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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I cannot believe the editors of this page have let it become such a state! It reads like anti-BNP propaganda and contains little useful information. Read the Respect page. It doesn't say that they're a bunch of racist muslims does it? So why is this one written the way it is? Don't try to defend yourself with quotes and explainations etc. this article bears a far left opinion and not a lot else. If you don't understand the BNP from a fairly neutral standpoint you should leave this page alone 80.5.156.202 ( talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Rsloch 16:20, 12 May 2008 (BST)
“ | Well, if I can't defend myself with quotes and explanations, what can I do?! | ” |
I think this sums it up. You need evidence to support an argument and the arguments say they are racist and far-right. LOTRrules ( talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This I think, is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia - just because you can provide a web link or quote a published article that supports something you assert does not automatically make it true. For example, I could provide all manner of citations which supported a number of totally conflicting and contradicitory views. Therefore simply citing only articles and cases in favour of your POV amounts to POV. Further, just because I say something a lot, or say it very aggresively doesn't make it true either. That said, I personally do not think that this wikipedia entry is particularly biased, although I think that it should contain more information on policies in the BNP manifesto that are not racially controversial or motivated (there are many - I have just checked it). However, I do have one concern: why does the google preview for the wikipedia entry contain the following (incorrect) entry? [sic]
"The British National Party (BNP) is a far right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom. [13] [14] [15] It has around 48 councillors in local ... "
Clearly the BNP is not whites only, I don't think they have any racial restrcitions on membership, and the 'whites-only' assertion has (rightly) been removed from the wikipedia page (yet remains in the google preview) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarobi ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All those references that claim the party is Fascistic are outdated, the last being from 2000. Mr.Griffin has since denounced the Nazi ideology which the BNP once (largely) abided by.-- AryeitskiySaldat 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
look, this comes from the first page of the constitution on the left,
7) Every party member has the right to express criticism or dissent on matters internal to the party
While by definition Fascism is a totalitarian and authoritarian ideology.-- AryeitskiySaldat 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union had a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech, association, etc, but it was in practice totalitarian. All the constitution can support is claims made about what the BNP say, not what they are/do (i.e. it is a valid source on the constitution of the BNP). To dispute the matetr' we'd need a sourced quote from an official BNP spokesperson denying that they are fascist: but from WP:NPOV that would only lead to a section on whether or not the BNP are fascist, because so many commentators claim they are.-- Red Deathy 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Most organisations, political parties etc. would describe the BNP as fascist. To say they are not facist because they claim not to be is to give the BNP undue weight over other sources. Lurker ( said · done) 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Red Deathy 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This all good and well but this Is all circumstantial what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?-- Lucy-marie 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Lucymarie asked "what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?" Well, the sources that have been deleted (and should be replaced until this debate ends) are perfectly reliable. I will list others below, but it is up to people to read them! Creation of the media? Come on, the British media across the political spectrun describes the BNP as fascist; not unpleasant, not nasty, not unnice, but fascist. Likewise, the mainstream political parties and their leaders describe the BNP as fascist (as quoted in article). Now, if its good enough for the Daily Mail and the Conservative Perty (neither of which align with ny general views), then it's good enough for me.
AryeitskiySaldat has a problem that the references are books and cannot be verified online. Tough. Go to a bookshop and buy them or go to a library and borrow them. Wikipedia sources based on the Internet are generally less reliable than published works - if you cannot access the references then you are required to asume good faith - that's a basic Wiki principle. The fact that some books predate 2003 when the leopard apparently changed its spots does not mean it's not a leopard any more! Besides, most of these books have had later editions in any case.
Now for a reading list of journal articles, with some quotes. Each of these puts forward a view that the BNP is fascist and in direct tradition of the fascist groups whicg proceeded it and from which it grew.
Hmm..,those quotes don't seem particularly reliable and i'll give a few reasons. First of all, since when is a journalist a reliable reference. It is highly possible that the media that published many of these things did so out of 2 motivations. First, to associate a negative connotation to the party and 2 to attract attention and make subsequent sales. Another reason I have a problem with them is the fact that several claims, like the one that said Griffin said his party is still National Socialist is stated without making any reference to which getherings they were or when they took place. Emeraude claims that just because the leopard changed his spots doesn't mean he's still a leopard is a nice metaphor but this is a political party and not a biological entity. The stance of a party can change as its members and the political climate around do, but a leopard is an animal and I think that is just a cliche Emeraude used to try and keep something he wants to believe in the text. It is possible that they still have different feelings from what they preach but until a good reference is given then it is only speculation and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.-- AryeitskiySaldat 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is all convoluted and no consensus is ever going to be gained as the BNP have never won any power either by running a local council or a whole parish council so what they would actually do in government is unknown so fascism which is characerised as a "style of government" cannot be used as they have never been any form of government.-- 84.66.110.223 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"The British National Party (BNP) is a far right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom"
I can see the liberal/left has wiki all sown up. It's news to me that the BNP is whites only when they have ethnic members too. Stop being bloody biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.176.243 ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The BNP admits "ethnic" members, not into full membership, but into a separate section which consists of Laurence Rustem. When a Jewish BNP candidate stood in Tower Hamlets council elections, Griffin trmpetted this as a sign that they were no longer Nazis. However when the rest of the BNP found out, the Jewish meber was forced to resign the party. Are we not reminded hereof the parable of the duck. Once there was a duck. It quacked like a duck, it looked like a duck and though it might have claimed to be a post modernist democratic political party lo! it was still a duck...-- Streona ( talk) 20:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Streona your making that up she is still in the party in the essex region i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm
While i'm hardly a supporter or even defender of the BNP, going on Wikipedia's own Fascism pages the party can't really be defined as a fascist party. "Fascist" seems to have become a generic term for anything authoritarian anyway, even Stalinism, fascism was apparently never really solidly defined, even the original "fascist manifesto" (which incedentally didnt mention race at all) seems to have been written a good 10 years after Mussolini came to power. "White power"-type parties are closer to National Socialism, which is admittedly similar to fascism but not the same. The List of fascist movements page in the fascism project has various criteria which could be used to identify a "fascist movement", and i don't really think the BNP, going by thier stated aims anyway, fit most of them. What they might get up to if they ever got into power, though, is something else entirely. 89.31.50.92 ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I will add that Fascism is alleged by critics and opponents but frankly the credibility of the authors is so weak that I don't even believe that the Fascism allegation even belongs in the column.-- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, Mein Kampf was published by a press owned by the Nazi Party; Arthur Butz is a professor of Electrical Engineering whose holocaust denial book was published by a member of the National Front. Unlike the works cited in the article, neither of these are published by reputable academic publishers. VoluntarySlave ( talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reference that shows the BNP is not Fascist in the clearly articulated words of Nick Griffin himself. It is between 3:40 and 4:00 of this video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Hzq7OHn9iI&feature=related Now, it has been shown before that the BNP does not identify itself as Fascist but a reply to this was the argument that we need third-way sources and 3 of those sources do not qualify as such and the source by Thurlow is outdated, it is from before Nick Griffin became leader of the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Ireland-Politics-Independence-Mike-Cronin/dp/0312227876/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201458858&sr=8-7 http://www.amazon.com/Wearing-Green-History-Patrick-s-Day/dp/B000OT7UEQ/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201458858&sr=8-15
Furthermore, if the sources are so scholarly as you people are alleging then how come none of them have profiles on Wikipedia? -- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
AryeitskiySaldat asked why do I remove this reference? Well because it is misleading and pretty meaningless. In the first place; the BNP did not "finish 8th". There is no 2nd place in a British election. The winner wins and the others lose. So you may as well say they 'lost' the election. Should we put that in? That the BNP lost the election? Secondly; the SNP polled more votes than the BNP. Does that mean the SNP "finished higher"? Nope. The BNP stood nationally. The SNP only stood in Scotland. Thus there is no valid comparison between the results of the SNP and the results of the BNP. (And likewise PC in Wales and the UUP in NI). Thirdly; it's a misleading thing to say. It tries to imply that the BNP are even in the same ballpark as Labour etc... But they are not. They only got 0.7% of the vote. Peanuts. Like it or not, at least in the 2005 Election, they were a minority party with very little support. It's better to just say they got 0.7% of the vote and leave it at that. However, I won't revert this point again until I hear your view. Marcus22 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
User AryeitskiySaldat is continually removing the consensus viewpoint (ie that the BNP are a fascist party) from this article. Can he/she please refrain from doing so until he/she has either provided reliable sources to indicate otherwise or has established a new consensus. Thankyou. Marcus22 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a legitimate reason for the removal there is no consensus for incision and no firm evidence in the above discussion has been provided to replace the outdated sources,-- 84.66.110.223 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm
Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.-- 84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because POV-pushers who want the Fascism bit in the article outnumber those that don't doesn't mean there's a consensus regarding it. If this is truly an encyclopedia it should be based on who makes the best argument and it is a fact that Fascism is Totalitarian and that the BNP doesn't fit into that categorization because it tolerates dissent in its party. Nobody has provided a concrete argument to this. Emeraude has only provided some childish metaphors and highly hypothtical, POV-pushing opinions regarding what would happen if the BNP is elected.
The debate is done and dusted. Several times over. Please stop disrupting this article. Marcus22 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A few users (
AryeitskiySaldat (
talk ·
contribs),
84.66.110.223 (
talk ·
contribs),
24.203.217.224 (
talk ·
contribs), and perhaps others) have been removing content describing the BNP as fascist, claiming that the BNP has since renounced Nazism. However, the only source produced was from the BNP itself and its reliability has been doubted by other users (notably
Marcus22 (
talk ·
contribs),
lurker (
talk ·
contribs), and
Emeraude (
talk ·
contribs)). This has disrupted the previous consensus -- that the BNP is indeed fascist -- and the conflict has become a messy edit war. --
Ratiocinate (
t •
c)
02:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now added a note in the infobox that the description of the BNP as fascist is contentious, and denied by the BNP. Although this is ugly, it applies the NPOV policy to this controversy, which looks to me to be the only way to resolve this issue. -- The Anome 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This appears that unless credible sources which prove the BNP are fascist today and not in the past and an accurate definition of fascism then there can be no grounds for the inclusion of the label fascist. It is not disprove to remove but prove to include, which must remain the principle focus.-- Lucy-marie 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.-- 84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, the same sock/user in one guise or another has been attacking this page now - on the spurious BNP claim that they are no longer fascist - for some months. It is perhaps time that the article was permanently protected from edits by all except registered users? Otherwise this is going to run and run... Marcus22 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Until reliable sources start referring to the BNP as an "ex-fascist" or "post-fascist" party (or start saying that the party is not fascist) then there's no reason for a change in the article. Reginald Perrin 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick thought, but those making the case that a clause allowing freedom fo dissent in the BNP means it isn't fascist seem to be missing the other factor that the role of the leader is still the dominant one - as the article currently makes clear, all decisions on policy are made by the chairman - the kind of arbitrary personal rule associaed with fascistic practice. So OR cuts both ways, an original research reading of the constitution could be used to reference a claim the BNP is fascist. or maybe we could wait for the reliable third party sources...-- Red Deathy 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are implementing the Voting Membership where the activists and candidates vote on party policy, this means that the party chairman no longer makes the party policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.204.208 ( talk) 17:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Although I myself do not consider the BNP to be a fascist party, couldn't we clear up this mess by saying that they are alleged to be a Facsist party by critics- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFormby1 ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't stand some people, if every newspaper and news programme said that the world was flat, would that make it so?- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 ( talk) 19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This link simply gives the facts on the British National Party, and does not allege that the BNP are fascist, I think the article should be cleaned up and based on this.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/bnp1.html
Yes, but the article doesn't actually state that the BNP are Fascist (Like we have done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.226.217 ( talk) 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Earlier this month around 10 British companies pulled their advertisments from facebook because of their sanctioning of BNP related pages. Surely this deserves a mention? 81.154.133.162 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You are suggesting perhaps that anti BNP news be supressed?-- Streona ( talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP are a racist party. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that. And so due coverage should be given to this matter. But.. isn't it over done in the article? They are, in fact, more than just a racist party. They are sexist. They are militaristic (dangerously so). They are authoritarian (dangerously so). They are economic protectionists - ruinous to the economy of the UK. Shouldn't some of these things be elaborated upon? So that people who are attracted by the racism may see them for the cranks they are? And in order to make space for that elaboration, can we not cut back on some of the racism content? Marcus22 10:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
another Neo-Marxist, the British National Party have specifically stated that they don't hate anyone, they blame the government for out-of-control immigration- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 ( talk) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade. Marcus22 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Marcus22, do you think you are approaching this article from a NPOV or an anti-BNP slant? Be honest now. If you aren't NPOV, then why are you working on an Encyclopedia and not your own website where you can rip apart the BNP all you like? 81.153.49.180 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade 2. Marcus22 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are not a racist organisation. Maybe the facist liberal who wrote this should spend a little more time researching the current ideals of the political party he is attempting to discredit. - Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.207.52 ( talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What has this got to do with their policies? 86.156.88.25 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No reply, so if no-one minds, shall I delete this section or move it to where it may be more appropriate? 86.156.88.25 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start, as this is a notoriously 'hot' article, it's not the best idea to wade in and make a lot of edits as an unregistered user without first making a case for those edits. Nor is it best designed to win friends and influence people to make single - and rather abrupt - statements such as the above. That said, as for the point you make here, I actually agree with you. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are clearly NOT policies per se. So, as far as I am concerned, by all means move them to the appropriate section. Others, however, who may have put a lot of work into this article, may not agree. So why not show (some) good manners and wait to see what they say? Marcus22 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly relevant. The BNP tries to deny that it is a fascist party, yet these incidents and events in its and its leaders' not-so-distant past point to the opposite in this respect at least and are part of the evidence base that the BNP is fascist. The section could probably do with a rewrite, but not deletion or moving "to where it may be more appropriate". (Where would that be exactly?) Emeraude 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the consensus on moving this to where appropriate? 86.146.124.30 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The page is now protected, and the simple issue is this: should it be included in the infobox that this is a fascist group, without giving the information that this is denied by the group? I am an outsider (American, silly me), and it seems like there would be a better way to handle this than to simply state they're a fascist group if they deny it. Can't it be stated something like "far right"? If fascism is included, then we should probably at least state that the group denies it. However, I am an outsider, and for all I know, this group could be Hitler reincarnate... The Evil Spartan 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But to answer your query, I'll put it bluntly for you, by way of an example: my mother and father say I am a certain age. My doctor agrees. My birth certificate agrees too. However, despite all those sources saying one thing, I say I am 700 years old. Does that therefore make my age a matter of debate? Would you now argue that "it is relevant that I say I am 700 years old"? What court of law would uphold my say so against reputable 3rd party evidence to the contrary? I cant think of one. There is no reputable claim to answer here. Marcus22 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Here you are, plenty of space for them:-
So that is the first reply from one of those who insist the BNP is no longer fascist; in other words, they appear to have no sources. Marcus22 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone else care to provide these sources? The Evil Spartan perhaps? Marcus22 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/
etc etc all clearly show the common consensus that the BNP isn't labelled a fascist party. 86.146.124.30 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a source I can think of which shows conclusively that Nick Griffin himself is not a Fascist, in fact that is the main reason why he ousted John Tyndall as party leader. There is a book mentioned in the text by a man called Nick Ryan called "Into a World of Hate, a journey amongst the extreme right" and in an interview he had with Nick Griffin in 1999 Nick Griffin actually states his dislike for the concept of a Nazi party and why he believes it has no place in Britain. You may claim he was lying but one thing that can be said about Nazis and other Fascists is that they are very overt and are often willing to risk being imprisoned for expressing their beliefs. If you are going to claim that they may be trying to guise it to gain power, one that is only hypothetical and two look at Russia where overt Nazis and in particular Skinheads are becoming very prevalent so logically they would not feel inclined to do so. If you go on sites of Nazi or otherwise Fasicst groups like B&H, the National Front etc.., you'll see that they strongly dislike the BNP.-- Sviatoslav86 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Some sources. Despite the spin they are still definately fascist. Wall-papering over it with "far right" would be misleading:
Hundreds more if they are needed, this is just a quick sample. -- sony-youth pléigh 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am left-wing if anything (though prefer not to subscribe to the left-right axis, I am basically against racism and for socialism) but I would say not to use the word Facism to describe the BNP, it is too loaded, not really neccessary and can excluded, and even wikipedias definition accepts that it means different things to different people. I personally have the opinion that it is fascist, yet I still say this is an opinoon, and in this case my opinion only. I think fascist is better attributed to governmental regimes that are in actual power (I hope the BNP never ever reach this stage), and only then with caution, I would argue against labelling the BNP facscist as I would the term islamofascism or labelling legitimate groups such as Hamas fascist (not trying to troll here just saying that I would accept this as a categorised left-winger). Rob.G.P.A 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst a google search isn't much use, a look on Google Scholar for BNP "fascist party" (which is a search taht should bring up both sides of the claims) may help, so, happy hunting, lets see if an article you can cite turns up from there.
