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.
Please add <ref>{{cite news | author = John Davison, Ian Burrell and Cyril Dixon | title = Exposed: Labour trickery that hyped BNP to election victory | work = [[The Sunday Times]] | date = 19 September 1993}}</ref> to replace the {{cn}} tag on the Tony Lecomber sub-section of British National Party#Association with violence, *and* change his conviction date to 1986 not 1985. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Does this have consensus, folks? Wknight94talk 13:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Well the BBC site says 1985, so I would have to check this source before agreeing. I have also found this [[1]] Now this is from Searchlight magazine, it also says 1985. As such we need a better source then newspaper reports or TV bio pages.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The mud only thickens because you assume I have not checked properly. Searchlight and anyone else who says 1985 are wrong, the offence occurred in late 1985 (the charge was plotting to cause explosions likely to endanger life, and also having 10 improvised hand grenades, seven detonators and two petrol bombs about November 1). The Times dated 28 May 1986 deals with bail conditions relating to Lecomber's co-accused, so the conviction had not occurred by then. If it bothers you that much, change the sentence so it refers to the bombing being in 1985 not the conviction. 2 lines of K303 14:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problom with removing the date and just refering to when the offenses were commited.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about which part of this request has consensus and what precisely needs doing? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As I see it what has been agreed is something like thge following
"In 1985 Tony Lecomber had tried to carry a nail bombs into the officers of the Workers' Revolutionary Party when it exploded. He was subsequently tried and jailed for three years on five counts of possetion of explosives."
Sources to be added.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
No don't change it to that. Please change this text:
[[Tony Lecomber]] was jailed for possessing explosives in 1985, after a nail bomb exploded while he was carrying it to the offices of the [[Workers' Revolutionary Party (UK)|Workers' Revolutionary Party]];{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}
To this text...
[[Tony Lecomber]] was jailed for three years for possessing explosives, after a [[nail bomb]] exploded while he was carrying it to the offices of the [[Workers' Revolutionary Party (UK)|Workers' Revolutionary Party]] in 1985;<ref>{{cite news | author = John Davison, Ian Burrell and Cyril Dixon | title = Exposed: Labour trickery that hyped BNP to election victory | work = [[The Sunday Times]] | date = 19 September 1993}}</ref>
Only a minor re-ordering of the sentence, adding a link, a couple of words and a source. Nothing relating to the protection, and nothing controversial. Thanks. 2 lines of K303 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"Association with violence"
I noticed that the list included several people who's convictions were not at all related to the BNP or politics whatsoever - is it actually considered correct procedure to have these? i.e. "Kevin Scott", "Colin Smith", "BNP member Terrance Gavan" - not even part of the organization but merely a paid member.
Thanks, Nat.
Glad you have raised this. The whole section actually needs removing since it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. For a few reasons. (1) Wikipedia is not a rap sheet. (2) WP:SYNTH in that the connection to the BNP organisationally is contentious. (3) WP:MOS, there is no rap sheet on other political party articles such as Labour, Lib Dem or Conservatives listing members who happen to have commited x petty crime. For instance New Labour attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for the neocons in the US, yet there is no "association with violence" section there. Not even on Sinn Fein's article who used to kill thousands of people. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It does not violate synthesis because the connection is made in the source used, Panorama on BBC. And the crimes appear to be mostly politically motivated. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Many political parties have mebers who commit violent crimes. It was my understanding (fro way back) that this section of the articel was supposed to reflect the fact that leading figures in the party have violent pasts, and that assosciates the party with violence. How can Terrance Gavan (whoes collecting of guns started before he joined the BNP, when he was a supported of another party, refelct the violent nature of the BNP?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It does seem like a double standard to have an "association with violence" section, then again there are quite a few things about this article that are double standards. To have this section implies that the party engages in political violence, which it does not. And yet no other party seems to be labelled 'violent' when some of there members commit a crime? This section seems like an obvious smeer attempt. Please remove it, Nat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The BNP has also released the picture in this article to the public domain: [2] ("The British National Party has issued a high resolution picture of Rajinder Singh and his BNP membership card for copyright free use by the media on the condition that the party is credited for the image.") -TheG (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It is available for use on wikipedia then and may well get uploaded in that case. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The user in charge of the current closure of this article have the responsibility to upload and insert the picture and event in the article as soon as possible. -TheG (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop presenting BNP publications - they are not reliable sources and are deeply offenseive. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I will echo Deuces even more loudly. Rob, please stop wasting our time. Thanks.UBER(talk) 00:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
How I would be the one wasting your time is beyond me, you are responsible for yourselves.
