad nauseam.If there is any more to add then, fine. I did find the website of the "American Fascist Movement", who would probably classify the BNP as Nazis (they don't like them). However this classification has also proved unpopular with a certain sub section of wikipedia users - unregistered as ever.-- Streona ( talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Are they really fascist? If you read their manifesto, they have very left-wing policies mixed with far-right racial policies. More of a National Socialist party than a fascist party (Kentish)
Can someone provide a good definition of Fascism?. This article seems to be taken Fascism as any way of White Nationalism, which is not true. Eros of Fire ( talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if these will be enough arguments to remove the fascist label from Ideology'" infobox section of this article, anyways, here I go:
Should it be enough?
While I would accept something like "BNP was fascist" (Tyndall was probably a true fascist), I do not think the 200 000 persons that voted BNP on 2005 are a bunch of hateful jobless bigots, indeed, I think Andrew Glover is just an example of the current face of the BNP. To Keep the "fascist" label on this article is just to follow the game of the mainstream media Eros of Fire ( talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop making things up. The media does not, as you claim, call everyone from the right a fascist. In fact, they rarely call anyone a fascist! Of course the BNP has not expressed a wish to create a totalitarian government. Its aim currently is to achieve power through the electoral system, so no way is it going to say "Vote for us and never ever vote again". The infobox refrences are cast iron, academic sources. Over and over again, those like you who claim the BNP is not fascist have been invited to provide a single contrary quality reference that it is not fascist - to no avail, quite simply because none exists, and, trust me on this, I've looked in the journals. (See the archives of this discussion page over the last two years.) I've also seen people say Bush is a fascist. They're wrong. There is no independent evidence to support this and that's why Wikipedia does not say Bush is a fascist. On the other hand, there is justification in the case of the BNP. "The meaning of Fascism has been diluted with time." yes, it has in some circles. That well-known anti-fascist George Orwell even said this 60 years, but that does not mean we cannot use it accurately and precisely. Emeraude ( talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Emmeraude, you called us lot BNP apologists for saying the BNP isn't fascist. when a peer review was heald, the person agreed that fascism should be removed. Yet you put it back up.
Biass dummy- (chris) Signing anonymous edit by Special:Contributions/89.168.226.64 ( talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008
Look I think we need to get something straight here. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source. I was told earlier, when I tried to suggest that the BNP should not be labelled as fascist, that the fascist label was "well-sourced". Under this logic, I could go onto the Global Warming article and write "imaginary" in the infobox, and pick out over a hundred sources on the internet claiming that it is a farce, and then say that it's fact. Fascism is NOT one of their policies. Since it is not one of their official policies, and there is a large section of their supporters who I wouldn't call "fascist", we shouldn't put that. Anyway, this is pretty irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to argue for the BNP on this one. The point is that a party has to go behind the banner of a fascist party to be labelled fascist. Continuing with ridiculous examples, I could go onto the Democratic Party (USA) article and write communist in the infobox and find another 100 sources off the internet all agreeing with me. That does not mean that it is true. Therefore, stating that the BNP is fascist in the INFOBOX is opinion. Wikipedians must know the difference between fact and opinion if we are to have a NPOV. There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it.
I think if you want a "single contrary quality reference" you ought to go to [1]. IT IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIANS TO "DECLARE" IF A PARTY IS FASCIST. Nor is it the job of "respected academics". So are you saying that their word counts as fact. Hitler went to University! How "respected" they are makes no difference to whether their opinion counts as fact. I'm not sure what "no independent evidence" means. The words "no" and "evidence" are easy to counter, just go to [2]. But now you're saying "independent". Well if that means independent from governments or official institutions then I believe my source provides evidence. If, however, you are talking about "unbiased", then I can't really see how you can hide behind you're four "respected acedemics". I'm not sure if the following article counts as "reliable" to some of you but here goes. [3].
On the subject of the BBC, I would say that yes, the BBC are a biased source on certain subjects. This should not be a problem if editors can differentiate between opinion and fact. Bias alone should not be problem, if care is taken and the other half of the story is coming from elsewhere.