This has brought up at least one interesting article: Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006 Author: Nigel Copsey (Show Biography) DOI: 10.1080/00313220601118777 Publication Frequency: 5 issues per year Published in: Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 41, Issue 1 February 2007 , pages 61 - 82 [4]
"Yet, in truth, despite cleverly dissociating itself from inter-war fascism, Nick Griffin's British National Party remains intuitively fascist. To locate the BNP on the national-populist right is ill-advised, and even to argue that it is a hybrid of fascism and national-populism misses the point. At its core, its ideological vision is revolutionary: its long-term objective is a post-liberal, regenerated national community although Griffin's own permutation owes more to the radical ideology of the 1980s National Front and the ITP than the closet neo-Nazism of Tyndall's BNP or, for that matter, the national-populism of the French Front National. Consequently, the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution." -- Red Deathy 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
n. 1. a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing withthe use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight. 2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
"the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution"
This quote doesn't prove anything except saying that he doesn't do anything other than SUSPECT the BNP are fascist, because he hasn't the evidence to make a solid claim of it. 86.146.124.30 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And you don't think we are giving an incorrect impression of the BNP by doing that? How notable is that source? And how neutral is it, with a magazine title like "Patterns of Prejudice"? Would you use an article by Searchlight to describe the BNP? The links I produced show quite clearly that in mainstream opinion the BNP is NOT referred to or recognised as fascist. 86.146.124.30 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/
Look for any newspaper website yourself. 86.146.124.30 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/most_britons_ac.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-I don't acknowledge the patterns of prejudice reference because aside from being biased it is only a hypothetical assumption.-- Sviatoslav86 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding ... politically charged issues". Your source does not cut it I am afraid. I think fascism can be removed completely from the infobox, it's rediculous it has been there so long without a single mention of fascism in the actual article itself. Anstatt 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the POV header for a few reasons:
Having Fascism in the ideology box is clearly considered POVish by a fair number here.
Much of the article uses sources that are clearly anti-BNP and they claim this themselves.
Most of the article is dedicated to non-notable news items that invariably show the BNP in a bad light, without taking into consideration the BNP's opinion or reply. Now I can't make any edit to reconcile these points because they will immediately be reverted. It's no secret that most of the people who look after this article do not like the BNP one bit. So I'm asking for us all to have a look through this article to deal with the points I have raised and hopefully find some problems that we can all/mostly agree need to be solved somehow.
86.146.124.30 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"In the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the BNP released leaflets[36] featuring images of the bombed Route 30 bus and the slogan "Maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP." This move was criticised by the Daily Mail as playing on people's high emotions and grief following a horrendous attack.[37]"
"After the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the BNP republished one of the cartoons of Muhammad on a leaflet, accompanied by a photo of Muslim demonstrators holding placards bearing murderous anti British slogans[40] and a "Which one do YOU find offensive?" caption.[41]"
The "Guardian's infiltration" section
The racial policies section is huge compared to the others and is different in scope. The other sections are pretty much taken word for word from the BNP manifesto, while the racial policy section is subject to commentary. "The BNP publicly disavows any interest in white supremacy. Its detractors argue that its definition of white supremacy as the "wish to rule over foreign peoples" is too narrow." is just someones opinionated commentary. "Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism"". claims, espousing, both of these words seem designed to give the impression that the BNP (or Nick Griffin) is objectively incapable of honesty.
"The BNP [67] supported Leeds University lecturer Dr. Frank Ellis, who was suspended from his post after stating that the Bell Curve theory "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".[68] Ellis called the BNP "a bit too socialist" for his liking and described himself as "an unrepentant Powellite" who would support "humane" repatriation.[69]
In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards. It has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell,[70] with a tape of telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape Russell could be heard to say that "black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional ... and are probably going to mug you". He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".[71]" - two paragraphs that are superfluous.
"Anti-Semitism and holocaust denial" doesn't belong in the policies section (how has it ended up there?), neither does "anti-Islam focus", or "Homosexuality" as these aren't policies of theirs either. They have a new manifesto on their website updated for 2007, the policies can be transferred from there.
The local government section can be shortened, and made much more relevant I think. "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" doesn't give enough focus to the modern BNP's viewpoint on the matter.
"Critics of the BNP assert that a significant minority of elected BNP politicians have criminal records and that the party is more tolerant of the criminal actions of some of its members than other parties would be.[129]" The source is out of date and doesn't support the claim made in the text.
The "opposition to the BNP" section is very fragmented and is mainly based on non-notable news pieces.
"Lancaster UAF has accused all of the below companies of being directly affiliated with the BNP" - Why are we trusting Lancaster UAF? They are the LEAST trustworthy of all sources we could give.
There may or may not be more, I haven't spent so much time looking through. Anstatt 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No-one has yet responded to my wishes to remove/rewrite the sections from the article I have put up here. If no-one objects, when the article is unlocked I shall begin to make changes. Anstatt 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I object and judging from the other responses above so do other editors, so you should not begin to make changes. The current form of this article has come about through discussion among a large number of editors who have, sometimes painfully, managed to reach consensus. There are in my opinion, still improvements to be made, but the right way to go about it is to propose each as a separate point for discussion. Emeraude 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless a party specifically wishes to call itself 'Fascist,' the term 'Fascist' applied by outsiders must be considered highly suspect, especially as the term is chiefly recognized as a term of abuse and a device to discredit political opponents. By the way, this is not a recent development. It was even commented on by the George Orwell in his great essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946). Let me quote:
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'"
By continuing to use the term Fascist in conjunction with the BNP, you are merely expressing your own subjective feelings rather than an objective reality. References to members past beliefs is however legitimate although it's also good to see that Mr. Griffin has moved on and now embraces views that are more central to the British political tradition.
Great shining light of nerdy truth 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really a citation that disproves the fascism tag, but an intesting article [5]. Of course it's always much harder to prove that something does NOT have certain properties than to prove that it does. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Using the model given by http://www.politicalcompass.org which, I think, is more representational than the simple Left-Right axis used in politics, shows the BNP to be 'Authoritarian Left' rather than Fascist (an offensive and often POV term)- GeorgeFormby1 22:35, 29 September 2007 (GMT)
LATEST NEWS: - Since the 9th of December, many members have been sacked from the BNP including several officials named in the article (see the Lancaster UAF Blog or far right blogs via google; [7]), others have resigned, and dissidents have been silenced, resulting in the sudden loss of hundreds of bnp members countrywide.
Nick Griffin and Mark Collett's undemocratic actions seem to justify the fascism tag. If, as now seems, the BNP are fascist, the article must reflect this.
The article seems to read like a party political broadcast for the bnp not an unbiased critique of the far right party. CybercafeUser: Dave: 10:12:07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.32.130 ( talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
William the Bastard was called William the Bastard because his parents were not married, not because he massacred a third of the English population. -- Streona ( talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've little desire to get involved in the arguments above, but here's my two euros. If a disclaimer does need to be added next the BNP being described as "fascist", it cannot be worded as it is at present. "alleged by critics" is imposing a perjorative view of the sources, which cannot be done per WP:NPOV. You can put that the BNP deny it, but cannot attempt to label the sources in this way. "see article for details" is also a self-reference, that has to be removed as well. One Night In Hackney 303 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I say this is however just a flying though that a dose of mediation may help clear this issue up. Any one else agree.-- Lucy-marie 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion below I say mediation is required anyone agree?-- Lucy-marie 11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It was placed there so it was the first thing people would see when schrolling down to the section. It should not be put chronologically as it does not contribute chronologically to the arguments. I also do not see why mediation is opposed as it would sort things out a lot quicker, unprotect the page and create a rational, policy and fact based discussion to take place which would end this dispute.-- Lucy-marie 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are rooted in the NF which itself was rooted in past neo-NAZISM, so to some degree at least the BNP has evolved using NAZI party doctrine, especially the idea that genetic trates are passed down in race (eugenics), anti-semitism, which with Israel (and the Jewish race) being brought over to western and right-wing American acceptance has evolved into anti-islamism (all groups that rely on support from the disillusioned or uneducated must have a specific enemy, now islam, again in context with NAZISM). I would use the term fascist to describe the BNP, even though I would vote against its inclusion in the encylopedia as I understand fascism itself is broadly defined. Also stating the evidence above I would call it a Neo-NAZI movement to some degree, as it was bourne out of Neo-NAZISM, however that is too loaded as well. , and by the way NAZISM comes under fascism. Personally I think the most appropriate classification of the BNP is that of a white-supremecist movement, as that is what it is, it advocates that white people are better than asians/blacks etc. As most of its supporters are highly uneduiucated, unitelligent or have anger complexes I dont understand why they think they are 'better' than the often better educated, more peaceful, and usually less ignorant migrants, but they do. The fact that eugenics is totally discredited by eveyone who has more than half a brain cell shows that these people are not superiro in anyway shape or form, but my point is they believe in white-supremecism. Rob.G.P.A 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Splendid, I propose that we rename the "Policies" sections "Politics" and begin with a para describing the BNP's orientation. Something like: Some commentators locate the politics of the BNP within the fascist tradition. Writer A Notes: "blah blah blah." As does B who says "yakkatty yakkatty." The BNP themselves have traditionally publically dissociated themselves from fascism (BNP Source); although some commentators observe that their policies belie this disavowal. It's a start... Red Deathy 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely the best place for this is near the top, since the BNP is controversial because of its fascist tag. The 'white nationalist' phrase has to go anyway, to be changed back to 'far-right' (I don't know how that ever got changed). Perhaps a short final paragraph in the introduction? Failing that, there is a section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" which could perhapd be renamed and rewritten to include this. Alternatively, it could make a good introductory paragraph to the "Opposition to the BNP" section. Emeraude 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how please. Anstatt 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why does this section even exist? I notice that no other parties of the UK have such sections devoted to the subject. This information would be better expressed in their own personal articles (seeing as it has nothing to do with the BNP other than by association). Anstatt 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
He's resigned from the party now so can someone that is allowed to edit the page add former to the start of it, please?
It's just above the contents box. :)
Thanks, O2mcgovem 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} See above, not controversial and completely unrelated to the protection One Night In Hackney 303 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all.
I've never contributed to Wiki before so forgive if I making some sort of horrible faux pas. I am however a member of the BNP and I obviously object strongly to being called a facist. I understand from this debate reputable sources are required to "prove" that the BNP is not a facist party. So here are two, are these admissiable?
"When the election finally arrives, beware. Given its [the BNP] talent for issuing leaflets that read more like Socialist Worker than Mein Kampf, the British National Party is making hay with the issue of casual labour, as I was recently reminded while reading The Triumph of the Political Class, a new book by the Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne. An elegant tirade against a cross-party cabal either in thrall to vested interests or so lost in the woods of electoral arithmetic that the stuff of real lives scares them, one of its most sobering sections deals with the rise of the BNP "in Barking, Dagenham, Dewsbury, Leeds and Burnley" and its place in what he sees as an "insurgency against the political class".
John Harris, The Guardian, 19th October 2007
"Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, challenges the widely held view that the BNP is an extreme Right-wing party. He said that he was unable to find evidence of "Right-wing tendencies" in its 2005 manifesto."
Telegraph, 22 March 2006,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/21/npoll21.xml
Given the hatred directed at the BNP if it could be proven that it is a facistical organisation then it would most certainly have been by now. The fact that this can not be proved is itself strong evidence to the contray.
With regard to the BNP's policy set. Almost all of the BNP's most controversial policies have been endorsed by mainstream policians.
The superior claims of indigenous people to state resources was recently supported by Margret Hodge.
The volentary repatriation scheme is already law (1971 Immigration Act) and in use with Labour offering financel rewards to asylum seekers to return to their home nations.
So if these polcies make the BNP facist then then Labour should be also be deemed to be so.
Refrences to the BNP's past are irrelevant. The Labour Party may once have been socialist, the Conservatives were once pro-Slavery, both were Imperialist for the majority of their existance but no sensible person would claim them to be any of these things now.
The argument that the BNP membership is the same now as it was in 2000 is also wrong. The BNP's membership is now at least five times greater than it was in that year, at a conservative estimate. Even assuming the entire 2000 membership are still members they would constitute a fraction of the total.
(spencer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.1.169 ( talk) 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hackney would you mind backing up your frivolous claims posted on your talk page claiming I am a racist. I find that offensive that just because somebody interprets POV differently on a controversial issue regarding race theyt are automatically branded a racist. I also do not push POV.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see how many sources will say the BNP is Fascist when they are in government (!), There are reputable sources which say that the Labour Party are Neo-Marxist- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is to be noted that, there has been some cases of vandalism of Wiki articles from what it appears to be by BNP activists or online supporters from the circumstantial online evidences and traces. This is not stereotyping BNP by any means, but it is very important to increase awareness and responsible editing for both BNP supporters and general readers of the main article, hence I have cited few references of such cases and IP address traces in the "Violence & Criminal behaviour" section. Smet 13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Undid the RV, 13:55 13 Nov 2007
Smet
14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"Companies alleged to be linked to the BNP" has gone. UAF making claims about companies on their blog just isn't a reliable source. If the claims had been made somewhere more reliable it would be better, but it's completely unreasonable to claim organisations have links to the BNP without reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 303 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Where's the evidence for this?
"The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals."
This is a pretty serious charge! It should not be permitted without a credible primary source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.89 ( talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does this get a section of its own under the history of the party? There have been many articles on the party and I can't see why this one should be viewed as so critical in the history of the party to warrant its own section. I suggest it should be shortened and included in the 2000s section. Suitsyou ( talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"According to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."[12] The BNP proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[13] 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’".[12]
The party accepts white people with non-British ancestry if they are assimilated into one of the British ethnicities. The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals. The party asserts that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature.[14]"
Why is their view on race so intricately described so early in an intro? Would it not make sense to put this in their policy section, whilst making reference in one way or another that they hold controversial views on multiculturalism (as they do)?
"Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has tended to focus on Muslims as its main adversary. The party has publicly said that they do not consider Hindus and Sikhs to be any threat, although the BNP doesn't accept practicing Sikhs and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[15] The BNP has even worked with anti-Muslim Sikh groups.[16]"
This is more about their racial policies, and what exactly does "main adversary" mean? That they have been sword fighting with Muslims? The word "tended" seems to make this sentence redundant, even if you believe a political party could have an ethnic adversary. It seems like a weasel word to me. Surely a political parties adversary is another political party?