File:Rajinder Singh BNP Membership Card.JPGThe first Sikh BNP memberThis was only breaking last night, my link is not to a BNP site at all but to an independent political site, there will likely be other reports soon enough, actually this was reported in November as here in the Independent but as the membership ban has now been lifted he has only now officially been able to officially get his membership approved. Both of these things are citable and are notable enough points in the historic detail of the BNP to make them worthy of inclusion, the first official Sikh member and the acceptance of the new equality commission compliant constitution and the reopening of the ability to join the party after that was closed for over three months. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The story is worth mentioning. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In the old days, he would be likened to Uncle Tom! He is a bigot whose sole rational for joining the BNP is Islamophobia. I'm not aware there ever was a membership ban to lift; the issue has been that the BNP was taken to court for operating discrimination in its membership rules. And what is meant by "the acceptance of the new equality commission compliant constitution"? Accepted by the BNP? As far as I'm aware, the courts have not yet let the BNP off the hook, but I confess I have not read the papers in the last few days. Emeraude (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know they have. And I must say I question your neutrality here, regarding earlier inputs, with POV personal attacks like "bigot", and personal feelings such as writing his "sole rational for joining the BNP is Islamophobia". It is utterly irrelevant on a Wikipedia talk page what you, me and others' personal opinion on the BNP and its members is. It only become evident that certain users fail to leave their personal feelings outside. -TheG (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that is impossible presently, you have only to read the article to see that some editors would perhaps be more NPOV editing the Unite Against Fascism article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I must say it is also somewhat amazing to get down to such low levels of calling someone who said he "saw what happened to my homeland when it was overrun by Islamists and I do not want that horror visited upon Britain" merely aa "Islamophobia". I guess the other Indians like Ghandi was suffering of "Anglophobia". -TheG (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately, I do read sources other than POV rants on Wikipedia and BNP press releases. They support my admittedly intemperate description. He is not a nice man, however you sugar it. Don't make him out to be typical of Sikhs or British residents - he isn't and you know it, and so does the BNP. How Gabagool has the temerity to question my neutrality is beyond belief. Emeraude (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It is again amazing that you somehow allege that I have claimed he was "nice", or anything else for that matter. If you haven't figured it out yet, it is only you who constantly have to judge people, not me at least. -TheG (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Please read before you rant. I have nowhere suggested that you claimed he was nice. Emeraude (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The BNP had agreed to suspend new membership untill thier new constitution had been examinied. So it was a voluntary ban enacted at the request of the courts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That may have been the case originally, but it's currently an injunction preventing them from accepting new members. IANAL, but to the best of my knowledge an organisation under an injunction cannot simply say they have complied and ignore the injunction, they would have to go back before the court, satisfy the court they have complied with the terms, and then the court would rescind the injunction. At the present moment in time (particularly if you look at the wording of the news report, ensuring what Griffin says is being reported as a "claim") there is no evidence the injunction has been rescinded or that the BNP are officially allowed to accept new members. Also the image isn't licenced under Creative Commons, I've tagged it for deletion on Commons. 2 lines of K303 14:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've now checked and the injuunction is still in force, the BNP having failed to satisfy the High Court that its membership procedures are not discriminatory. Emeraude (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no injunction in force at all, membership of the British National Party is open and they are taking members now, go there if you want and join, membership is open, there was a technical pointy issue and the bnp had only to alter a minor point and notify which has been done and the bnp have opened membership and have according to them accepted three thousand new members. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
A minor point? RS for all those assertions please. Verbalchat 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The final dispute with the new constitution was on a very minor issue and all the bnp was to do was to comply and that is that, the equality commission is unable to do anything, the issue is closed, if the equality commission thinks they want to complain again they have to open a new case.....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8564742.stm from there..She added: "As long as they comply with the court order then that is fine, but obviously we are going to be looking carefully at the new constitution when it is issued. If we still think it is racist in any kind of way, we will either be bringing this matter back to the court, under contempt of court proceedings, or we will be issuing new proceedings." that is their business, the membership is open and the equality commission has any problems about it they will have to take it back to court, membership to the British National Party is open and the new constitution is in force and unchallenged in its present state. Griffen claimed there was 7 000 people on the waiting list. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Fifth para: "Judge Paul Collins ordered the party to pay £60,000 in costs and said its membership list must remain "closed" until it complied with race relations laws." Verbalchat 08:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Despite what Off2riorob says, the BNP has to satisfy the High Court, not the EHRC. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed the source doesn't support Robs assertions, especially not the highlighted portion, as I showed above. Verbalchat 11:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, as the source I already posted made clear as well, the phrase "The British National Party began processing applications within hours of a court order banning recruitment of new members after its leader claimed to have amended the constitution" is a dead giveaway. The BNP do not have the authority to lift the injunction, they have to go back to court to get it lifted. That they have re-opened membership does not mean it logically follows that it is official and the injunction has been lifted, it could just as easily mean the BNP are currently in contempt of court. 2 lines of K303 11:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Membership is clearly open, on the BNP website you can join now, the Sigh guy joined in March and the BNP are publically announcing that membership is open, apparently looking at some blogs and links, there were two issues, one was immediately changable and griffin did that in the court but the other issue is write protected whatever this is and requires a vote for which the membership must vote to ok the change, they had 30 days to confirm the positive result and make the change, it is open to consideration why the BNP are being allowed to be in contempt of the last injunction but they are, imo as it is a minor issue the membership restriction has been allowed to be lifted. So soon the debacle will be over and the BNP will have an official constitution that will be fully compliant will the equality laws.Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Essentialy it would seem that the courts have said that the ban on membership has not been lifted, and that it is still in place, but the BNP are ignoring it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you could say that is perhaps the citable situation, but that would not be a possible situation, looking around the BNP lawyers were also seeking that they had used good faith and that the issue remaining was so small as to not warrant the politically punitive continued closure of their membership list so close to the election and I would say that considering the BNP's limited finances that they must have been given the permission to reopen membership otherwise doing so in conflict with the injunction would be an impossible situation for the BNP to risk, as under that situation the illegal recruiting and acceptance of members under an illegal situation would be a dangerous legal position. griffin commented after the issue about it and from what is see the promblems were in two sections, one section was regarding the membership policy and another one not, the problem regarding the membership policy mr Griffin was immediately allowed to change which he did there and then in the court, this removed the membership problems completely the only issue left being in a section that is nothing to do with membership allowing them to reopen membership as the only other problem does not involve that issue. Griffen said this a week ago...."I have changed the non-write protected constitution to comply with the court order and the amended version will be published online well within the 30 days set our constitution. “Membership applications are therefore are now open and the 7000-strong backlog will be processed in the order in which they applied,” Mr Griffin said, adding that any ethnic who had applied to join the party would wait in turn like anyone else to have their applications processed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, please bring an independent (not BNP) reliable source (idem) to support your assertions - as they flatly contradict the statements made in the BBC source you brought. Verbalchat
I don't need any sources, the BNP website is a good source for the totally indisputable fact that membership is open and griffin is a reliable source for his own comments, what is it that you actually have a dispute with? Do you think membership is not open? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It feels like very current news to me, and we should hold and see what the courts do --SnowdedTALK 06:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
We should then at least remove the out of date claim that membership applications are suspended, as they are not. That statemnt represents old news. Moreover the courts (and EHRC) have had 10 days to respond, how long should we wait? This page is rapidly falling behind real world evetns, not becasue we do not know what is happening but becasue Edds are refusing to allow up to date material to replace out of date material. Yes this is news, but so was the whole EHRC case it was still inserted at so least we should keep it up to date, or remove the whole section as we are still awating the outcome.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I want to remove or amend a significant amount of false information in the article but I'm being prevented from doing so because of spurious accusations lacking in evidence by another editor, life's a bitch isn't it? 2 lines of K303 14:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I have been able to understand Griffin does not even have to go back to court, the bnp have only to publish the amendment on line within 30 days, eleven or twelve of which have already gone, the bnp will then have a constitution that is fully compliant with all British racism and equality laws. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit war party now banned, can we play nice now?