I don't want to go into arguing why the BNP doesn't resemble fascism because it isn't remotely relevant to what we put in the infobox. However, how can you call giving Ghurkhas full citizenship "fascist". [4] (It's about half way down).
I havn't signed in but I'm User:HandGrenadePins -- 86.148.145.163 ( talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want another reason not to class this as fascist, then read the following guidelines taken from the Wikipedia:WikiProject fascism page:
For purposes of this project, I propose the following criteria:
In the case of a movement which came to power, such a movement shall be called "fascist" if it fulfills all of the following criteria:
In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:
Obviously there will be many POV arguments, and much debate as to whether a particular person or movement is in fact "fascist" by the correct definition of the word. It should be noted for more specific fields, which are not one and the same as Fascism, such as Nazism has its own separate set of categorys. -- HandGrenadePins ( talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the large amount of debate and opposition to the facist label, wouldn't it be fair to remove the facist label as its clearly not a neutral stance. Besides if the BNP are facist then shouldn't the UK Labour party be considered very facist considering their discriminatory policies towards BNP members ie. leaked membership list & banning of BNP members joining the police force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invader Nat ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the section, BNP difficulties with employment, says:
This is incorrect. The ECHR case was brought by ASLEF, not the BNP member, and concerned the right of unions to decide who could or could not be a member. The court was examining whether the UK government was infringing the Convention by allowing courts to punish unions for exercising this right, and found in favour of ASLEF. There was no question of the BNP member's human rights being breached. I will alter the wording to reflect this.
In the same para, another editor has tagged the phrase "many have expelled them from the unions", asking that 'many' be specified (not unreasonable) and for a citation for the whole. The citation is really not necessary, since the following sentence on ASLEF effectively covers ths. As for many, I feel that altering this to some removes the need to specify, the ASLEF case again providing sufficient background along with the following paragraph about Unison. Emeraude ( talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the section has become long- for which i am in a great part responsible. However given the subsequent furrre over the membership leak, this has become unexpectedly topical.-- Streona ( talk) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet found any reliable sources, but if this is true no doubt they'll be along soon. Please note I'm not affiliated with the BNP or their views, I'm just a wikipedian on the hunt for knowledge. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me.
I have already cited it as a reference. It's a rather better reference than a news article! 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Arpitt ( talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No way. There is no justification for including a link to the membership list in the article. It's easy enough to find it online independently anyway, via wikileaks, many servers and mirrors, and even as a torrent. WKP is an encyclopaedia, and linking to the membership list does not come under encyclopaedic information. In addition, I feel it's morally wrong to promote the dissemination of such personal detail of so many people against their will and without their permission, no matter what one thinks of them. Centrepull ( talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Please notice: Someone is posting links to the BNP membership list in this page. I do not think it is good and may raise privacy concerns. Should this page be protected? Eros of Fire ( talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Unless a reliable source details where to find the list, we shouldn't link to it, for that simplest of reasons. Once that happens, though, it can be discussed. UK law would have no authority here, as WP is not under any UK jurisdiction. It would be a strictly internal decision on US law first, and our policies second. UK law is irrelevant. rootology ( C)( T) 07:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Intellectual property? This is obviously using the adjective in a rather specialised sense, isn't it ? Have you ever read Lee barnes "epic" poetry?-- Streona ( talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Some very strange expert legal opinions here, none fo whose providers will be getting my business. 1 Publishing anything, anywhere, does not place it in the public domain. If it's copyright, it's coyright. 2 Wikipedia may not be subject to English law, but its editors in Britain certainly are. (And any non-UK residents planning to visit ought to check their liability in this regard.) 3 "Intellectual property": I very much doubt that a list can be defined as such, though the database it came from is. 4 Quoting from copyright material for non-commercial academic purposes is specifically allowed (and, let's face it, Wikipedia could not exist otherwise).