"Mainstream political parties in the UK marginalise the BNP, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, and former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair.[17][18][19]"
The first part of this sounds like a sentence designed to emote pity for the BNP, but I guess it is fact anyway haha.
So what do you think about changes as I have suggested to the intro? Sinthesizer ( talk) 13:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources for this section currently point to 404's (not found) so can't be verified. They are also from 2005, so are heavily outdated and should be updated to 2007 policies. Here is a link to their current policies, including a 'Mini Manifesto' which seems to be more indepth. http://www.bnp.org.uk/?page_id=51
Note: The main BNP site has been redesigned so many of the sources for the article now return 404's. Triedandtested ( talk) 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Where to begin. I wrote Independent because the party cannot be categorized into the scale of left-wing or right-wing. They actually share more in common with the Liberal Democrats or Labour than they do with the Tories. They oppose laissez-faire captalism, Globalism, Foreign Intervention, Materialism, Consummerism, and support endeavours to clamp down on Greenhouse emmissions. It is actually more accurate to label the party leftist than rightist because Conservatives oppose the racial element of the party, the one area where they're at odds with left-wing groups while they share nothing in common with Conservatives.-- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[14] [15] -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the redirects be fixed? Here are some examples:
Could these and others be fixed? 206.113.132.130 ( talk) 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
With some improvement and cleanup, this could attain GA status. Why this hasn't been rated against a WikiProject in importance and class yet I don't know.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a video that shows the recorded dialogue that he explicitly said that blacks are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, a burden on welfare resources and are probably going to mug you. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRKk2K3fMk0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - mention of a spent conviction, without malice I should think applies to people seeking to hold public office - so I think the mention should stay...-- Red Deathy ( talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As to my alleged COI, I know Nick Griffin and the Union accepts members from all political persuasions and none. We have a lot of BNP members because other Unions operate a New McCarthyite policy of denying them workplace representation. I make no secret of my views on racism and fascism - I am opposed to both. I am also someone who supports a pluralist, democratic and liberal society. My liberal views are what make me question why other editors aren't as open as to their motives and affiliations and the hypocrisy they exhibit in using fascist techniques against 'fascists'. If you can show clearly why you need to use examples which breach the Act I will reconsider. ( Doublethink64 ( talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Under the ROA1974 job applicants are not required to disclose "spent" convictions. There is nothing to prevent other people from raising them. I suggest that most parties are prepared to stand candidates with convictions they consider to be political in support of their aims - e.g. Manny Shinwell, or indeed myself, when I stood as a Labour candidate I made no secret of having been convicted of an offence whilst opposing the National Front. Several local Labour councillors were duffed up by the Police on the Wapping picket lines and considered it a badge of honour. (actually I still have a "medal" struck by the printer's union). Thus the issue is not that the BNP will support candidates with a criminal record, but rather what those ofences are, and what they reveal about the underlying aims of such a party, regardless of their statedintentions.-- Streona ( talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm wondering why this article is not part of either Wikiproject United Kingdom and/or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics given it's nature and notability. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The page for the group itself and this article need reliable sources; I found these two-- [17] and [18]
Overall, the larger issue of BNP front group and BNP infiltration needs more coverage in this article. Griffin has said: "If we can't achieve anything in the parliamentary sense, we'll achieve it in another way, by going into communities in other ways; it's far easier than fighting elections." 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is advertised on the BNP website as a way of supportting the BNP by giving them money & getting a "club tie" (yippee!)and is explicitly a front organisation as are various other grouplets such as "Green Arrow" and "The British Workers Union".-- Streona ( talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Policies section is strictly meant for current policies. As the BNP has Jewish members, I think this section should be placed in the history section. None of these smear tactics are done on the Labour Party page or the LibDems. 206.113.132.130 ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) restored signature change made by Qwenton Emeraude ( talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I'm a new user? Qwenton ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not an appropriate adition to an already crowded infobox, imo. Emeraude ( talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the editors who placed the"disputed neutrality" tag have left Wikipedia, so we could remove it per policy. However, if any other editors want the tag to remain, could they list their specific changes they would require us to make before removing it - else I'll take it off in a few days.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent edit per WP:biographies of living people. Allegations were being made that living people had engaged in (among other things) theft, money-laundering, and allegations of attempting to seduce young girls, all sourced by a blog. One Night In Hackney 303 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to the 3 outdated (and extremely unreliable - particularly Politiken (an anti-semite communist newspaper in Denmark)) sources claiming BNP to be fascist, and no way to verify the possible claims from the fourth source (not a free service), I have marked the "Fascism"-claim as "obsolete" until we get something newer and non-biased information. Left-wing newspapers are not reliable sources for anything but alleged views. Dylansmrjones ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if a reference is old, it is not obsolete. Especially if a current reference states the same case. For example, a reference stating that "George VI is the ruling monarch of England" that is obsolete. A reference from 1962 stating "Elizabeth II is the ruling monarch of England" is not, because she is still monarch. For references, age shall not wither them. The tag may say "old" but it reads on the screen as "obsolete" those references are not obsolete. I won't engage in edit warring over it, I'd be on 3rr to revert the change, could another editor remove the tags, please?-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I repeat my invitation for critics of the article to produce a new version/total re-write in their user space for us to discuss.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The info box should contain a summary of indisputable facts from the article. The article does not even discuss fascism. I have removed fascism from the info box. See Al Quaida where this aspect has been discussed extensively. The info box does not state they are "terrorist", but that they have been classified as such by certain offical organisations. The article on Provisional Irish Republican Army states in the article that they have been classified as terrorist by certain official organisations, but does not include this in the info box.
This article makes assumptions, relying on the views of opponents of the group, making unattributed POV statements such as "in which he lost his seat, after a successful anti-fascist campaign" (which I have amended).
There are serious WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP issues here.
I might mention my comments should not be interpreted in any way as representing any personal political position, but only as the need to write wikipedia articles according to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, non-negotiable policies.
Tyrenius ( talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fascism has been removed from the infobox per WP:BLP. We do not make alleged contentious statements about living people in this way. This is a valid topic for examination in the article from a NPOV but so far is not discussed in the article. That is the first stage. Editors may be blocked for BLP violations. Tyrenius ( talk) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above for wider participation. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the edit [22] by User:The Anome. It shows that NPOV is not served by the recent state of the info box. Why was that changed? Tyrenius ( talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A note on the edit summary [25]. The info box is not a substitute for an article. It should be drawn from the article. It is necessary to include full referencing in the article. A significant objection to the infobox at the moment, is that the article does not expound properly on what is stated in the info box. An article of this nature needs to be referenced tightly and fully throughout. Tyrenius ( talk) 05:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
The BNP propose that all citizens, upon completion of compulsory national service, are to maintain a standard-issue military assault rifle and live ammunition in their home.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
... we advocate the adoption of the modern Swiss model for a responsibly armed citizenry. Under this all law-abiding adults who have successfully completed their period of military service are required to keep in a safe locker in their homes a standard-issue military assault rifle and ammunition.
I have boldfaced the two important points that are missing from the text as it stands in the article at the moment. It seems that any points made in the original manifesto that suggest regulation and responsibility have been removed for this article, and indeed the term live ammunition has been used to further suggest volatility. Although this does not change the fact that the BNP wants military issue weapons and ammunition to be held by ex-military citizens in their homes, the way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
In addition to the reintroduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the reintroduction of the death penalty for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers where their guilt has been proven to be beyond doubt (for example by DNA testing or an individual confession), the BNP promises a mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an National Health Service worker.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.
and
We support wholeheartedly the nursing unions’ campaign for Zero Tolerance for violence directed against NHS staff. Such incidents should carry an automatic prison sentence, and the withdrawal of all medical care from the culprits for a period which should vary according to the severity of their attack on NHS staff.
I have boldfaced the important points that are missing from the text as it stands in the article at the moment. As you can see, the point about a judges discretion has been removed to subtly increase the perceived extremity of proposed policy. Indeed, individual confession is nowhere to be seen in the manifesto itself as this would be a weak point due to false or forced confessions. The way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
In addition to increasing military defence spending, the BNP plans to reintroduce compulsory national service for all citizens, and to deny some civil rights, including the right to vote, to those who refuse to perform this service.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote. Individuals would be free to refuse to undertake any form of National Service, but such a refusal to serve the community for the common good would result in their not being entitled to free places at university, on training courses or self-employment schemes.
The boldfaced text should be explained as it was in the actual manifesto. The way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of merging the three contributions above, since 217.44.143.22 has made some good points which I feel can usefully be considered together. In my view, the whole Policies section is too wordy in any case and rather than adding more detail, as your suggestions would necessitate, I would suggest simplifying and reducing the amount of text, rather than adding qualifiers. Anyone wanting clarification can then follow the links to the BNP source. This would have the additional effect of addressing the NPOV concerns you have raised. To take each policy separately:
I rated this at 'B-class' and 'Mid', respectively. Thoughts? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
the article of guardian clearly staes that sikhs extremeist and hindu extremeists work with bnp to create anti islamic work they dont oppose islamism they work with racists full stop stop ducking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.210.213 ( talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the news article referred to is from The Observer on December 23, 2001. It says that the BNP "have joined forces with extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities in an anti-Islamic campaign....." Wikipedia say "The BNP has been known to work with Sikh groups opposing Islamism." I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Emeraude ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not very hard to grasp what im saying the article states sikhs and hindu extremeist are in link working against muslims it doesnt say islamism. stop manipulating words from the article to express islamophobic veiws and cover up what some sikhs and hindus engage in.
I can see this section getting angry before long. I think that the proposed change by 86.156.210.213 is justified. The largest group that the B.N.P. worked with, Sher-E-Punjab, is anti-Muslim. The Observer article states that the tape made could have fallen foul of the new laws against religious hatred. It would require a minor change in wording from "Islamism" to "Islam in Britain". Epa101 ( talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So when will you correct this intentinal mistake and write what the article actually says and avoid misleading readers? now should be a good time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.21 ( talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Having gone back to this, re-read the Observer article carefully and the Wikipedia article, I can see that there may be a discrepancy, but not as the anonymous editor claims above. The Guardian does not claim that the BNP was working with Sikh and Hindu extremists "against muslims" (though effectively there may be little difference). What it actually says is that there was "an anti-Islamic campaign" and refers to "the party's anti-Islamic stance". However, this is clearly not the same as Wikipedia reporting it as "opposing Islamism", that being a politicisation of Islam the religion. Also, Wikipedia makes no mention of Hindu involvement. In the circumstances, I have altered the Wikipedia text to read "The BNP has been known to work with extremist Hindu and Sikh groups opposing Islam." Emeraude ( talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Propaganda redcated] 206.113.137.3 ( talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not necessary to mention any party's reaction to every news event. That would make this and every other party article unnecessarily large. Emeraude ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the BNP is fascist when... external link removed ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to discuss the article. This is not the place to post party propoganda. The fascist nature of the BNP is well-referenced in the article, as I'm sure you know. Emeraude ( talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned. It is significant beyond the usual comments that any party makes. It shows how the B.N.P. is being anti-Islam in its foreign policy, and ties in with its support for Israel against Hezbollah. Both cases are a move away from traditional Nazism. Obviously, support for Israel is not Nazi. Over Kosovo, the Nazis had allowed Albania to annex the province away from Serbia. The Nazi puppet regime in Kosovo killed hundreds of Serbs and Jews. The K.L.A. had similarities with Nazi ideology, as shown in how it targetted Gypsies as well as Serbs. If the B.N.P. was still straight Nazi, it would have supported Kosovo against Serbia. This policy shows that it priorities its opposition to Islam above almost everything else now. There are already comments on those lines in the article, but this recent policy adds to the resources. Epa101 ( talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think youre right in that the BNP's overidding aim is to attack islam, but your argument does not prove they do not share similarities with Nazi ideology. In fact originally the Nazis did support the foundation of the state of Israel, although they were undoubtbly extremely antisemitic, during the second world war albanian muslism are renouned for being one of the most supportive ethnic minorities to Jews, so I would be careful with your teneous assertions. 86.138.254.99 ( talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1998/235/ulsternazi.html I think that the article could do a bit more with the B.N.P.'s links with Ulster Loyalists. I believe that this is another thing that Nick Griffin has toned down under his leadership. Under John Tyndall, the B.N.P. was very vocal about Northern Ireland. They never talk about it now. Epa101 ( talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A few issues which affect the article:
LOTRrules ( talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. But the other articles don't outline the policies but reading it over it does seem okay but I doubt it'll ever be considered a good article. LOTRrules ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The recent addition of " whites-only" to the lede surprised me somewhat, but it is backed up by a reliable source: [26] Unless there are independent, published sources that show this is not true, it is reasonable that this should stay in the article. Gwernol 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, their racial definition is considerably more complex than that. What they actually say in the BNP Constitution is
2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.
3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over
and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2. [27]
So although an American in one of these groups may be eligible, when it comes down to it, they tend to regard other 'white' nationalities as inherently second best to British. Emeraude ( talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is stunningly ridiculous: "The British National Party (BNP) is a whites only far right political party". For a start, what does "white" mean?! I thought it had been long since established that there is no such thing as race: http://www.diversityinc.com/public/3062.cfm. I don't think the BNP is pro east-european immigrant either, so: a. what is this statement really based on beyond a prejudicial interpretation, that relies on an outdated, meaningless, and refuted concept, namely "race"; and, b. how does it then actually make any meaningful sense as a statement? The BNP does not prohibit people of mixed race joining, so are you suggesting that "mixed race" equates to "whiteness"?!
At the end of the day, "white" is an American concept designed to bundle up a particular interest-group of immigrants into already inhabited territory; in Europe, we have autochthonous ethnicities, and that's how we are most accurately described. I'm not "Caucasian", I don't share genetic markers with people of the middle east; I'm not "white", because I don't have to design a new nomenclature to differentiate myself from other immigrants, because my ancestors have always been here; so as far as I'm concerned, I have an ethnicity like anyone else in the world. Frankly, calling me "white" is as racist as lumping up all the people of the far east and calling them "yellow", or lumping all the people in the world who are vaguely brown as "black". It's outdated; anachronistic; and offensive, and should be challenged and rejected. Anyone who believes that race exists is by definition a racist. Only ethnicity exists, and a quick search would reveal that to an open and enquiring mind. I am not white, I'm British; the BNP is not "whites only"; it's "British only". As to how you define British, that is a separate question and not one for this article to deal with... for that, you go and seek out the article on British ethnicity. I hope that clarifies things, and we can now put the teenagers to bed, and replace all the diatribe with grown up content. user:MacDaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.13.217 ( talk) 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite sounding syntactically amateurish, Whites-only is not at all accurate in defining the BNP's policies. Nor is White Nationalist. Their policies state that they do accept Whites of European origin (this explains their Greek-Armenian member), ergo British-only is no better a description.
Regardless of what the party states, they have non-White members in their numerous Jewish members and activists. Furthermore, they work closely with Hindus and Sikhs, some of whom are members, I believe.
I'm removing White Nationalism and Whites-only - they are just unsupported and totally wrong, in effect.
Rsloch ( talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (BST)
And a solution is found :) Rsloch ( talk) 10:10, 13 May 2008 (BST)
The BNP is not a " Whites-only" party (which is terribly worded in English anyway). And even more evident is that it is far from White Nationalist. The BNP has a Sikh member [28] and prides itself on having Jewish members [29]
Regardless of what the party says, it's actions show that it is not "Whites-only" or White Nationalist. I also remember on their website months ago it said that they welcome Jews as integrated allies who face "the same threat from militant Islamism" (if only I had the article at hand).