Yorkshirian (talk·contribs), a key party to the edit warring, has been banned by (overwhelming) community consensus. What do people think about unprotecting? Can we play nice and maybe even stick to 1RR for a while and make use of this talk page? Wknight94talk 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am still in favour of a 1RR restriction. He was not the only guilty party, nor the only one unwilling to back off.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a 1RR yet, just ban on large revert to version being warred over before without consensus first. Verbalchat 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is basically under attack by multiple POV editors, this has not changed, the article is subject to edits that are valueless to anything at all to the reader or to the neutrality reputation of the wkipedia, one revert is more than this article is worth, keep it locked, delete it it is a attack pov article, do the wikipedia a favour keep it locked. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ignoring your massive bad faith, that isn't an option Rob. I've seen pages in much worse states than this. One of the most problematic POV editors has now been banned, and some discussion is happening. I don't see this as anything like a lost cause yet. Why not suggest some simple changes you feel might improve the article? Verbalchat 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is as if you allowed the Democrat supporters to group together and edit and control the republican article, that is what you have here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Who are you quoting? Can you remove the bold please, it's distracting. Also, this is a UK politics article so the reference isn't a great one. Please stay on topic - improving the article. Verbalchat 23:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
What we need to avoid here is having the BNP article controlled by racists and advocates. Verbalchat 12:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If the accusation he is making is that this page is controlled by editors that belong to parties or groups explicitly hostile to the BNP it does not matter if this is a UK or USA page the analogy would still hold.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Both sides of the coin are as bad for the article as each other. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It'd be good to get the article unlocked, since the stuff at User:One Night In Hackney/Evidence is far too much to deal with using edit protected requests. 2 lines of K303 12:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that the POV editing warring was not all one sided. There are isseus that both sides of the debate need to address. Until this is done there will always be editwarring on this article. That is partially why I support a 1RR limit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the continued locking of the article as there are still ongoing big issues as to POV editing and the neutrality of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no POV editing as the article is locked, and you have asked for the article to be locked for good - which isn't an option per our policies. Neutrality will never be "fixed" if it is locked. Verbalchat
Locked and rewritten by independent neutral editors, editing by the involved editors that are waiting to again start similar additions has created only what is imo a worthless cited attack article.Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No thanks. I've detailed a significant amount of false information in the article that needs to be removed or changed. That will not be held up by you calling for de-facto page bans without evidence. If you want to start user conduct on any editors then go right ahead, until then stop making accusations. 2 lines of K303 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As one party has left and the other banned, I support reopening the article to editing. Verbalchat 22:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As do I, even though we haven't really resolved any of our disputes.UBER(talk) 22:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is unprotected. I am no longer watching this so try WP:RFPP if problems flare up again. Wknight94talk 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
139
Link 139 appears to be broke, if it is can we have a Cn tag for the sentance.