Incidentally, now that the list is available online at Wikileaks, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin has declared that is genuine in several papers and on TV, it ought to be acceptable to say that X is/was a member of the BNP, citing the list and Griffin's statement of its provenance. But I would like a real legal expert to confirm this. Emeraude ( talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Emeraude's right. At the very least it requires someone higher in the Wikipedia food chain to make a decision on this as there seems to be a weakness in the decision making process at this level. It's a shame such a fairly straightforward issue is taking so long to resolve as the list obviously doesn't invade privacy as the data has been mirrored relentlessly for a couple of days now. Yesterday the UK cops were supposed to be scouring the lists to see if any of it's cohort were members so obviously they believe it's real. Like Emeraude said even the leader of the BNP has acknowledged it's validity so where on earth is the problem? Another factor to put in the mix. The controversy about the list has become part of the BNP's history. Because the leak has become a phenomena in it's very own right it should be seriously considered for inclusion. Take the http://bnpnearme.co.uk/ that appeared last night. It's a unique example of information activism. Perhaps these novel behaviors deserve a page entirely of their own? Irritant ( talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, says that he knows who leaked the full membership list of his far-Right organisation onto the internet...
Mr Griffin claimed that those responsible for posting the 12,000 names, along with a wealth of personal details, on Sunday night were extremists who felt that the line the party was taking under his leadership was too moderate..." Times: BNP leader Nick Griffin says he knows who leaked membership list. Nov 10, 2008 [1]
"The list is essentially genuine, but has been slightly modified..." BNP Website: Membership List Leak – Urgent Update from BNP leader Nick Griffin. Nov 18, 2008 [2]
The list has been in the wild for four days. This seems an unreasonable amount of time for a decision to be made either way on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irritant ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
"If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law." If you live in Scotland, you are covered by Scots law as well as UK-wide legislation, but not specifically by English law except in unusual and/or near-unique cases. As far as I know (from a years' study of law, admittedly not much to go on), the information on the database is not anybody's intellectual property, as it is devoid of any creative or technical input which would render it so. It is not libellous to state that an individual is a member of a particular political party when this is in fact the case. However, distributing the information from the database is likely to breach the Data Protection Act, as the information both makes it possible to identify any included individual, and is not guaranteed to be used solely for legal purposes by someone coming across the relevant webpage.
Therefore, linking's not such a good idea, if only for caution's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.25.39 ( talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and for correcting me on not mentioning Scottish law). Are you sure though about the Data Protection Act? My understanding is that using information does not contravene the Act; the BNP has though almost certainly failed in its duties under the Act to protect the data it holds on individuals electronically. Emeraude ( talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Will, would of done it myself but still not allowed to edit semi protected pages yet :\ BritishWatcher ( talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with the ability to edit the article mention that PC Steve Bettley has been suspended following the BNP members list leak.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7740817.stm BritishWatcher ( talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think he probably is a BNP member, but that's not the point. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about the BNP, not a current affairs headlines grabber. It is not appropriate to make any edits to any article based simply on response to the latest news item (however accurate it may be). Emeraude ( talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact he has been suspended is not gossip, a statement was given by the police force in question. In no way is it calling him a member of the BNP, it is simply saying he has been suspended whilst inquiries are ongoing. I agree with your tone when it comes to the gutter press, but these are reliable sources such as the BBC BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the fact suspended has now been added, but i do not see the need to remove the police officers name, which is now fully in the public domain. BritishWatcher ( talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
[EC] Note to Rodhullandemu: Referring to edits as "good faith" doesn't give you a licence to revert them as you please, nor does the fact that some people argue on a talk against the inclusion of a piece of cited information make it OK for you to repeatedly remove that information from the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies and verifiability, we should not add to the article anyone from the leaked list unless they have also been mentioned in secondary sources such as the media. A list such as this may contain errors or coincidentally shared names, or have other issues which make it a problematic primary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A small computer file appeared on the Internet last week, purporting to list the 13,000 members of the racist, far-right British National Party. ... A host for the list is Wikileaks, a site that has become a home for orphaned material, ... (After much debate, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is unrelated to Wikileaks, has not linked to the material.)