The BNP has also shown support for the right of Gurkhas to remain in Britain.
In conclusion, the British National Party is not "Whites-only" and certainly not White Nationalist.
This to be precise. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not above their more prominent policiesm, and a letter from a "respected" (I laughed) politician who's arguably more right wing than the BNP is no substitute for a reliable secondary sources. The rest is just BNP policy that they barely get coverage for, therefore it's undue weight putting it in the lead. One Night In Hackney 303 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the Nick Eriksen news event has been added in. Why do barely notable news items like this litter the article, but not for other political parties? I searched The Labour Party article for "Northern Rock" but to no result, and this has received far more headlines than anything the BNP have ever done. Can anyone tell me why the following parts of the article are notable:
1. The entire "2000's" section, apart from a few lines that should mention their success in Dagenham + Barking and the trial.
2. The "Guardian Infiltration"
3. Most of the "2007 Split" section
4. In the "Racial Policies" section, the section on Frank Ellis and Phil Edwards. Also: "We do not and we never will." Griffin's use of the phrase "secure a future for white children" is similar to the white nationalist "Fourteen Words"." is someones own opinion/research, and should be deleted.
5. Why is Lee Barnes' blog notable? He isn't even directly involved with the BNP.
6. Google video source in the Anti-Islam section
7. Richard Barnbrook and Mark Collett in the anti-homosexuality section
8. In the section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" - the paragraph about Nick Griffin should be in his own article. Knowing a man who hasn't been proven to have done anything? Is this notable at all? The rally attended by William Pierce (why), Redwatch (an ex-BNP member makes a site which the BNP are advised not to go on.... why is this notable).
9. The paragraph on their newspaper troubles in "Repression of Free Speech"
10. The section about the ANL, Searchlight etc is too long for it's notability, and reads like an advert. Blockading a publicity stall in Scotland? So?
In "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" - "critics of the BNP" is sourced by a single Guardian columnist, and offers no rebuttal (why are we just giving the critics point of view?). In fact, why isn't this entire section amalgamated into their history? Why is a list of convictions given? Why doesn't this feature in other political party articles?
Why does the policy section read like a critique of their most controversial opinions?
Bothsales ( talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
whuy are they called right wing? They are anything but! They're totalitarian bigoted fascists! Hardly rigt wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.147.214 ( talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By any stretch of the imagination, unless you a particularily retarded and polemical historian with nothing to back up your claims but the discussion about your polemic, fascism is a right-wing phenomenum, the BNP is right-wing, it is also fascist, although it is debatable if 'islamofascism' exists, then it is right-wing conservative Islam, Osama Bin Laden is an islamic right winger, the Iranian revolutionary government is right-wing, however the Syrian goverment and Lybian goverment style themselves as left-wing, and the PLO is generally considered left-wing, just some home truths. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is too long. It should be reduced to a general description of the party and its program, its historical development, and electoral status.
The definition of an appropriate "neutral point of view" is to compare its sections and content to that of mainstream parties (in Britain and elsewhere). Entire sub-sections on each small controversy or leader's statement are out of place. There should be one section on "Controversies", with a sentence or two on each, and copiously references to anti-BNP reporting that will detail these issues elsewhere.
For example, the entire subject of anti-Semitism should be a few sentences -- stating that there were openly anti-Semitic policies/statements initially, these have been reformed, but situation remains "ambiguous" due to statements by party leader. A lengthy transcription of statements by Nick Griffin to "prove the case" doesn't belong here -- that should be found in an off-site link.
Obviously there is a great deal of antipathy towards the BNP, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to present it. The appearance of the article being a lengthy attack -- almost a court dossier being built up to prove a point -- rather than objective presentation, only makes it look like the party is being ganged up on. And of course childish vandalism reflects terribly on anti-BNP forces as well.
In keeping with all these efforts to paint as unappealing a portrait as possible, the article (in my quick scanning) seems to focus entirely on race issues, and make no mention of the rest of BNP ideology. Leftist BNP opponents may not want to mention anything that might be regarded as positive (in their own quarters) -- but the nature of the BNP as a "working class" and "socialist" party is of tremendous significance in explaining the substantial growth of the party among disgruntled working class (former) Labour Party members. Anti-BNP activists certainly won't be able to campaign effectively against the party's rise if they have no idea what is appealing about the party to many people in Britain -- and Wikipedia is certainly the venue for them to get that objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.146 ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Some references are now dead links (so should be replaced with Internet Archive links). Some sources seem not too reliable - Manchester University Labour Club, monstersandcritics.com, local newspapers like Doncaster Today, organisations with an obvious bias like Stop the BNP. It may be better to explicitly state the source in these cases (eg: "According to ..., the BNP ....") -- h2g2bob ( talk) 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If a party has wide spread support for its policies (as [roven by a 2004 sky news pole) it simply cannot be called a fascist party. To state that the BNP is a fascist party is to call a large amount of British people facist. There is also the fact they wish to restore local democracy, and of course the fact that they have jewish members and supporters. To call a party a facscist group just because of there immigration policy is an outrage! infact it is likley that left wing/ radical students are behind this nightmare! They are the same kind of people who were holding up the Enoch Powell is a nazi banners during the 1960's and 70's. Your opinon that the British National Party is Fascist Cannot be based on a few quotes from the old era!
If you look to the right of the page it clearly states under ideolodgy: Fascism. Fascism is usually a government that is forced onto people. chris: 30th may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeofflies ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP is a fascist political party. This is not a condemnation of the BNP, it is a fact. forestPIG 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hitler had popular support, but on this definition he could not have been a fascist-- Streona ( talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck-- Streona ( talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I need to simplify this point - If a political party looks like a fascist party, its policies are of a fascist nature and its main reason for being is in order to promote the interests of one racial group over a less powerful racial group, then, despite claiming to be a legitimate democratic party then it is a fascist party. Generally however our BNP chums are happier with monosyllabic words like duck and Nazi.-- Streona ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. we had you at Stalingrad, boys.
Sorry. This must be our famous British sense of humour. ("irony, metaphor, litotes - he was vicious"). We love each other really- many's the glass we have shared with our BNP chums. Unfortunately generally describing a parabola. Still, we had them over at the Nuremburg Trials, eh? -- Streona ( talk) 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But it squeals like a pig!-- Streona ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Alot of people are very annoyed by how it says under political ideolodgies "fascism". Now it used to say "fascism(denied by BNP)" I think if this was put back up again it would satisfy people. Agreed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.132.209 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 June 2008
No-- Streona ( talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? forestPIG 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP deny it? Even so, their opinion hardly constitues a reliable 3rd party source. Setwisohi ( talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What grounds do you have to call the BNP fascist? They are not supporters of a right wing government of extreme dicatorship. It is compairable to Mr blair saying Labour isnt socalist anymore and thts ok with people, but when the BNP says it isnt fascist anymore that is a problem? I there for agree. It should be changed to (denied by BNP) or removed altogether —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.147.33 ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the references provided, and read the fascist page, some people seem to have forgotten what fascist means, and just hink it's an abusive term used by people who don't like the BNP. Harland1 ( t/ c) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
At present the BNP do not wish to see a political opposition to the Government ruthlessly suppressed, anymore than Hitler wanted to be shot at in Munich in 1923, but should they obtain state power they wish to force people out of this country based upon their perceived non-white origins. How they might go about this without the ruthless suppression of those people and their supporters is at present not made explicit by their front men although the knuckle-dragging bovver boys that scrape along the gutter in their wake make this all too obvious- fascism. I am married to a Pakistani and we have a son. These people will touch them over a mound of their own dead bodies and mine - the same now and the same as my parents in 1940-- Streona ( talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So that is your bias streona when did the nazi's victimize pakistaniese let me think never. Also didn't Hitler and the nazi's pick up most of their ideology on educational trips to that region before the war ie swastika. Who is the nazi lover now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
British Muslims, and especially Pakistanis are the prime target for the BNP,as well you know. I suggest that the Nazis picked up much of their ideology from Hitler, Mussolini, Houston Chamberlain, Hans Horbiger and Edmund Kiss without ever leaving the confines of Germany, Austria and naturally German parts of the Sudetenland.The Ahnenherbe may have trawled around the world for their wierd fantasies, but without success. The swastika symbol was advocated by Hess, from his tutor at Heidelberg and was first adopted by the Finnish Air Force in 1918. Similarly I suggest that the BNP get much of their ideology from John Tyndall and Colin Jordan. Why do most of the pro-BNP contributors not sign their posts, have only IP numbers, which only seem to be used once or twice in the early hours of the morning? (and have terrible spelling and grammar)-- Streona ( talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You honestly don't know where nazism came from and Mussolini was facist Nazi's are exactly what they are National socialists not nationalists. If your so against this bnp national party why is it that the BNP (bangladeshi national party) , BNP ( Bhutan national party) and the other national parties of the world are left alone especially their wikipedia pages which are empty of discussion compared to this BNP. Oh could it be that you have a deep racial hatred for "white" people. Streona you also are clearly a liar for instance claiming the jewish member of the party was expelled which was false and your entry was filled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors also the reason these are logged in the morning for you is because the internet is a global communication network and not just in Britain if you new anything about IP numbers you would determine where they are from. In conclusion "These people will touch them over a mound of their own dead bodies and mine" you sound like an extremist crank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 09:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And your post sounds like personal abuse. At least I can spell "fascism" and maybe you would like to tell me what did happen to your "jewish" candidate in Tower Hamlets? Also you forgot to mention the French bank called "BNP", but nobody calls them fascist either. I may make the odd error, but the last entry could be described as almost entirely grammar-free. Why would I hate white people? I am white, but unlike you I don't equate them with the BNP-- Streona ( talk) 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
how was it abusive your threat to kill a large number of BNP members sounds like political violence so it is extremism and well you do sound like a crank by the very definition of the word. . If its your fear that the bnp is going to harm your family why don't you contact the bnp and discuss their policy like a civilised unparanoid human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh i didn't know they had a jewish member there i was refering to Patricia Richardson are we talking about one and the same. If not thats wonderful that they have had more jewish candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The British National Party would not force anyoe to leave the UK unless they are not leagally here, the view on mixed marriges is not one they enforce at all, its just a view. You may not know one of the BNPs members is half turkish. It is quite clear that the term fascism is just being used as a moral club by people who dislike the BNP. (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.17.143 ( talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I have not threatened anyone ,except on the contingency that the BNP achieve state power, and enforce persecution upon people whom they do not like, as is their aim and in the face of such opposition they attempt to introduce fascist-like measures. Ain't gonna happen, because there are many people who feel the same, and because there are so many of us you would have to take repressive measures.And that is why my views are not "crank".
2.I do not fear the BNP will harm my family, but I think they intend to if they could.
3.I do not intend to contact the BNP for a chat because I have a life, and if 121.216.248.117 does not think his/her post is abusive within BNP discussion circles then the prospects of a "civilised unparanoid" exchange are minimal.
4."The view on mixed marriges (sic) is not one they enforce at all, its just a view". What the hell does that mean?
5.Presumably the fact that people who are not "leagally here" are illegal is not a unique selling point of the BNP- unless they wish to redefine non white people's legal status, -as indeed the Nuremburg decrees did.
6.I understand that the BNP does not have any "half turkish" members, but that it has an "Ethnic Liaison Committee" to which the deluded Mr.Rustem is allowed to belong on the basis of "separate development". Perhaps the Ku Klux Klan has the same.
7. I understand that the BNP would not directly force out black & Asian people after a recent change in policy, but would "encourage" them. Like Kristallnacht was encouragement.
8.Does anyone in this exchange have a name as such- apart from sinebot? -- Streona ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll.I must not feed the troll. Imust not feed the troll.Imust not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll.I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll...
This is pathetic, people are forceing there own biass opinons onto this page! Just because you dislike a party and there policies doesnt give you the right to call them fascists. If you cant show a little respect and mutual debate than please go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.186.255 ( talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you will find that my posts have been other than reasoned and polite, addressing the the point that the BNP are fascistic by implication, even if not explicit. The fact that they will provoke resistance to any policy implementation underlines this. Yet again nobody seems to have a name, although each post seems to share similar spelling and grammatical errors. Who is forcing anyone?
Can we put the troll to sleep now?-- Streona ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
YOU are the troll Streona anyone can see this by the number of times your name appears in the history. Also by the number of times you referer to fringe hate groups like the KKK what the hell has that got to do with an British political party or even the Nazi regime which is German. Maybe you should know the meaning of a word before you use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh and streona our IP's show we are different people in different parts of the world. Clearly you aren't paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is indicated by the user pages of the three anonymous and unsigned contributors is that all three (IP 79.71.186. 255 IP 88.11.17.143 and IP 121.216.248.117) are people who have only first registered with wikipedia in the past few days and have only made contributions to the BNP discussion page or the Young BNP (plus one in 2006). I am also aware that false IP addresses may be obtained from websites set up for this purpose. What all this means I have no idea. You -as you have said- know where I am coming from, but I have no idea what your game is and frankly I am getting too tired to really care. I refer you to Olaf Davies edit.-- Streona ( talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Shall we call an end to this? Whatever your personal views, this is not the place to express them. The BNP are a Fascist party, simple as that.Fascism is not inherantly Nazi-ism, as Oswald Mosley showed. However, without deviating from the point, the lead stays as it is, and the talk page should be left for discussing the article. </rant> -- Neo Nerd 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No we shall not call an end to it because when a party is called fascist you have to back up such a strong word. All I suggest is that the word fascist be removed from the ideolodgies and a new piece be added to the BNP article called allagations of fascism. They party does not claim to be fascist, it is just a word being used as a moral club by people who are for mass immigration. You cant let your personal views on an issue get in the way of the facts. Fascism is a right wing government of extreme dictatorship. Is the BNP a right wing government of EXTREME dictatorship? I think it is patetic and that there are people on here who are soo desprete to make he BNP look bad they have to wide spread lies on this site. (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.137.141 ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall do just that then! (chris)
Neo nerd are you saying that the wikipedia page on fascism can be used as a source. You can't you use wikipedia pages as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 04:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't in the article, but this is the talk page. Several alternative definitions are very apposite.-- Streona ( talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow I didn't know only europeans could be fascist there you go. Name one fascist regime other then the Nazi or Mussolini's NFP or even better name one thats not european. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about non-Europeans at all? As you say the BNP are not a government. But they would like to be.-- Streona ( talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I cannot believe the editors of this page have let it become such a state! It reads like anti-BNP propaganda and contains little useful information. Read the Respect page. It doesn't say that they're a bunch of racist muslims does it? So why is this one written the way it is? Don't try to defend yourself with quotes and explainations etc. this article bears a far left opinion and not a lot else. If you don't understand the BNP from a fairly neutral standpoint you should leave this page alone 80.5.156.202 ( talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Rsloch 16:20, 12 May 2008 (BST)
“ | Well, if I can't defend myself with quotes and explanations, what can I do?! | ” |
I think this sums it up. You need evidence to support an argument and the arguments say they are racist and far-right. LOTRrules ( talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This I think, is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia - just because you can provide a web link or quote a published article that supports something you assert does not automatically make it true. For example, I could provide all manner of citations which supported a number of totally conflicting and contradicitory views. Therefore simply citing only articles and cases in favour of your POV amounts to POV. Further, just because I say something a lot, or say it very aggresively doesn't make it true either. That said, I personally do not think that this wikipedia entry is particularly biased, although I think that it should contain more information on policies in the BNP manifesto that are not racially controversial or motivated (there are many - I have just checked it). However, I do have one concern: why does the google preview for the wikipedia entry contain the following (incorrect) entry? [sic]
"The British National Party (BNP) is a far right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom. [13] [14] [15] It has around 48 councillors in local ... "
Clearly the BNP is not whites only, I don't think they have any racial restrcitions on membership, and the 'whites-only' assertion has (rightly) been removed from the wikipedia page (yet remains in the google preview) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarobi ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
All those references that claim the party is Fascistic are outdated, the last being from 2000. Mr.Griffin has since denounced the Nazi ideology which the BNP once (largely) abided by.-- AryeitskiySaldat 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
look, this comes from the first page of the constitution on the left,
7) Every party member has the right to express criticism or dissent on matters internal to the party
While by definition Fascism is a totalitarian and authoritarian ideology.-- AryeitskiySaldat 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union had a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech, association, etc, but it was in practice totalitarian. All the constitution can support is claims made about what the BNP say, not what they are/do (i.e. it is a valid source on the constitution of the BNP). To dispute the matetr' we'd need a sourced quote from an official BNP spokesperson denying that they are fascist: but from WP:NPOV that would only lead to a section on whether or not the BNP are fascist, because so many commentators claim they are.-- Red Deathy 07:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Most organisations, political parties etc. would describe the BNP as fascist. To say they are not facist because they claim not to be is to give the BNP undue weight over other sources. Lurker ( said · done) 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Red Deathy 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This all good and well but this Is all circumstantial what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?-- Lucy-marie 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Lucymarie asked "what direct evidence is there to prove the BNP are infact fascists and it is not a creation of the media or an opinion?" Well, the sources that have been deleted (and should be replaced until this debate ends) are perfectly reliable. I will list others below, but it is up to people to read them! Creation of the media? Come on, the British media across the political spectrun describes the BNP as fascist; not unpleasant, not nasty, not unnice, but fascist. Likewise, the mainstream political parties and their leaders describe the BNP as fascist (as quoted in article). Now, if its good enough for the Daily Mail and the Conservative Perty (neither of which align with ny general views), then it's good enough for me.