"It proposes "to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire [sic] as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles"."
Suggest we hold on a bit. The link was valid when posted and I personally checked all the linked sources not so long ago, with especial regard to BNP sources which had to be found from archives because the BNP website itself was practically rewritten entirely when the party's web boss quit (or was expelled, depends on your point of view). If this one has disappeared, something strange has been going on somewhere. I would suggest that some effort be put into finding a working link rather than simply banging on a citation tag. Emeraude (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Problem solved. The link is working again and reveals the exact phrase: to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. Perhaps you were put off by the "Internal Server Error" message at the top of the page - scroll down a bit for the substantive text.Emeraude (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I would rather we had a better source for this then this. A broken archive page (with no real way of telling its provenance) is not the best of sources for such a contoversal page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is still policy and is on the live website now, link to the bnp website with their policy regarding Eire and Ulster which appears unchanged since 2007 is here . Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not "A broken archive page (with no real way of telling its provenance)" - it works perfectly and web.archive.org is a respected achiver of web pages. I suspect it was only used on this occasion because the BNP original was taken down by the BNP. However, the link Off2riorob gives above does say exactly the same thing, word for word, so should be an equally good source.Emeraude (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Lets use the new source then, end of argument.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
EHRC
The judge has ruled, I inserted this and its been removed why?Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't ask snowded's permission DharmaDreamer (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Im ave checked and it was indead Snowded who undid my addition of this material. I would like to ask why?Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks or uncivil accusations, and assume good faith. Snowed was clearly acting in good faith. It would have been easier to restore your material had you added a diff or quoted it here, and also a justification would have helped calm tempers. Verbalchat 21:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have asked why he deleted this material, and have asked him elswhere to check edits before deleting them (are you susgesting that he disagres with my addition? if so then again I ask why?). I am entitled to ask why material was removed, especialy when it does not fail any policies.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And I have answered on my talk page. There were a huge range of contentious edits, unpicking the odd (possibly good) one was too hard. I restored a prior position so that things could be discussed. --SnowdedTALK 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explainiing your reasoning. I do not agree that such a massive revert was a good idea, there might have been a lot of usefull alterations made that will now have to be done again (if they exisit). I do find it odd that you did not revert to the first edit of the 12th, as this is when that edit war started. Especialy as my edit was the 5 and 6 on that day, harldey in the middle of an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Please specify what text you want restored, and justify it. Thanks. Verbalchat 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have stated that the removed material does not breach any policy. I have also said to you on your talk page that it was sourced to RS and reflects what the source said. Unless you can provide a reason why the material about the recent EHRC ruling should be re-instated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Please justify it, see WP:BURDEN. Unless there is a good reason for adding it, (and you still haven't said what it is) I will oppose this addition. Verbalchat 13:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"...must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article" It was attributed to a reliable, published source (the BBC website) with an inline citation (though this could have been formatted better). The cite used the BBC web address thus allowing it to be verified. It represented what the source said (though abridged it for reasons of brevity). As such this material did not fail WP:BURDENas such your objection to its inclusion on these grounds has no validity and I ask for the material to be restored. Unless you can find another objection to this material of course.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you please just say what you think the edit you want restored adds to the article, and actually specify what that edit is? Please stop stonewalling and the tedious meta-discussion. You've not confirmed what the material is, despite asking and my attempting to restore material I thought you were talking about. Now I want it to be justified too. Verbalchat 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The edit in question is the one you restoreed (at that time you seemed to have no objection to it, and have still not offerd an objection to it). So I would like to know why you now object to its inclusion. Yuo have accused me of stonewalling becasue I have answerd your accusation that this fails WP:BURDEN when it does not, as such I fail to understand what you are objecting to. You seem to be onjecting for the sake of objecting, and I do not bleive that is resonable grounds to continue to oppose the re-intorduction of material tghat clearly states the BNP position with regards material in the articel that is out of date. I informed you on the 13th that this material refelcted the current situation with regards the EHRC case [[3]] Also I pointed out on the saem day that this articel was oout of date, directing users to my comment asking why the materail was deleted [[4]] explaiing what this material was about [[5]]. So again I ask what is your objection to its inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Opining due to a question at WT:V... as Slaterseven has provided a source, WP:BURDEN is not the right policy to cite in removing this edit. There may be some other problems or issues that need to be resolved, but WP:BURDEN isn't one of them. Best. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I would ask that the material in question is now restored as the reason for objecting to its inclusion is not valid. As Verbal has previousley restored it I will ask him to support this, if he would not mind.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As no more objections have been raised I have restored this material.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Good NPOV article
I was wondering to ask here while I was passing, there are multiple , hundreds of edits and disputes and wars here and the article is still very very poor and POV, would the involved editors step back from this circular disputing which had added nothing of any real value to the article in any way and allow an independent team of uninvolved NPOV editors in this topic to step in unhindered to create a decent educational wikipedia good article? Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there any point? The article was assessed just a few months ago and found to be basically sound. Look back in the archives. Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
(By the way, to say "the article is still very very poor and POV" is itself POV. Think about it. Emeraude (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC))
Your comments reflect the position of involvees, the article is readable rubbish a blind person can see that, it is unstable and repeatedly a victim of edit warring to the extent that it is clearly valueless as an educational reference. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the peer review was hardly a statement that the article is basically sound.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the peer review, I can imagine and will accept Stephen's comment as a fair assessment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think what is being proposed is that all editors who (say since the GAN) step back (I will propose for a month) and allow some fresh blood to look at the article. I see no problem with this (especially if we keep the 1RR rule as well).Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If everyone agrees, I can unprotect, but I've seen very little agreement here from the people doing the actual edit warring. Wknight94talk 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Unlocking this article is wrong and will do nothing but start the continued long term disruptive POV editing that proliferates here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the unwillingness of certain edds to accept any kind of editing restriction I have to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
We should create and add a template as well that says, this article has suffered constant disruption and disputes and has been locked as of March 2010 and on the wikipedia scale is classified as a very poor quality article and of little or no educational or informative value to the general public. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This seems a bit excesive.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Link to last peer review..here comment from reviewer..
NPOV My biggest concern with the article is POV, as it seems fairly anti-BNP.
I was having a look at this talk page yesterday and something occured to me which I thought of as a "Timeline approach". I might as well post it. Every classifying attempt, selecting a label or an outfit, causes a dispute of one form or another. What occured to me was the basic lines in chronological order with extra words only to note major differences with the present but not to explain them until they are reached in the timeline... "The British National Party is a Britishpolitical party. It was formed in 1982 by members of the National Front under leadership of John Tyndall. The party has been focused mainly on racial disintegration until recent legal concerns." And then rather than go on to the most recent information about the legal dispute or how people are feeling this morning, consider what part of the lead is next in the timeline, after 1982 and the fact of the policies. All of the things people wish to explain, public feeling, recent developments etc., come somewhere in that timeline. If you are against the timeline approach, and feel that something is not to be missed, you are certainly not neutral and that can often gain concensus but as a fact it still stands. Say what it is without its purpose unless the purpose is difficult to concieve and then follow on with the timeline making notes about parts which have changed significantly but not explaining them until reaching the timeline point at which they become apparent. ~ R.T.G 19:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
For emphasis, quote from the first sentence of this article... "in 1982. Until 2009," ~ R.T.G 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I’m not sure that being against a time line approach makes you POV (but insistence that it should reflect "THE TRUTH!" could. I am a bit ambiguous over this, It might work. Or it might just become another battle ground (for example we would still have to decide what goes in the lead, and where would Far right fit into this chronological sequence). On the other hand it would at least give the lead some structure. But it does not remove the basic problem of edit warring. The dispute is not about structure but content.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I really doubt this article is "very poor." It's got problems, of course, but its biggest issues are actually structural (ie. it's too long, for one example). Instead of making sweeping and cryptic remarks about the article's defects, would Rob actually mind sharing some specific proposals for how to make it better? That's what would actually help improve this article.UBER(talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of the worst embarrassing valueless vomit pits we have, as I have said POV editors that are active here should be encouraged to move along. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, your generalities are very impressive, but some specifics would not hurt.UBER(talk) 23:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