Its funny looking at the graph showing article traffic and the huge spike that took place on the 19th with over 50,000 viewing the page. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/British_National_Party BritishWatcher ( talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Those of us familiar with Redwatch will know that much of the material the fascist-right publish on their opponents is wrong or out of date. The problem with this list is that there may be people on it quite innocently or even with similar names. One of them even has my name - but its a different address. If people can be directed to another site fine, but I do not think wikipedia should underwrite the truth of this list without further verification. As far as I am aware I do not know of any attacks on BNP alleged members, but I understand that BNP sympathisers have threatened the host of the bnpmembership.blogspot and they have taken down the list If I can source this I can post it on the article. It is available elsewhere-- Streona ( talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
In the introductory paragraph to Section 1: History, the first instance of the abbreviation NF should be clarified as NF( National Front). I would have made this minor edit myself had I the privilege level to do so. I suggest that someone with such privilege make this change to make the text clearer for those of us not already familiar with UK party abbreviations. Godhner ( talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Streona and Emeraude should be banned from editing this article. They have very specific opinions about the BNP and they are using it as a way to push their liberal anti-white agendas.
I do not know what you have against white people, or why you think they can not have their own nations just like asians and africans do, but please keep your hatred out from the wiki. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BNP Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worthy explain that they do not consider themselves fascists. That it the only thing I want... is that too much? Eros of Fire ( talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears that this needs to be taken higher. The sources need to verified independently of people involved with this article and as such WP:RS is the place to take, these sources. I though doubt this will satisfy both sides. If this fails then formal mediation or a form of arbitration could be necessary.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 11:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
COPIED FROM RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICE BOARD WHEN THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED
Broadly the [Copsey] paper talks about attempts to rebrand the party, that this is just a branding exercise and does not represent any real change to their view. and concludes with "Griffin's ideological revamp underpins the party's normalization in the eyes of the thousands of Britons who vote for it, making it even more difficult to pin the 'fascist' or 'Nazi' label on the well-groomed bespoke suits of Britain's latest generation of neo-fascist extremists." -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections." -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 15:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a small point, but what we are discussing here isn't an exceptional claim - it is not exceptional that parties have ideologies, it's not outlandish that they might be fascist, everyone accepts they *were* (at teh very least) fascist, and so it doesn't demand truly otustanding references to prove it (incidentally, Copsey's 2007 article is that sort of gold dust, an article directly related to assessing whether the BNP is fascist (rather than assuming it, or asserting it out of hand) that we could only dream of on otehr articles, it is a very high quality source. It is the quality of the soruce that amtters, and its relative weighting within the academic discussion (if a gereat many reliable, third party published sources existed saying the BNP are not fascist, then it *ouwld* be an exceptional claim, to date, though, none have been produced).-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
At this moment, it is the only party whose infobox does not match the official statements of the party. That is not fair. I am moving fascism from the infobox to the main body. It makes more sense. Eros of Fire ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Eros of Fire on his User page lists the BNP as one of the organisations Eros defines as "white resistance against white extinction." Has the white population of the world declined then? -- Streona ( talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would have see colonialism: Global European population explosion. To decline in colonial powers. Followed by China and India's population explosion for instance. Basic history that is a fairly ignorant comment you have posted Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Should also add Western birthrates drop contributing further to a decline. Thats fairly well know. Aswell as increased immigration or better known as mass immigration. Also this an article titled "Whites outnumbered in a generation as immigrants change face of US" So it is something that has been covered by the mainstream media (for all of you who need a Multicult stamp of approval on your information). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4535138.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 01:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So if the white population is in decline due to falling birth rates in what way is the British National Party likely to make any significant contribution ? I would have thought lager-swilling oafs were probably going to restrict their own reproductive potential rather than promote the genesis of hordes of Fascist mini-mes. Perhaps thats how evolution works. That said, I have nothing against the rest of the white population reproducing. Some of my best friends- including my parents and most of my family - are white and none of them have ever felt the need to join the BNP.-- Streona ( talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but every act of miscegenation (which results in procreation)will self-evidently result in an equal diminution of one other race at the same time. As for alcohol and fecundity I was thinking partially of former BNP councillor Luke Smith, whose details have unfortunately been deleted from the article, who after getting drunk and bottling a senior BNP colleague at one of their RWB festivals went on to hang himself in front of an Indian restaurant, thus depriving the white race of his potential progeny. Point is how are the BNP relevant to reversing a declining birth-rate? There is insufficient love in the World, Martin and I think this may be the crux of our problems.-- Streona ( talk) 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the birth rate, I think their ideas include: increasing the number of jobs available, thus helping people to feel economically secure enough to raise children; providing financial incentives to raise children, and raise them well; promoting the family unit, thus increasing the percentage of the current generation who can contribute positively to the next one; discouraging intermarriage-- MartinUK ( talk) 10:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
And the topic was...?"-- Streona ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats how you'd expect a normal country to behave MartinUK. Well, thats how all western countries used to behave.