AryeitskiySaldat has a problem that the references are books and cannot be verified online. Tough. Go to a bookshop and buy them or go to a library and borrow them. Wikipedia sources based on the Internet are generally less reliable than published works - if you cannot access the references then you are required to asume good faith - that's a basic Wiki principle. The fact that some books predate 2003 when the leopard apparently changed its spots does not mean it's not a leopard any more! Besides, most of these books have had later editions in any case.
Now for a reading list of journal articles, with some quotes. Each of these puts forward a view that the BNP is fascist and in direct tradition of the fascist groups whicg proceeded it and from which it grew.
Hmm..,those quotes don't seem particularly reliable and i'll give a few reasons. First of all, since when is a journalist a reliable reference. It is highly possible that the media that published many of these things did so out of 2 motivations. First, to associate a negative connotation to the party and 2 to attract attention and make subsequent sales. Another reason I have a problem with them is the fact that several claims, like the one that said Griffin said his party is still National Socialist is stated without making any reference to which getherings they were or when they took place. Emeraude claims that just because the leopard changed his spots doesn't mean he's still a leopard is a nice metaphor but this is a political party and not a biological entity. The stance of a party can change as its members and the political climate around do, but a leopard is an animal and I think that is just a cliche Emeraude used to try and keep something he wants to believe in the text. It is possible that they still have different feelings from what they preach but until a good reference is given then it is only speculation and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.-- AryeitskiySaldat 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is all convoluted and no consensus is ever going to be gained as the BNP have never won any power either by running a local council or a whole parish council so what they would actually do in government is unknown so fascism which is characerised as a "style of government" cannot be used as they have never been any form of government.-- 84.66.110.223 11:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"The British National Party (BNP) is a far right, whites-only political party in the United Kingdom"
I can see the liberal/left has wiki all sown up. It's news to me that the BNP is whites only when they have ethnic members too. Stop being bloody biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.176.243 ( talk) 13:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The BNP admits "ethnic" members, not into full membership, but into a separate section which consists of Laurence Rustem. When a Jewish BNP candidate stood in Tower Hamlets council elections, Griffin trmpetted this as a sign that they were no longer Nazis. However when the rest of the BNP found out, the Jewish meber was forced to resign the party. Are we not reminded hereof the parable of the duck. Once there was a duck. It quacked like a duck, it looked like a duck and though it might have claimed to be a post modernist democratic political party lo! it was still a duck...-- Streona ( talk) 20:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Streona your making that up she is still in the party in the essex region i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm
While i'm hardly a supporter or even defender of the BNP, going on Wikipedia's own Fascism pages the party can't really be defined as a fascist party. "Fascist" seems to have become a generic term for anything authoritarian anyway, even Stalinism, fascism was apparently never really solidly defined, even the original "fascist manifesto" (which incedentally didnt mention race at all) seems to have been written a good 10 years after Mussolini came to power. "White power"-type parties are closer to National Socialism, which is admittedly similar to fascism but not the same. The List of fascist movements page in the fascism project has various criteria which could be used to identify a "fascist movement", and i don't really think the BNP, going by thier stated aims anyway, fit most of them. What they might get up to if they ever got into power, though, is something else entirely. 89.31.50.92 ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I will add that Fascism is alleged by critics and opponents but frankly the credibility of the authors is so weak that I don't even believe that the Fascism allegation even belongs in the column.-- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, Mein Kampf was published by a press owned by the Nazi Party; Arthur Butz is a professor of Electrical Engineering whose holocaust denial book was published by a member of the National Front. Unlike the works cited in the article, neither of these are published by reputable academic publishers. VoluntarySlave ( talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reference that shows the BNP is not Fascist in the clearly articulated words of Nick Griffin himself. It is between 3:40 and 4:00 of this video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=_Hzq7OHn9iI&feature=related Now, it has been shown before that the BNP does not identify itself as Fascist but a reply to this was the argument that we need third-way sources and 3 of those sources do not qualify as such and the source by Thurlow is outdated, it is from before Nick Griffin became leader of the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/Ireland-Politics-Independence-Mike-Cronin/dp/0312227876/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201458858&sr=8-7 http://www.amazon.com/Wearing-Green-History-Patrick-s-Day/dp/B000OT7UEQ/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201458858&sr=8-15
Furthermore, if the sources are so scholarly as you people are alleging then how come none of them have profiles on Wikipedia? -- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
AryeitskiySaldat asked why do I remove this reference? Well because it is misleading and pretty meaningless. In the first place; the BNP did not "finish 8th". There is no 2nd place in a British election. The winner wins and the others lose. So you may as well say they 'lost' the election. Should we put that in? That the BNP lost the election? Secondly; the SNP polled more votes than the BNP. Does that mean the SNP "finished higher"? Nope. The BNP stood nationally. The SNP only stood in Scotland. Thus there is no valid comparison between the results of the SNP and the results of the BNP. (And likewise PC in Wales and the UUP in NI). Thirdly; it's a misleading thing to say. It tries to imply that the BNP are even in the same ballpark as Labour etc... But they are not. They only got 0.7% of the vote. Peanuts. Like it or not, at least in the 2005 Election, they were a minority party with very little support. It's better to just say they got 0.7% of the vote and leave it at that. However, I won't revert this point again until I hear your view. Marcus22 16:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
User AryeitskiySaldat is continually removing the consensus viewpoint (ie that the BNP are a fascist party) from this article. Can he/she please refrain from doing so until he/she has either provided reliable sources to indicate otherwise or has established a new consensus. Thankyou. Marcus22 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a legitimate reason for the removal there is no consensus for incision and no firm evidence in the above discussion has been provided to replace the outdated sources,-- 84.66.110.223 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/no_confrontation.htm
Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.-- 84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Just because POV-pushers who want the Fascism bit in the article outnumber those that don't doesn't mean there's a consensus regarding it. If this is truly an encyclopedia it should be based on who makes the best argument and it is a fact that Fascism is Totalitarian and that the BNP doesn't fit into that categorization because it tolerates dissent in its party. Nobody has provided a concrete argument to this. Emeraude has only provided some childish metaphors and highly hypothtical, POV-pushing opinions regarding what would happen if the BNP is elected.
The debate is done and dusted. Several times over. Please stop disrupting this article. Marcus22 11:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
A few users (
AryeitskiySaldat (
talk ·
contribs),
84.66.110.223 (
talk ·
contribs),
24.203.217.224 (
talk ·
contribs), and perhaps others) have been removing content describing the BNP as fascist, claiming that the BNP has since renounced Nazism. However, the only source produced was from the BNP itself and its reliability has been doubted by other users (notably
Marcus22 (
talk ·
contribs),
lurker (
talk ·
contribs), and
Emeraude (
talk ·
contribs)). This has disrupted the previous consensus -- that the BNP is indeed fascist -- and the conflict has become a messy edit war. --
Ratiocinate (
t •
c)
02:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now added a note in the infobox that the description of the BNP as fascist is contentious, and denied by the BNP. Although this is ugly, it applies the NPOV policy to this controversy, which looks to me to be the only way to resolve this issue. -- The Anome 07:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This appears that unless credible sources which prove the BNP are fascist today and not in the past and an accurate definition of fascism then there can be no grounds for the inclusion of the label fascist. It is not disprove to remove but prove to include, which must remain the principle focus.-- Lucy-marie 22:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a definition of fascism and can we please have these reliable third party sources shown here on this discussion so there legitimacy can be examined.-- 84.66.110.223 10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, the same sock/user in one guise or another has been attacking this page now - on the spurious BNP claim that they are no longer fascist - for some months. It is perhaps time that the article was permanently protected from edits by all except registered users? Otherwise this is going to run and run... Marcus22 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Until reliable sources start referring to the BNP as an "ex-fascist" or "post-fascist" party (or start saying that the party is not fascist) then there's no reason for a change in the article. Reginald Perrin 19:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick thought, but those making the case that a clause allowing freedom fo dissent in the BNP means it isn't fascist seem to be missing the other factor that the role of the leader is still the dominant one - as the article currently makes clear, all decisions on policy are made by the chairman - the kind of arbitrary personal rule associaed with fascistic practice. So OR cuts both ways, an original research reading of the constitution could be used to reference a claim the BNP is fascist. or maybe we could wait for the reliable third party sources...-- Red Deathy 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are implementing the Voting Membership where the activists and candidates vote on party policy, this means that the party chairman no longer makes the party policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.204.208 ( talk) 17:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Although I myself do not consider the BNP to be a fascist party, couldn't we clear up this mess by saying that they are alleged to be a Facsist party by critics- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFormby1 ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't stand some people, if every newspaper and news programme said that the world was flat, would that make it so?- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 ( talk) 19:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This link simply gives the facts on the British National Party, and does not allege that the BNP are fascist, I think the article should be cleaned up and based on this.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/bnp1.html
Yes, but the article doesn't actually state that the BNP are Fascist (Like we have done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.226.217 ( talk) 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Earlier this month around 10 British companies pulled their advertisments from facebook because of their sanctioning of BNP related pages. Surely this deserves a mention? 81.154.133.162 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You are suggesting perhaps that anti BNP news be supressed?-- Streona ( talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP are a racist party. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that. And so due coverage should be given to this matter. But.. isn't it over done in the article? They are, in fact, more than just a racist party. They are sexist. They are militaristic (dangerously so). They are authoritarian (dangerously so). They are economic protectionists - ruinous to the economy of the UK. Shouldn't some of these things be elaborated upon? So that people who are attracted by the racism may see them for the cranks they are? And in order to make space for that elaboration, can we not cut back on some of the racism content? Marcus22 10:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
another Neo-Marxist, the British National Party have specifically stated that they don't hate anyone, they blame the government for out-of-control immigration- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.225.225 ( talk) 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade. Marcus22 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Marcus22, do you think you are approaching this article from a NPOV or an anti-BNP slant? Be honest now. If you aren't NPOV, then why are you working on an Encyclopedia and not your own website where you can rip apart the BNP all you like? 81.153.49.180 15:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for that. Very erudite. But as your comment has nothing to do with the point I am making, can I ask that you move it to wheresoever it may belong? Thankyou, comrade 2. Marcus22 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are not a racist organisation. Maybe the facist liberal who wrote this should spend a little more time researching the current ideals of the political party he is attempting to discredit. - Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.207.52 ( talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What has this got to do with their policies? 86.156.88.25 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No reply, so if no-one minds, shall I delete this section or move it to where it may be more appropriate? 86.156.88.25 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, for a start, as this is a notoriously 'hot' article, it's not the best idea to wade in and make a lot of edits as an unregistered user without first making a case for those edits. Nor is it best designed to win friends and influence people to make single - and rather abrupt - statements such as the above. That said, as for the point you make here, I actually agree with you. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are clearly NOT policies per se. So, as far as I am concerned, by all means move them to the appropriate section. Others, however, who may have put a lot of work into this article, may not agree. So why not show (some) good manners and wait to see what they say? Marcus22 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly relevant. The BNP tries to deny that it is a fascist party, yet these incidents and events in its and its leaders' not-so-distant past point to the opposite in this respect at least and are part of the evidence base that the BNP is fascist. The section could probably do with a rewrite, but not deletion or moving "to where it may be more appropriate". (Where would that be exactly?) Emeraude 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the consensus on moving this to where appropriate? 86.146.124.30 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The page is now protected, and the simple issue is this: should it be included in the infobox that this is a fascist group, without giving the information that this is denied by the group? I am an outsider (American, silly me), and it seems like there would be a better way to handle this than to simply state they're a fascist group if they deny it. Can't it be stated something like "far right"? If fascism is included, then we should probably at least state that the group denies it. However, I am an outsider, and for all I know, this group could be Hitler reincarnate... The Evil Spartan 01:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
But to answer your query, I'll put it bluntly for you, by way of an example: my mother and father say I am a certain age. My doctor agrees. My birth certificate agrees too. However, despite all those sources saying one thing, I say I am 700 years old. Does that therefore make my age a matter of debate? Would you now argue that "it is relevant that I say I am 700 years old"? What court of law would uphold my say so against reputable 3rd party evidence to the contrary? I cant think of one. There is no reputable claim to answer here. Marcus22 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Here you are, plenty of space for them:-
So that is the first reply from one of those who insist the BNP is no longer fascist; in other words, they appear to have no sources. Marcus22 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would someone else care to provide these sources? The Evil Spartan perhaps? Marcus22 18:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/
etc etc all clearly show the common consensus that the BNP isn't labelled a fascist party. 86.146.124.30 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a source I can think of which shows conclusively that Nick Griffin himself is not a Fascist, in fact that is the main reason why he ousted John Tyndall as party leader. There is a book mentioned in the text by a man called Nick Ryan called "Into a World of Hate, a journey amongst the extreme right" and in an interview he had with Nick Griffin in 1999 Nick Griffin actually states his dislike for the concept of a Nazi party and why he believes it has no place in Britain. You may claim he was lying but one thing that can be said about Nazis and other Fascists is that they are very overt and are often willing to risk being imprisoned for expressing their beliefs. If you are going to claim that they may be trying to guise it to gain power, one that is only hypothetical and two look at Russia where overt Nazis and in particular Skinheads are becoming very prevalent so logically they would not feel inclined to do so. If you go on sites of Nazi or otherwise Fasicst groups like B&H, the National Front etc.., you'll see that they strongly dislike the BNP.-- Sviatoslav86 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Some sources. Despite the spin they are still definately fascist. Wall-papering over it with "far right" would be misleading:
Hundreds more if they are needed, this is just a quick sample. -- sony-youth pléigh 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am left-wing if anything (though prefer not to subscribe to the left-right axis, I am basically against racism and for socialism) but I would say not to use the word Facism to describe the BNP, it is too loaded, not really neccessary and can excluded, and even wikipedias definition accepts that it means different things to different people. I personally have the opinion that it is fascist, yet I still say this is an opinoon, and in this case my opinion only. I think fascist is better attributed to governmental regimes that are in actual power (I hope the BNP never ever reach this stage), and only then with caution, I would argue against labelling the BNP facscist as I would the term islamofascism or labelling legitimate groups such as Hamas fascist (not trying to troll here just saying that I would accept this as a categorised left-winger). Rob.G.P.A 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst a google search isn't much use, a look on Google Scholar for BNP "fascist party" (which is a search taht should bring up both sides of the claims) may help, so, happy hunting, lets see if an article you can cite turns up from there.