Streona you'd have to clarify your last comments relevance to MartinUK's comment i am afraid it doesn't make sense on its own. Martin made no mention of breeding. I'd also refer you to Godwin's law also Reductio ad Hitlerum
Has anyone talked about the BNP supporters names going on the internet? Jim Hanratty ( talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reference to Godwin's Law (yet again) but I am not sure of the relevance, The topic at the head of the paragraph is whether of not Emeraude and I should be allowed to edit wikipedia. I suggest that the person who queries this has a racist agenda since s/he says so on their user page and their name is suggestive of a KKK symbol.I have not, in this section mentioned Hitler or Nazis but in a discussion as to whther or not an organisation is the intellectual (in the loosest sense) heir of Hitler, Godwin's Law is hardly applicable is it? Likewise any discussion of, say the SS, is going to have innumerable reductiones ad Hitlerae in it due to the subject matter.-- Streona ( talk) 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahh streona Britishwatch cleared that up a few comments ago its ^ up there. I'm amazed you manage to fit the KKK, Nazi, hitler, SS into one paragraph and have impressed me with your incoherant argument. Perhaps this is is why people think you shouldn't edit this article and don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way, if you are going to refer to previously stated four things ad nauseam.
Again I'd refer you to both the Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum article perhaps you should read them.
You'll have to explain the bit about an Eros of fire being suggestive of a KKK symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.27 ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe a Cross of Fire is a KKK symbol. I have not introduced the Nazi reference here anyway, but you can read the wiki article on Godwin's Law, wherein it says "The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable." Obviously it will be more probable in a discussion about Fascism or alleged Fascism than in a discussion about bird watching. Now forgive me for taking this a tad personally but the topic ar the top of this increasingly futile (and it started off futile)paragraph was upon the question as to whether or not Emeraude and I should be censored by someone who is a self-confessed white-racialist. Now you say that I am not supposed to even have an opinion on that either. You can see where this is going in the Reductio ad Godwin department can't you? Because that's just what Hitler would have done. (You see what I've done there?)Or Nick Griffin in expelling "Ramblin'Sid Rumpo" Colin Auty from the BNP for opposing him in an internal party"election".-- Streona ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The state that the BNP would create if they gained power would be Nazi but would be called something else - such as "British Democracy". This is implicit in their policies. They find it convenient to disguise this for political opportunism but it does not alter the objectve position. The BNP "discourage" inter-racial marriages. They attribute all the nation's problems to a particular ethnic minority -presently "Muslims". They would "encourage" ethnic minorities to leave the country and those that did not would be denied any benefits or social housing - or jobs. Where would they live? In Camps? If people fought back -as they would - the BNP government could declare a "state of emergency" suspending all democratic rights. The Nazis claimed that the concentration camps were humanely run - no doubt many BNP members still claim to believe this. The racial nation state would be glorified. Dissent within the BNP is interpreted as treachery.These similarities with the policies are not examples of a logical fallacy - they are examples of similar policies in the same way that Arsenal are similar to Spurs not because they drive cars but because they are football teams. Don't worry though - it ain't never going to happen.-- Streona ( talk) 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
For easy of reading, I've had a look at the sources discussed above and collated them here.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |location=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
The BNP estimates that it has 100 councillors, the BBC estimates only 56. It is a sad reflection on Britain in 2009 that most people would now believe the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.197.233 ( talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I've moved the detail from the introduction and placed it further down witout the claims 100 bit. I don't think that's a controversial edit. However, I notice that elsewhere in the article there are other mentions of councillors and local elections that might also benefit from a definite figure. There's also a whole paragraph on the 2006 elections, obviously dated now with local elections being held every year. Emeraude ( talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's very ironic who you BNP supporters say you support freedom of speech, and yet you want to ban people you don't agree with you from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.255.104 ( talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it? People are blocked on every other article on wikipedia. Numerous people are banned, blocked and censored. For things like "sock pupperty" or being vexatious or vandalising articles. Also benefiting or having personal interest in editing an article or displaying an extremely biased POV. Sometimes simply because of their opinion. I'd say your comment is ironic Also how do you know they are BNP supporters.