This has brought up at least one interesting article: Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006 Author: Nigel Copsey (Show Biography) DOI: 10.1080/00313220601118777 Publication Frequency: 5 issues per year Published in: Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 41, Issue 1 February 2007 , pages 61 - 82 [4]
"Yet, in truth, despite cleverly dissociating itself from inter-war fascism, Nick Griffin's British National Party remains intuitively fascist. To locate the BNP on the national-populist right is ill-advised, and even to argue that it is a hybrid of fascism and national-populism misses the point. At its core, its ideological vision is revolutionary: its long-term objective is a post-liberal, regenerated national community although Griffin's own permutation owes more to the radical ideology of the 1980s National Front and the ITP than the closet neo-Nazism of Tyndall's BNP or, for that matter, the national-populism of the French Front National. Consequently, the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution." -- Red Deathy 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
n. 1. a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing withthe use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight. 2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
"the party's new ideological position should be treated with caution"
This quote doesn't prove anything except saying that he doesn't do anything other than SUSPECT the BNP are fascist, because he hasn't the evidence to make a solid claim of it. 86.146.124.30 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And you don't think we are giving an incorrect impression of the BNP by doing that? How notable is that source? And how neutral is it, with a magazine title like "Patterns of Prejudice"? Would you use an article by Searchlight to describe the BNP? The links I produced show quite clearly that in mainstream opinion the BNP is NOT referred to or recognised as fascist. 86.146.124.30 13:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any balanced newspaper article nowadays, e.g.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1672185.ece http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright http://www.express.co.uk/search/bnp/1/created/
Look for any newspaper website yourself. 86.146.124.30 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/04/most_britons_ac.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sviatoslav86 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
-I don't acknowledge the patterns of prejudice reference because aside from being biased it is only a hypothetical assumption.-- Sviatoslav86 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:REDFLAG. "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding ... politically charged issues". Your source does not cut it I am afraid. I think fascism can be removed completely from the infobox, it's rediculous it has been there so long without a single mention of fascism in the actual article itself. Anstatt 17:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I added the POV header for a few reasons:
Having Fascism in the ideology box is clearly considered POVish by a fair number here.
Much of the article uses sources that are clearly anti-BNP and they claim this themselves.
Most of the article is dedicated to non-notable news items that invariably show the BNP in a bad light, without taking into consideration the BNP's opinion or reply. Now I can't make any edit to reconcile these points because they will immediately be reverted. It's no secret that most of the people who look after this article do not like the BNP one bit. So I'm asking for us all to have a look through this article to deal with the points I have raised and hopefully find some problems that we can all/mostly agree need to be solved somehow.
86.146.124.30 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
"In the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the BNP released leaflets[36] featuring images of the bombed Route 30 bus and the slogan "Maybe now it's time to start listening to the BNP." This move was criticised by the Daily Mail as playing on people's high emotions and grief following a horrendous attack.[37]"
"After the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the BNP republished one of the cartoons of Muhammad on a leaflet, accompanied by a photo of Muslim demonstrators holding placards bearing murderous anti British slogans[40] and a "Which one do YOU find offensive?" caption.[41]"
The "Guardian's infiltration" section
The racial policies section is huge compared to the others and is different in scope. The other sections are pretty much taken word for word from the BNP manifesto, while the racial policy section is subject to commentary. "The BNP publicly disavows any interest in white supremacy. Its detractors argue that its definition of white supremacy as the "wish to rule over foreign peoples" is too narrow." is just someones opinionated commentary. "Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism"". claims, espousing, both of these words seem designed to give the impression that the BNP (or Nick Griffin) is objectively incapable of honesty.
"The BNP [67] supported Leeds University lecturer Dr. Frank Ellis, who was suspended from his post after stating that the Bell Curve theory "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".[68] Ellis called the BNP "a bit too socialist" for his liking and described himself as "an unrepentant Powellite" who would support "humane" repatriation.[69]
In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards. It has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell,[70] with a tape of telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape Russell could be heard to say that "black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional ... and are probably going to mug you". He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".[71]" - two paragraphs that are superfluous.
"Anti-Semitism and holocaust denial" doesn't belong in the policies section (how has it ended up there?), neither does "anti-Islam focus", or "Homosexuality" as these aren't policies of theirs either. They have a new manifesto on their website updated for 2007, the policies can be transferred from there.
The local government section can be shortened, and made much more relevant I think. "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" doesn't give enough focus to the modern BNP's viewpoint on the matter.
"Critics of the BNP assert that a significant minority of elected BNP politicians have criminal records and that the party is more tolerant of the criminal actions of some of its members than other parties would be.[129]" The source is out of date and doesn't support the claim made in the text.
The "opposition to the BNP" section is very fragmented and is mainly based on non-notable news pieces.
"Lancaster UAF has accused all of the below companies of being directly affiliated with the BNP" - Why are we trusting Lancaster UAF? They are the LEAST trustworthy of all sources we could give.
There may or may not be more, I haven't spent so much time looking through. Anstatt 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No-one has yet responded to my wishes to remove/rewrite the sections from the article I have put up here. If no-one objects, when the article is unlocked I shall begin to make changes. Anstatt 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I object and judging from the other responses above so do other editors, so you should not begin to make changes. The current form of this article has come about through discussion among a large number of editors who have, sometimes painfully, managed to reach consensus. There are in my opinion, still improvements to be made, but the right way to go about it is to propose each as a separate point for discussion. Emeraude 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless a party specifically wishes to call itself 'Fascist,' the term 'Fascist' applied by outsiders must be considered highly suspect, especially as the term is chiefly recognized as a term of abuse and a device to discredit political opponents. By the way, this is not a recent development. It was even commented on by the George Orwell in his great essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946). Let me quote:
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'"
By continuing to use the term Fascist in conjunction with the BNP, you are merely expressing your own subjective feelings rather than an objective reality. References to members past beliefs is however legitimate although it's also good to see that Mr. Griffin has moved on and now embraces views that are more central to the British political tradition.
Great shining light of nerdy truth 07:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really a citation that disproves the fascism tag, but an intesting article [5]. Of course it's always much harder to prove that something does NOT have certain properties than to prove that it does. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Using the model given by http://www.politicalcompass.org which, I think, is more representational than the simple Left-Right axis used in politics, shows the BNP to be 'Authoritarian Left' rather than Fascist (an offensive and often POV term)- GeorgeFormby1 22:35, 29 September 2007 (GMT)
LATEST NEWS: - Since the 9th of December, many members have been sacked from the BNP including several officials named in the article (see the Lancaster UAF Blog or far right blogs via google; [7]), others have resigned, and dissidents have been silenced, resulting in the sudden loss of hundreds of bnp members countrywide.
Nick Griffin and Mark Collett's undemocratic actions seem to justify the fascism tag. If, as now seems, the BNP are fascist, the article must reflect this.
The article seems to read like a party political broadcast for the bnp not an unbiased critique of the far right party. CybercafeUser: Dave: 10:12:07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.32.130 ( talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
William the Bastard was called William the Bastard because his parents were not married, not because he massacred a third of the English population. -- Streona ( talk) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've little desire to get involved in the arguments above, but here's my two euros. If a disclaimer does need to be added next the BNP being described as "fascist", it cannot be worded as it is at present. "alleged by critics" is imposing a perjorative view of the sources, which cannot be done per WP:NPOV. You can put that the BNP deny it, but cannot attempt to label the sources in this way. "see article for details" is also a self-reference, that has to be removed as well. One Night In Hackney 303 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I say this is however just a flying though that a dose of mediation may help clear this issue up. Any one else agree.-- Lucy-marie 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion below I say mediation is required anyone agree?-- Lucy-marie 11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It was placed there so it was the first thing people would see when schrolling down to the section. It should not be put chronologically as it does not contribute chronologically to the arguments. I also do not see why mediation is opposed as it would sort things out a lot quicker, unprotect the page and create a rational, policy and fact based discussion to take place which would end this dispute.-- Lucy-marie 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The BNP are rooted in the NF which itself was rooted in past neo-NAZISM, so to some degree at least the BNP has evolved using NAZI party doctrine, especially the idea that genetic trates are passed down in race (eugenics), anti-semitism, which with Israel (and the Jewish race) being brought over to western and right-wing American acceptance has evolved into anti-islamism (all groups that rely on support from the disillusioned or uneducated must have a specific enemy, now islam, again in context with NAZISM). I would use the term fascist to describe the BNP, even though I would vote against its inclusion in the encylopedia as I understand fascism itself is broadly defined. Also stating the evidence above I would call it a Neo-NAZI movement to some degree, as it was bourne out of Neo-NAZISM, however that is too loaded as well. , and by the way NAZISM comes under fascism. Personally I think the most appropriate classification of the BNP is that of a white-supremecist movement, as that is what it is, it advocates that white people are better than asians/blacks etc. As most of its supporters are highly uneduiucated, unitelligent or have anger complexes I dont understand why they think they are 'better' than the often better educated, more peaceful, and usually less ignorant migrants, but they do. The fact that eugenics is totally discredited by eveyone who has more than half a brain cell shows that these people are not superiro in anyway shape or form, but my point is they believe in white-supremecism. Rob.G.P.A 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Splendid, I propose that we rename the "Policies" sections "Politics" and begin with a para describing the BNP's orientation. Something like: Some commentators locate the politics of the BNP within the fascist tradition. Writer A Notes: "blah blah blah." As does B who says "yakkatty yakkatty." The BNP themselves have traditionally publically dissociated themselves from fascism (BNP Source); although some commentators observe that their policies belie this disavowal. It's a start... Red Deathy 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely the best place for this is near the top, since the BNP is controversial because of its fascist tag. The 'white nationalist' phrase has to go anyway, to be changed back to 'far-right' (I don't know how that ever got changed). Perhaps a short final paragraph in the introduction? Failing that, there is a section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" which could perhapd be renamed and rewritten to include this. Alternatively, it could make a good introductory paragraph to the "Opposition to the BNP" section. Emeraude 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how please. Anstatt 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why does this section even exist? I notice that no other parties of the UK have such sections devoted to the subject. This information would be better expressed in their own personal articles (seeing as it has nothing to do with the BNP other than by association). Anstatt 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
He's resigned from the party now so can someone that is allowed to edit the page add former to the start of it, please?
It's just above the contents box. :)
Thanks, O2mcgovem 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} See above, not controversial and completely unrelated to the protection One Night In Hackney 303 18:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all.
I've never contributed to Wiki before so forgive if I making some sort of horrible faux pas. I am however a member of the BNP and I obviously object strongly to being called a facist. I understand from this debate reputable sources are required to "prove" that the BNP is not a facist party. So here are two, are these admissiable?
"When the election finally arrives, beware. Given its [the BNP] talent for issuing leaflets that read more like Socialist Worker than Mein Kampf, the British National Party is making hay with the issue of casual labour, as I was recently reminded while reading The Triumph of the Political Class, a new book by the Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne. An elegant tirade against a cross-party cabal either in thrall to vested interests or so lost in the woods of electoral arithmetic that the stuff of real lives scares them, one of its most sobering sections deals with the rise of the BNP "in Barking, Dagenham, Dewsbury, Leeds and Burnley" and its place in what he sees as an "insurgency against the political class".
John Harris, The Guardian, 19th October 2007
"Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, challenges the widely held view that the BNP is an extreme Right-wing party. He said that he was unable to find evidence of "Right-wing tendencies" in its 2005 manifesto."
Telegraph, 22 March 2006,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/21/npoll21.xml
Given the hatred directed at the BNP if it could be proven that it is a facistical organisation then it would most certainly have been by now. The fact that this can not be proved is itself strong evidence to the contray.
With regard to the BNP's policy set. Almost all of the BNP's most controversial policies have been endorsed by mainstream policians.
The superior claims of indigenous people to state resources was recently supported by Margret Hodge.
The volentary repatriation scheme is already law (1971 Immigration Act) and in use with Labour offering financel rewards to asylum seekers to return to their home nations.
So if these polcies make the BNP facist then then Labour should be also be deemed to be so.
Refrences to the BNP's past are irrelevant. The Labour Party may once have been socialist, the Conservatives were once pro-Slavery, both were Imperialist for the majority of their existance but no sensible person would claim them to be any of these things now.
The argument that the BNP membership is the same now as it was in 2000 is also wrong. The BNP's membership is now at least five times greater than it was in that year, at a conservative estimate. Even assuming the entire 2000 membership are still members they would constitute a fraction of the total.
(spencer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.1.169 ( talk) 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hackney would you mind backing up your frivolous claims posted on your talk page claiming I am a racist. I find that offensive that just because somebody interprets POV differently on a controversial issue regarding race theyt are automatically branded a racist. I also do not push POV.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see how many sources will say the BNP is Fascist when they are in government (!), There are reputable sources which say that the Labour Party are Neo-Marxist- User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It is to be noted that, there has been some cases of vandalism of Wiki articles from what it appears to be by BNP activists or online supporters from the circumstantial online evidences and traces. This is not stereotyping BNP by any means, but it is very important to increase awareness and responsible editing for both BNP supporters and general readers of the main article, hence I have cited few references of such cases and IP address traces in the "Violence & Criminal behaviour" section. Smet 13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Undid the RV, 13:55 13 Nov 2007
Smet
14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
"Companies alleged to be linked to the BNP" has gone. UAF making claims about companies on their blog just isn't a reliable source. If the claims had been made somewhere more reliable it would be better, but it's completely unreasonable to claim organisations have links to the BNP without reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 303 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Where's the evidence for this?
"The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals."
This is a pretty serious charge! It should not be permitted without a credible primary source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.89 ( talk) 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Why does this get a section of its own under the history of the party? There have been many articles on the party and I can't see why this one should be viewed as so critical in the history of the party to warrant its own section. I suggest it should be shortened and included in the 2000s section. Suitsyou ( talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"According to its constitution, the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948."[12] The BNP proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."[13] 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’".[12]
The party accepts white people with non-British ancestry if they are assimilated into one of the British ethnicities. The BNP believes that there are significant biological racial differences that determine the behaviour and character of individuals. The party asserts that preference for one's own ethnicity is a part of human nature.[14]"
Why is their view on race so intricately described so early in an intro? Would it not make sense to put this in their policy section, whilst making reference in one way or another that they hold controversial views on multiculturalism (as they do)?
"Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP had strong anti-Semitic tendencies, but in recent times, the BNP has tended to focus on Muslims as its main adversary. The party has publicly said that they do not consider Hindus and Sikhs to be any threat, although the BNP doesn't accept practicing Sikhs and Hindus as culturally or ethnically British.[15] The BNP has even worked with anti-Muslim Sikh groups.[16]"
This is more about their racial policies, and what exactly does "main adversary" mean? That they have been sword fighting with Muslims? The word "tended" seems to make this sentence redundant, even if you believe a political party could have an ethnic adversary. It seems like a weasel word to me. Surely a political parties adversary is another political party?