It's not ironic to want to ban people if you are a fascist.-- Streona ( talk) 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just come to this article by accident, and it feels really lop-sided to me, especially in the heading paragraphs. The BNP is not best known as an anti-semitic party, and I've never, ever, heard this referred to in public or on the TV. It might be true, but the heavy loading of this one issue unbalances the whole article. The focus of the BNP is and always has been on opposition to immigration; that's what it campaigns on, that's what it is attacked for. It's unfair to portray them in terms which few ordinary people would recognise from TV coverage, surely? The article should present the party calmly, and in terms that members would consider fair, as well as the rest of us. I'll make some edits, but it sounds as if an edit war is in progress and they may be reverted.
One other point... I know some people hate the BNP with an extraordinary passion that (in honesty) I don't quite understand. Political hate is a nasty business, whoever the victim is. But ... this article needs to have the tone of an encyclopedia, not a diatribe. It feels too much like that latter at the moment. It is good that statements are referenced; but that's not enough by itself. I know someone will probably scream at me, but please don't. I don't care about the subject of the article. I do care that it's fair and reasonable. Roger Pearse ( talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is now officially pro-BNP viewpoint, and needs amending back to an accurate, sourced, neutral version.
Previous:
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right and whites-only political party in the United Kingdom.
New:
The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom. It is known for opposition to mass immigration. The party is described as far-right by its opponents
They are whites only by their own admission, why has this been removed? It is not described as far-right by its opponents, it is described as far right by every mainstream source going, to suggest it is only their opponents view is advancing the BNP's fringe view that they are not far right.
Previous:
It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation
Why has this been removed?
Previous:
The BNP is rebuked and ostracized by mainstream politicians, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair, and current Labour Party Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
New:
The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians and TV and mass media journalists of all other parties.
Does. Not. Make. Sense. Also it is more relevant to show that the leaders of all three major parties criticise the BNP, not remove their names.
Addition:
Some press comment at the time displayed unease with the idea of prosecuting the leader of a legal political party for statements made in private, and they were in the end acquitted. It is thought that the BNP has been heavily penetrated by the British police and intelligence services.
Other than the acquittal, which was covered in the previous version, get that unsourced crap out of the article.
Previous:
Examples of more direct action against the BNP include obstruction of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.
New:
Members of the BNP have also complained of intimidation and violence. BNP events are routinely met with counter demonstrations, which often become violent. Examples of this "direct action" against the BNP include obstruction and initimidation of BNP activists who set up stalls in shopping centres. For example, members of the Scottish Socialist Party in Edinburgh blockaded and forced a BNP publicity stall to close.
The Scotsman source already cited does not support the new text, quite the opposite. It confirms that a stall was blockaded, but the BNP regarded the blockade as "friendly banter". So get rid of the unsourced pro-BNP crap, and back to the previous version please.
This editor needs to be watched carefully, those edits are clearly pro-BNP not NPOV. 86.155.245.189 ( talk) 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that the arguement over the BNP aparently being a fascist movement. I suggest (again) that it be put in brakets 'Denied by BNP' OR 'disputed' with a link to this wikipedia article that argues over the definitions of fascism. I think this would be fair and make this article look a little less biass (which it very much is).
Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.21.230 ( talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah right Emmurald the last time this article had a peer review fascism was removed, but you put it back on calling those who say they aren't fascists 'BNP appolgists' It wasn't rejected, but only stopped, by you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 ( talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask the few who can edit this article to add a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? As a glance at this discussion alone shows it most certainly is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.70.151 ( talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
We can't though, the moment we dare hange it Emmeruld will remove it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.109.136.175 (
talk)
20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Emeraude, you must then agree that this article needs a, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? A look at this discussion shows it definately is disputed. Please add this now, Britwatcher, in the name of even handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.146.148 ( talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any suggestions on how this article can be neutral -assuming that it isn't - that do not involve whether or not it has a Fascism tag? I have not seen any yet. Maybe that's because it is already neutral, but that as a result some people do not like what they see i.e. that the BNP is a very nasty organisation with ends and goals that are morally unacceptable to people who do not see non-white people as inferior or with any less rights in the UK as those with the same skin colour as the BNP membership.-- Streona ( talk) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The BNP are not necessarily Fascist, there just racists that enjoy judging people on the colour of there skin. There mostly small minded and petty, many are prone to acts of violence and most are rather unintelligent persons. It is no wonder most people in the army are BNP thugs. Why don't we include that in the article eh? (Eros of fire you have no right to go around on this talk page telling other people there way of thinking is wrong while at the same time defending you own opinions from attack. Your a hypocrite). Celtic Muffin&Co. ( talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Uhhhh. This really irritates me. Why can't people just look at EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view. No, they are not "fascists". They are only "fascists" if they call themselves that. The American Republican party call the Democrats "communists" but I don't see that on Obama's page do I. We are not here to teach people NOT to vote BMP. They can vote whatever they want. That's why the UK is a democratic institution and should be treated as such. Personally, I find the BMP a dispicable bunch of people, but they still have a right to be treated neutrally.-- 81.151.248.191 ( talk) 12:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire BNP article by wikipedia is and example of falsely categorizing an organization by using selective extreme examples without any balance, for instance the BNP has currently 63 candidates for the European Parliament. Did wilkipedia or the rather the leftist who write for it and who have established its rules do a comprehensive interviews on those 63 before and gain a spectrum of their views , attempt to catogorize those views and address the party as say " currently amongst the BNP political candidates for the European Parlaiment x percentage have the view of thus and y percentage feel this way and z percentage express this view", NO they cherry pick the worst examples of extremism they can find, over a twenty year period including non BNP members and those who were removed for extremism and present it in the worst light.Then they use the term far right?? A political party that is going to nationalize the banks and the public transport system and Improve funding for the National Heath system and stop development on green belts can be called several things, but one of them is NOT "far right". They also want to re establish the right of free speech in the UK.. You could label them Nationalist In the US they would be called socialist or left center but far right is unfair.Then you try to smear the leadership by presenting something Griffin said eleven years ago all the while insinuating dark motives behind the statement and refusing to use more current material to give balance. I will give you an example they represent Nick Griffin view as published in the Rune in 98 as an example of how he feels now but fail to print ANY of the many subsequent articles in which Mr Griffin has explained his views then and now Also his 98 conviction for publishing material likely to incite racial violence is a monument not to Griffins venality but to communist style censorship of free speech and the laws that made that conviction possible in the UK over something as trivial as an uncaptioned cartoon are widely condemned by civil libertarians all over the globe. I will note you did not mention any of that in your so called unbiased article. I dare you to present that ENTIRE case complete for public scrutiny now. You won't because people would see what a bunch of anti free speech facsists You people at wikipedia are!! The whole WIKIpedia publication IS AS ONE SIDED AS THEY CAN POSSIBLY MAKE IT AND ESCAPE ACTION FOR LIABLE. You are a bunch of socialist Globalists masquerading as objective writers while publishing propoganda. and unlike you I am not afraid to sign my name John Bambey —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.116.255.137 (
talk)
22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)<!