"Mainstream political parties in the UK marginalise the BNP, and the party has been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, former Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell, and former Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair.[17][18][19]"
The first part of this sounds like a sentence designed to emote pity for the BNP, but I guess it is fact anyway haha.
So what do you think about changes as I have suggested to the intro? Sinthesizer ( talk) 13:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources for this section currently point to 404's (not found) so can't be verified. They are also from 2005, so are heavily outdated and should be updated to 2007 policies. Here is a link to their current policies, including a 'Mini Manifesto' which seems to be more indepth. http://www.bnp.org.uk/?page_id=51
Note: The main BNP site has been redesigned so many of the sources for the article now return 404's. Triedandtested ( talk) 07:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Where to begin. I wrote Independent because the party cannot be categorized into the scale of left-wing or right-wing. They actually share more in common with the Liberal Democrats or Labour than they do with the Tories. They oppose laissez-faire captalism, Globalism, Foreign Intervention, Materialism, Consummerism, and support endeavours to clamp down on Greenhouse emmissions. It is actually more accurate to label the party leftist than rightist because Conservatives oppose the racial element of the party, the one area where they're at odds with left-wing groups while they share nothing in common with Conservatives.-- WhiteTiger86 ( talk) 23:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[14] [15] -- h2g2bob ( talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the redirects be fixed? Here are some examples:
Could these and others be fixed? 206.113.132.130 ( talk) 20:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
With some improvement and cleanup, this could attain GA status. Why this hasn't been rated against a WikiProject in importance and class yet I don't know.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a video that shows the recorded dialogue that he explicitly said that blacks are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, a burden on welfare resources and are probably going to mug you. http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRKk2K3fMk0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - mention of a spent conviction, without malice I should think applies to people seeking to hold public office - so I think the mention should stay...-- Red Deathy ( talk) 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As to my alleged COI, I know Nick Griffin and the Union accepts members from all political persuasions and none. We have a lot of BNP members because other Unions operate a New McCarthyite policy of denying them workplace representation. I make no secret of my views on racism and fascism - I am opposed to both. I am also someone who supports a pluralist, democratic and liberal society. My liberal views are what make me question why other editors aren't as open as to their motives and affiliations and the hypocrisy they exhibit in using fascist techniques against 'fascists'. If you can show clearly why you need to use examples which breach the Act I will reconsider. ( Doublethink64 ( talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
Under the ROA1974 job applicants are not required to disclose "spent" convictions. There is nothing to prevent other people from raising them. I suggest that most parties are prepared to stand candidates with convictions they consider to be political in support of their aims - e.g. Manny Shinwell, or indeed myself, when I stood as a Labour candidate I made no secret of having been convicted of an offence whilst opposing the National Front. Several local Labour councillors were duffed up by the Police on the Wapping picket lines and considered it a badge of honour. (actually I still have a "medal" struck by the printer's union). Thus the issue is not that the BNP will support candidates with a criminal record, but rather what those ofences are, and what they reveal about the underlying aims of such a party, regardless of their statedintentions.-- Streona ( talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm wondering why this article is not part of either Wikiproject United Kingdom and/or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Politics given it's nature and notability. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The page for the group itself and this article need reliable sources; I found these two-- [17] and [18]
Overall, the larger issue of BNP front group and BNP infiltration needs more coverage in this article. Griffin has said: "If we can't achieve anything in the parliamentary sense, we'll achieve it in another way, by going into communities in other ways; it's far easier than fighting elections." 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 07:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is advertised on the BNP website as a way of supportting the BNP by giving them money & getting a "club tie" (yippee!)and is explicitly a front organisation as are various other grouplets such as "Green Arrow" and "The British Workers Union".-- Streona ( talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Policies section is strictly meant for current policies. As the BNP has Jewish members, I think this section should be placed in the history section. None of these smear tactics are done on the Labour Party page or the LibDems. 206.113.132.130 ( talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) restored signature change made by Qwenton Emeraude ( talk) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I'm a new user? Qwenton ( talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not an appropriate adition to an already crowded infobox, imo. Emeraude ( talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the editors who placed the"disputed neutrality" tag have left Wikipedia, so we could remove it per policy. However, if any other editors want the tag to remain, could they list their specific changes they would require us to make before removing it - else I'll take it off in a few days.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 08:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent edit per WP:biographies of living people. Allegations were being made that living people had engaged in (among other things) theft, money-laundering, and allegations of attempting to seduce young girls, all sourced by a blog. One Night In Hackney 303 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to the 3 outdated (and extremely unreliable - particularly Politiken (an anti-semite communist newspaper in Denmark)) sources claiming BNP to be fascist, and no way to verify the possible claims from the fourth source (not a free service), I have marked the "Fascism"-claim as "obsolete" until we get something newer and non-biased information. Left-wing newspapers are not reliable sources for anything but alleged views. Dylansmrjones ( talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if a reference is old, it is not obsolete. Especially if a current reference states the same case. For example, a reference stating that "George VI is the ruling monarch of England" that is obsolete. A reference from 1962 stating "Elizabeth II is the ruling monarch of England" is not, because she is still monarch. For references, age shall not wither them. The tag may say "old" but it reads on the screen as "obsolete" those references are not obsolete. I won't engage in edit warring over it, I'd be on 3rr to revert the change, could another editor remove the tags, please?-- Red Deathy ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I repeat my invitation for critics of the article to produce a new version/total re-write in their user space for us to discuss.-- Red Deathy ( talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The info box should contain a summary of indisputable facts from the article. The article does not even discuss fascism. I have removed fascism from the info box. See Al Quaida where this aspect has been discussed extensively. The info box does not state they are "terrorist", but that they have been classified as such by certain offical organisations. The article on Provisional Irish Republican Army states in the article that they have been classified as terrorist by certain official organisations, but does not include this in the info box.
This article makes assumptions, relying on the views of opponents of the group, making unattributed POV statements such as "in which he lost his seat, after a successful anti-fascist campaign" (which I have amended).
There are serious WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP issues here.
I might mention my comments should not be interpreted in any way as representing any personal political position, but only as the need to write wikipedia articles according to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, non-negotiable policies.
Tyrenius ( talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fascism has been removed from the infobox per WP:BLP. We do not make alleged contentious statements about living people in this way. This is a valid topic for examination in the article from a NPOV but so far is not discussed in the article. That is the first stage. Editors may be blocked for BLP violations. Tyrenius ( talk) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above for wider participation. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the edit [22] by User:The Anome. It shows that NPOV is not served by the recent state of the info box. Why was that changed? Tyrenius ( talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A note on the edit summary [25]. The info box is not a substitute for an article. It should be drawn from the article. It is necessary to include full referencing in the article. A significant objection to the infobox at the moment, is that the article does not expound properly on what is stated in the info box. An article of this nature needs to be referenced tightly and fully throughout. Tyrenius ( talk) 05:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
The BNP propose that all citizens, upon completion of compulsory national service, are to maintain a standard-issue military assault rifle and live ammunition in their home.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
... we advocate the adoption of the modern Swiss model for a responsibly armed citizenry. Under this all law-abiding adults who have successfully completed their period of military service are required to keep in a safe locker in their homes a standard-issue military assault rifle and ammunition.
I have boldfaced the two important points that are missing from the text as it stands in the article at the moment. It seems that any points made in the original manifesto that suggest regulation and responsibility have been removed for this article, and indeed the term live ammunition has been used to further suggest volatility. Although this does not change the fact that the BNP wants military issue weapons and ammunition to be held by ex-military citizens in their homes, the way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 04:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
In addition to the reintroduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the reintroduction of the death penalty for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers where their guilt has been proven to be beyond doubt (for example by DNA testing or an individual confession), the BNP promises a mandatory jail term for anyone assaulting an National Health Service worker.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.
and
We support wholeheartedly the nursing unions’ campaign for Zero Tolerance for violence directed against NHS staff. Such incidents should carry an automatic prison sentence, and the withdrawal of all medical care from the culprits for a period which should vary according to the severity of their attack on NHS staff.
I have boldfaced the important points that are missing from the text as it stands in the article at the moment. As you can see, the point about a judges discretion has been removed to subtly increase the perceived extremity of proposed policy. Indeed, individual confession is nowhere to be seen in the manifesto itself as this would be a weak point due to false or forced confessions. The way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Currently this section reads:
In addition to increasing military defence spending, the BNP plans to reintroduce compulsory national service for all citizens, and to deny some civil rights, including the right to vote, to those who refuse to perform this service.
The original text from the manifesto reads:
Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote. Individuals would be free to refuse to undertake any form of National Service, but such a refusal to serve the community for the common good would result in their not being entitled to free places at university, on training courses or self-employment schemes.
The boldfaced text should be explained as it was in the actual manifesto. The way it's been worded, or subsequently edited, suggests a certain level of spin. It would undoubtedly be NPOV to include the information as it was originally presented, for better or for worse, rather than trying to subtly change the tone. I would appreciate it if a registered user could make the necessary adjustment to the article. 217.44.143.22 ( talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of merging the three contributions above, since 217.44.143.22 has made some good points which I feel can usefully be considered together. In my view, the whole Policies section is too wordy in any case and rather than adding more detail, as your suggestions would necessitate, I would suggest simplifying and reducing the amount of text, rather than adding qualifiers. Anyone wanting clarification can then follow the links to the BNP source. This would have the additional effect of addressing the NPOV concerns you have raised. To take each policy separately:
I rated this at 'B-class' and 'Mid', respectively. Thoughts? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
the article of guardian clearly staes that sikhs extremeist and hindu extremeists work with bnp to create anti islamic work they dont oppose islamism they work with racists full stop stop ducking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.210.213 ( talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the news article referred to is from The Observer on December 23, 2001. It says that the BNP "have joined forces with extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities in an anti-Islamic campaign....." Wikipedia say "The BNP has been known to work with Sikh groups opposing Islamism." I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Emeraude ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Its not very hard to grasp what im saying the article states sikhs and hindu extremeist are in link working against muslims it doesnt say islamism. stop manipulating words from the article to express islamophobic veiws and cover up what some sikhs and hindus engage in.
I can see this section getting angry before long. I think that the proposed change by 86.156.210.213 is justified. The largest group that the B.N.P. worked with, Sher-E-Punjab, is anti-Muslim. The Observer article states that the tape made could have fallen foul of the new laws against religious hatred. It would require a minor change in wording from "Islamism" to "Islam in Britain". Epa101 ( talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So when will you correct this intentinal mistake and write what the article actually says and avoid misleading readers? now should be a good time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.21 ( talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Having gone back to this, re-read the Observer article carefully and the Wikipedia article, I can see that there may be a discrepancy, but not as the anonymous editor claims above. The Guardian does not claim that the BNP was working with Sikh and Hindu extremists "against muslims" (though effectively there may be little difference). What it actually says is that there was "an anti-Islamic campaign" and refers to "the party's anti-Islamic stance". However, this is clearly not the same as Wikipedia reporting it as "opposing Islamism", that being a politicisation of Islam the religion. Also, Wikipedia makes no mention of Hindu involvement. In the circumstances, I have altered the Wikipedia text to read "The BNP has been known to work with extremist Hindu and Sikh groups opposing Islam." Emeraude ( talk) 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Propaganda redcated] 206.113.137.3 ( talk) 15:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not necessary to mention any party's reaction to every news event. That would make this and every other party article unnecessarily large. Emeraude ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the BNP is fascist when... external link removed ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to discuss the article. This is not the place to post party propoganda. The fascist nature of the BNP is well-referenced in the article, as I'm sure you know. Emeraude ( talk) 16:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it should be mentioned. It is significant beyond the usual comments that any party makes. It shows how the B.N.P. is being anti-Islam in its foreign policy, and ties in with its support for Israel against Hezbollah. Both cases are a move away from traditional Nazism. Obviously, support for Israel is not Nazi. Over Kosovo, the Nazis had allowed Albania to annex the province away from Serbia. The Nazi puppet regime in Kosovo killed hundreds of Serbs and Jews. The K.L.A. had similarities with Nazi ideology, as shown in how it targetted Gypsies as well as Serbs. If the B.N.P. was still straight Nazi, it would have supported Kosovo against Serbia. This policy shows that it priorities its opposition to Islam above almost everything else now. There are already comments on those lines in the article, but this recent policy adds to the resources. Epa101 ( talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think youre right in that the BNP's overidding aim is to attack islam, but your argument does not prove they do not share similarities with Nazi ideology. In fact originally the Nazis did support the foundation of the state of Israel, although they were undoubtbly extremely antisemitic, during the second world war albanian muslism are renouned for being one of the most supportive ethnic minorities to Jews, so I would be careful with your teneous assertions. 86.138.254.99 ( talk) 02:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1998/235/ulsternazi.html I think that the article could do a bit more with the B.N.P.'s links with Ulster Loyalists. I believe that this is another thing that Nick Griffin has toned down under his leadership. Under John Tyndall, the B.N.P. was very vocal about Northern Ireland. They never talk about it now. Epa101 ( talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A few issues which affect the article:
LOTRrules ( talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. But the other articles don't outline the policies but reading it over it does seem okay but I doubt it'll ever be considered a good article. LOTRrules ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The recent addition of " whites-only" to the lede surprised me somewhat, but it is backed up by a reliable source: [26] Unless there are independent, published sources that show this is not true, it is reasonable that this should stay in the article. Gwernol 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, their racial definition is considerably more complex than that. What they actually say in the BNP Constitution is
2)The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.
3) Membership of the party shall be open only to those who are 16 years of age or over
and whose ethnic origin is listed within Sub-section 2. [27]
So although an American in one of these groups may be eligible, when it comes down to it, they tend to regard other 'white' nationalities as inherently second best to British. Emeraude ( talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is stunningly ridiculous: "The British National Party (BNP) is a whites only far right political party". For a start, what does "white" mean?! I thought it had been long since established that there is no such thing as race: http://www.diversityinc.com/public/3062.cfm. I don't think the BNP is pro east-european immigrant either, so: a. what is this statement really based on beyond a prejudicial interpretation, that relies on an outdated, meaningless, and refuted concept, namely "race"; and, b. how does it then actually make any meaningful sense as a statement? The BNP does not prohibit people of mixed race joining, so are you suggesting that "mixed race" equates to "whiteness"?!
At the end of the day, "white" is an American concept designed to bundle up a particular interest-group of immigrants into already inhabited territory; in Europe, we have autochthonous ethnicities, and that's how we are most accurately described. I'm not "Caucasian", I don't share genetic markers with people of the middle east; I'm not "white", because I don't have to design a new nomenclature to differentiate myself from other immigrants, because my ancestors have always been here; so as far as I'm concerned, I have an ethnicity like anyone else in the world. Frankly, calling me "white" is as racist as lumping up all the people of the far east and calling them "yellow", or lumping all the people in the world who are vaguely brown as "black". It's outdated; anachronistic; and offensive, and should be challenged and rejected. Anyone who believes that race exists is by definition a racist. Only ethnicity exists, and a quick search would reveal that to an open and enquiring mind. I am not white, I'm British; the BNP is not "whites only"; it's "British only". As to how you define British, that is a separate question and not one for this article to deal with... for that, you go and seek out the article on British ethnicity. I hope that clarifies things, and we can now put the teenagers to bed, and replace all the diatribe with grown up content. user:MacDaddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.13.217 ( talk) 14:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite sounding syntactically amateurish, Whites-only is not at all accurate in defining the BNP's policies. Nor is White Nationalist. Their policies state that they do accept Whites of European origin (this explains their Greek-Armenian member), ergo British-only is no better a description.
Regardless of what the party states, they have non-White members in their numerous Jewish members and activists. Furthermore, they work closely with Hindus and Sikhs, some of whom are members, I believe.
I'm removing White Nationalism and Whites-only - they are just unsupported and totally wrong, in effect.
Rsloch ( talk) 15:10, 12 May 2008 (BST)
And a solution is found :) Rsloch ( talk) 10:10, 13 May 2008 (BST)
The BNP is not a " Whites-only" party (which is terribly worded in English anyway). And even more evident is that it is far from White Nationalist. The BNP has a Sikh member [28] and prides itself on having Jewish members [29]
Regardless of what the party says, it's actions show that it is not "Whites-only" or White Nationalist. I also remember on their website months ago it said that they welcome Jews as integrated allies who face "the same threat from militant Islamism" (if only I had the article at hand).
The BNP has also shown support for the right of Gurkhas to remain in Britain.
In conclusion, the British National Party is not "Whites-only" and certainly not White Nationalist.
This to be precise. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not above their more prominent policiesm, and a letter from a "respected" (I laughed) politician who's arguably more right wing than the BNP is no substitute for a reliable secondary sources. The rest is just BNP policy that they barely get coverage for, therefore it's undue weight putting it in the lead. One Night In Hackney 303 19:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I see the Nick Eriksen news event has been added in. Why do barely notable news items like this litter the article, but not for other political parties? I searched The Labour Party article for "Northern Rock" but to no result, and this has received far more headlines than anything the BNP have ever done. Can anyone tell me why the following parts of the article are notable:
1. The entire "2000's" section, apart from a few lines that should mention their success in Dagenham + Barking and the trial.
2. The "Guardian Infiltration"
3. Most of the "2007 Split" section
4. In the "Racial Policies" section, the section on Frank Ellis and Phil Edwards. Also: "We do not and we never will." Griffin's use of the phrase "secure a future for white children" is similar to the white nationalist "Fourteen Words"." is someones own opinion/research, and should be deleted.
5. Why is Lee Barnes' blog notable? He isn't even directly involved with the BNP.
6. Google video source in the Anti-Islam section
7. Richard Barnbrook and Mark Collett in the anti-homosexuality section
8. In the section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" - the paragraph about Nick Griffin should be in his own article. Knowing a man who hasn't been proven to have done anything? Is this notable at all? The rally attended by William Pierce (why), Redwatch (an ex-BNP member makes a site which the BNP are advised not to go on.... why is this notable).
9. The paragraph on their newspaper troubles in "Repression of Free Speech"
10. The section about the ANL, Searchlight etc is too long for it's notability, and reads like an advert. Blockading a publicity stall in Scotland? So?
In "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" - "critics of the BNP" is sourced by a single Guardian columnist, and offers no rebuttal (why are we just giving the critics point of view?). In fact, why isn't this entire section amalgamated into their history? Why is a list of convictions given? Why doesn't this feature in other political party articles?
Why does the policy section read like a critique of their most controversial opinions?
Bothsales ( talk) 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
whuy are they called right wing? They are anything but! They're totalitarian bigoted fascists! Hardly rigt wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.147.214 ( talk) 03:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
By any stretch of the imagination, unless you a particularily retarded and polemical historian with nothing to back up your claims but the discussion about your polemic, fascism is a right-wing phenomenum, the BNP is right-wing, it is also fascist, although it is debatable if 'islamofascism' exists, then it is right-wing conservative Islam, Osama Bin Laden is an islamic right winger, the Iranian revolutionary government is right-wing, however the Syrian goverment and Lybian goverment style themselves as left-wing, and the PLO is generally considered left-wing, just some home truths. 86.133.101.176 ( talk) 13:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is too long. It should be reduced to a general description of the party and its program, its historical development, and electoral status.
The definition of an appropriate "neutral point of view" is to compare its sections and content to that of mainstream parties (in Britain and elsewhere). Entire sub-sections on each small controversy or leader's statement are out of place. There should be one section on "Controversies", with a sentence or two on each, and copiously references to anti-BNP reporting that will detail these issues elsewhere.
For example, the entire subject of anti-Semitism should be a few sentences -- stating that there were openly anti-Semitic policies/statements initially, these have been reformed, but situation remains "ambiguous" due to statements by party leader. A lengthy transcription of statements by Nick Griffin to "prove the case" doesn't belong here -- that should be found in an off-site link.
Obviously there is a great deal of antipathy towards the BNP, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to present it. The appearance of the article being a lengthy attack -- almost a court dossier being built up to prove a point -- rather than objective presentation, only makes it look like the party is being ganged up on. And of course childish vandalism reflects terribly on anti-BNP forces as well.
In keeping with all these efforts to paint as unappealing a portrait as possible, the article (in my quick scanning) seems to focus entirely on race issues, and make no mention of the rest of BNP ideology. Leftist BNP opponents may not want to mention anything that might be regarded as positive (in their own quarters) -- but the nature of the BNP as a "working class" and "socialist" party is of tremendous significance in explaining the substantial growth of the party among disgruntled working class (former) Labour Party members. Anti-BNP activists certainly won't be able to campaign effectively against the party's rise if they have no idea what is appealing about the party to many people in Britain -- and Wikipedia is certainly the venue for them to get that objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.146 ( talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Some references are now dead links (so should be replaced with Internet Archive links). Some sources seem not too reliable - Manchester University Labour Club, monstersandcritics.com, local newspapers like Doncaster Today, organisations with an obvious bias like Stop the BNP. It may be better to explicitly state the source in these cases (eg: "According to ..., the BNP ....") -- h2g2bob ( talk) 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If a party has wide spread support for its policies (as [roven by a 2004 sky news pole) it simply cannot be called a fascist party. To state that the BNP is a fascist party is to call a large amount of British people facist. There is also the fact they wish to restore local democracy, and of course the fact that they have jewish members and supporters. To call a party a facscist group just because of there immigration policy is an outrage! infact it is likley that left wing/ radical students are behind this nightmare! They are the same kind of people who were holding up the Enoch Powell is a nazi banners during the 1960's and 70's. Your opinon that the British National Party is Fascist Cannot be based on a few quotes from the old era!
If you look to the right of the page it clearly states under ideolodgy: Fascism. Fascism is usually a government that is forced onto people. chris: 30th may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeofflies ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP is a fascist political party. This is not a condemnation of the BNP, it is a fact. forestPIG 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hitler had popular support, but on this definition he could not have been a fascist-- Streona ( talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck then it is a duck-- Streona ( talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I need to simplify this point - If a political party looks like a fascist party, its policies are of a fascist nature and its main reason for being is in order to promote the interests of one racial group over a less powerful racial group, then, despite claiming to be a legitimate democratic party then it is a fascist party. Generally however our BNP chums are happier with monosyllabic words like duck and Nazi.-- Streona ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. we had you at Stalingrad, boys.
Sorry. This must be our famous British sense of humour. ("irony, metaphor, litotes - he was vicious"). We love each other really- many's the glass we have shared with our BNP chums. Unfortunately generally describing a parabola. Still, we had them over at the Nuremburg Trials, eh? -- Streona ( talk) 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But it squeals like a pig!-- Streona ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Alot of people are very annoyed by how it says under political ideolodgies "fascism". Now it used to say "fascism(denied by BNP)" I think if this was put back up again it would satisfy people. Agreed?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.132.209 ( talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 June 2008
No-- Streona ( talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? forestPIG 16:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The BNP deny it? Even so, their opinion hardly constitues a reliable 3rd party source. Setwisohi ( talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What grounds do you have to call the BNP fascist? They are not supporters of a right wing government of extreme dicatorship. It is compairable to Mr blair saying Labour isnt socalist anymore and thts ok with people, but when the BNP says it isnt fascist anymore that is a problem? I there for agree. It should be changed to (denied by BNP) or removed altogether —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.147.33 ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Look at the references provided, and read the fascist page, some people seem to have forgotten what fascist means, and just hink it's an abusive term used by people who don't like the BNP. Harland1 ( t/ c) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
At present the BNP do not wish to see a political opposition to the Government ruthlessly suppressed, anymore than Hitler wanted to be shot at in Munich in 1923, but should they obtain state power they wish to force people out of this country based upon their perceived non-white origins. How they might go about this without the ruthless suppression of those people and their supporters is at present not made explicit by their front men although the knuckle-dragging bovver boys that scrape along the gutter in their wake make this all too obvious- fascism. I am married to a Pakistani and we have a son. These people will touch them over a mound of their own dead bodies and mine - the same now and the same as my parents in 1940-- Streona ( talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So that is your bias streona when did the nazi's victimize pakistaniese let me think never. Also didn't Hitler and the nazi's pick up most of their ideology on educational trips to that region before the war ie swastika. Who is the nazi lover now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
British Muslims, and especially Pakistanis are the prime target for the BNP,as well you know. I suggest that the Nazis picked up much of their ideology from Hitler, Mussolini, Houston Chamberlain, Hans Horbiger and Edmund Kiss without ever leaving the confines of Germany, Austria and naturally German parts of the Sudetenland.The Ahnenherbe may have trawled around the world for their wierd fantasies, but without success. The swastika symbol was advocated by Hess, from his tutor at Heidelberg and was first adopted by the Finnish Air Force in 1918. Similarly I suggest that the BNP get much of their ideology from John Tyndall and Colin Jordan. Why do most of the pro-BNP contributors not sign their posts, have only IP numbers, which only seem to be used once or twice in the early hours of the morning? (and have terrible spelling and grammar)-- Streona ( talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You honestly don't know where nazism came from and Mussolini was facist Nazi's are exactly what they are National socialists not nationalists. If your so against this bnp national party why is it that the BNP (bangladeshi national party) , BNP ( Bhutan national party) and the other national parties of the world are left alone especially their wikipedia pages which are empty of discussion compared to this BNP. Oh could it be that you have a deep racial hatred for "white" people. Streona you also are clearly a liar for instance claiming the jewish member of the party was expelled which was false and your entry was filled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors also the reason these are logged in the morning for you is because the internet is a global communication network and not just in Britain if you new anything about IP numbers you would determine where they are from. In conclusion "These people will touch them over a mound of their own dead bodies and mine" you sound like an extremist crank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 09:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And your post sounds like personal abuse. At least I can spell "fascism" and maybe you would like to tell me what did happen to your "jewish" candidate in Tower Hamlets? Also you forgot to mention the French bank called "BNP", but nobody calls them fascist either. I may make the odd error, but the last entry could be described as almost entirely grammar-free. Why would I hate white people? I am white, but unlike you I don't equate them with the BNP-- Streona ( talk) 09:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
how was it abusive your threat to kill a large number of BNP members sounds like political violence so it is extremism and well you do sound like a crank by the very definition of the word. . If its your fear that the bnp is going to harm your family why don't you contact the bnp and discuss their policy like a civilised unparanoid human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh i didn't know they had a jewish member there i was refering to Patricia Richardson are we talking about one and the same. If not thats wonderful that they have had more jewish candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 12:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The British National Party would not force anyoe to leave the UK unless they are not leagally here, the view on mixed marriges is not one they enforce at all, its just a view. You may not know one of the BNPs members is half turkish. It is quite clear that the term fascism is just being used as a moral club by people who dislike the BNP. (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.17.143 ( talk) 12:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1. I have not threatened anyone ,except on the contingency that the BNP achieve state power, and enforce persecution upon people whom they do not like, as is their aim and in the face of such opposition they attempt to introduce fascist-like measures. Ain't gonna happen, because there are many people who feel the same, and because there are so many of us you would have to take repressive measures.And that is why my views are not "crank".
2.I do not fear the BNP will harm my family, but I think they intend to if they could.
3.I do not intend to contact the BNP for a chat because I have a life, and if 121.216.248.117 does not think his/her post is abusive within BNP discussion circles then the prospects of a "civilised unparanoid" exchange are minimal.
4."The view on mixed marriges (sic) is not one they enforce at all, its just a view". What the hell does that mean?
5.Presumably the fact that people who are not "leagally here" are illegal is not a unique selling point of the BNP- unless they wish to redefine non white people's legal status, -as indeed the Nuremburg decrees did.
6.I understand that the BNP does not have any "half turkish" members, but that it has an "Ethnic Liaison Committee" to which the deluded Mr.Rustem is allowed to belong on the basis of "separate development". Perhaps the Ku Klux Klan has the same.
7. I understand that the BNP would not directly force out black & Asian people after a recent change in policy, but would "encourage" them. Like Kristallnacht was encouragement.
8.Does anyone in this exchange have a name as such- apart from sinebot? -- Streona ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll.I must not feed the troll. Imust not feed the troll.Imust not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll.I must not feed the troll. I must not feed the troll...
This is pathetic, people are forceing there own biass opinons onto this page! Just because you dislike a party and there policies doesnt give you the right to call them fascists. If you cant show a little respect and mutual debate than please go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.186.255 ( talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you will find that my posts have been other than reasoned and polite, addressing the the point that the BNP are fascistic by implication, even if not explicit. The fact that they will provoke resistance to any policy implementation underlines this. Yet again nobody seems to have a name, although each post seems to share similar spelling and grammatical errors. Who is forcing anyone?
Can we put the troll to sleep now?-- Streona ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
YOU are the troll Streona anyone can see this by the number of times your name appears in the history. Also by the number of times you referer to fringe hate groups like the KKK what the hell has that got to do with an British political party or even the Nazi regime which is German. Maybe you should know the meaning of a word before you use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh and streona our IP's show we are different people in different parts of the world. Clearly you aren't paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is indicated by the user pages of the three anonymous and unsigned contributors is that all three (IP 79.71.186. 255 IP 88.11.17.143 and IP 121.216.248.117) are people who have only first registered with wikipedia in the past few days and have only made contributions to the BNP discussion page or the Young BNP (plus one in 2006). I am also aware that false IP addresses may be obtained from websites set up for this purpose. What all this means I have no idea. You -as you have said- know where I am coming from, but I have no idea what your game is and frankly I am getting too tired to really care. I refer you to Olaf Davies edit.-- Streona ( talk) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Shall we call an end to this? Whatever your personal views, this is not the place to express them. The BNP are a Fascist party, simple as that.Fascism is not inherantly Nazi-ism, as Oswald Mosley showed. However, without deviating from the point, the lead stays as it is, and the talk page should be left for discussing the article. </rant> -- Neo Nerd 22:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No we shall not call an end to it because when a party is called fascist you have to back up such a strong word. All I suggest is that the word fascist be removed from the ideolodgies and a new piece be added to the BNP article called allagations of fascism. They party does not claim to be fascist, it is just a word being used as a moral club by people who are for mass immigration. You cant let your personal views on an issue get in the way of the facts. Fascism is a right wing government of extreme dictatorship. Is the BNP a right wing government of EXTREME dictatorship? I think it is patetic and that there are people on here who are soo desprete to make he BNP look bad they have to wide spread lies on this site. (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.137.141 ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall do just that then! (chris)
Neo nerd are you saying that the wikipedia page on fascism can be used as a source. You can't you use wikipedia pages as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 04:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You can't in the article, but this is the talk page. Several alternative definitions are very apposite.-- Streona ( talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow I didn't know only europeans could be fascist there you go. Name one fascist regime other then the Nazi or Mussolini's NFP or even better name one thats not european. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 ( talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Who said anything about non-Europeans at all? As you say the BNP are not a government. But they would like to be.-- Streona ( talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)