Amongst us Anglo Saxon history types we only ever refer to William as 'William the Bastard'. He was never known as the Conqueror in his lifetime -either "the Great" by his supporters or to his face and "the Bastard" by everyone else.-- Streona ( talk) 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
To get back on topic... Streona, are you one of the people who can edit this article (seeing that it is locked)? Your open hostility to this group suggests to the observer that perhaps you should restrain yourself and leave this article to more neutral editors. Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.181 ( talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I can edit the article, however I tend to over compensate by being too favourable to the BNP. Also, given the contriversy it has to be immaculately sourced.-- Streona ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I find it totally bizarre that a party whose most recent election manifesto was titled "Rebuilding British Democracy" is being described as fascist in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.102.236 ( talk) 13:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the emphasis maybe on "Rebuilding" (as in Demolishing)here, rather then "Democracy".-- Streona ( talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This article to me, actually looks too kind to the party. In attempting to be neutral, the editors seem to have disproportionately represented the positives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 ( talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently reads:
This is too long, although all true. How about this?
Can we get it shorter? Roger Pearse ( talk) 17:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In what respect is it one-sided? By all means offer suggestions. The current one seems dreadfully biased against the BNP. Roger Pearse ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’". The BNP also accepts white immigrants that are assimilated into one of those ethnicities.
"The British National Party (BNP) is a right-wing political party in the United Kingdom, described as far-right by its opponents. It is known for opposition to mass immigration, and has a stated ambition of "stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration" to the UK and to making the country "overwhelmingly white" again. In the late 2000s it has opposed Islam especially strongly, and actively recruited Jewish members. [14][15][16] The party has no members of parliament, achieving 0.7% of the popular vote in the 2005 UK General Election, but has periodically achieved success in local council elections. The BNP is ostracized by all mainstream politicians, and all TV and mass media journalists.[22][23][24] Members of the party are not permitted by the state to be police officers,[25] or to be civil servants, council officials and many other state employees[26]. The party has also been the target of a campaign to prevent it having any bank accounts, which led to it being expelled by Barclays Bank.[27] Currently the BNP is making electoral progress, and the current recession has led to several calls from Labour politicians for action to address concerns of voters who are perceived as liable to vote BNP.[28]" (Still shorter than before, but doesn't miss anything vital. If anything else can go from the intro to the main article, I'd suggest the 'bank account' sentence. Note that the references might need moving around)-- MartinUK ( talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The two big problems I have here are a) the qualifier "described by it's opponents" - we aren't relying on their political opponents or the media, we are using multiple peer reviewed sources for that identification - to say those academics are their opponents represents original research and synthesis and is a weasel phrase to boot. b) The other problem is that once again, you are removing the fact, that that they have a colour bar on membership - making then unique in mainstream. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The BNP are known for publishing misleading articles to suit their own position. Take Whites Are the Majority of Racial Crime Victims, Research Shows which states a report by "well known researcher" Tony Shell provides various facts and figures. What that does not tell you is that the contents of the report do not exist apart from on the BNP site and blogs and forums reporting it, similarly Tony Shell and the name of the report, or that Tony Shell is actually the BNP's Plymouth organiser. Other than undisputed statements of fact or direct quotes, anything should be sourced from someone other than the BNP. 86.155.245.189 ( talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
"... it does not accept practising Sikhs, Jews and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British." The link provided does not mention Jews. How do we know the BNP does not accept Jews as British in some way? Boris B ( talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added unreliable source? tags to a number of potentially contentious claims, presented as fact, regarding the BNP that are referenced only to BNP material and thus lacking third-party verification. Also, reworded a couple of claims to reflect what was actually in source, and added a failed verification tag to a claim entirely unsupported by the web address provided as a source. FrFintonStack ( talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)