What more do you want and how more specific could I be than- POV editors should be encouraged to move along. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You could start, for one, by explaining what exactly violates NPOV.UBER(talk) 23:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
your edit warring and personal desire to label this article as a white supremist is exactly the kind of POV editing that this article is being repeatedly disrupted by. If you would like to help the article attain a NPOV position and you hold an extreme point of view regarding the subject of the article, in the best interest of the article, have you personally considered moving along. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I just came here so I think I'll stay put. But to answer your suggestion, I support no description of this party that does not appear regularly in reliable secondary sources.UBER(talk) 00:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your position is that they are white supremacist and that should be included in the lede, which by any NPOV editor would be considered an extreme POV, please consider the individuals that come here to find out NPOV information in an educational way and not your personal beliefs and desires. All editors are required to rise above their personal desires and edit in a NPOV way for the benefit of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The position of several reputable sources is that they are white supremacist, and that's what I've publicized on this talk page. Incidentally, per concerns raised above about the term being dominant in the US, I'd also be willing to call them racist in the lead sentence, which would be a more accurate characterization and have far wider support in the academic literature.UBER(talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
With such POV opinions you can look no further to understand why the article is locked to editing. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand that your general strategy here is to present everything I say as an "opinion," completely ignoring the fact that it's all backed up by political scientists who know far more about the subject than you or I ever could. But since you're involved now, maybe you'd like to offer your own suggestion for the lead? Failing that, this conversation becomes pretty pointless.UBER(talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You hold what can only be described as an extreme opinion and position about the subject of this article and I have asked you to move above your desires to the benefit of the wikipedia and the article, of course I can also find references calling the subject of the article as white supremacist racists but that is clearly not the NPOV position at all and yet you have insisted and edit warred to get your POV into the article which has been detrimental the the article and is continuing to be detrimental to the article with your continued assertion in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Uber, you said, "The position of several reputable sources is that they are white supremacist". Could you please provide sources so that we can procede with improving the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(to Rob) You did not answer my question, but that's ok. I think another way to ask the same thing is the following: why do you consider calling them racists or far right—when these terms are supported by numerous reputable sources—a violation of neutrality? Do you think neutrality means we have to refrain from calling any subject in Wikipedia what it is (in this case, blatantly racist, per numerous sources)?UBER(talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How can I answer your questions when they are so opinionated and clearly fixed in an POV position as regards the subject of this article, if you thought I was discussing with you you were mistaken, I was offering you advice and asking you to consider moving on from this article for the benefit of readers looking for an educational neutral point of view from this wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Your talking points are lovely. See below.UBER(talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(to Deuces) I already gave a great source above, but here it is again...
Extremist white supremacists have been welcomed into the political mainstream. The new found respectability of the BNP (British National Party) in the United Kingdom and their influence on local politics; militia groups and their intervention on immigration policy...are all current examples of ways in which everyday white supremacy and extremist groups are still bonded.
Pretty convincing summary.UBER(talk) 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In addition to these features, it is also of significance that the headquarters of the extreme racist organization, the British National Party (BNP)...This organization has links with other European white supremacist political groups.
I could go on like this for a while. The evidence from reputable sources is clear: this party is racist, fascist, white supremacist, and easily far right. We do our readers a disservice when we try to sugarcoat their reputation, as some are seemingly proposing.UBER(talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The extremist British National Party (BNP) now has a website registered in Tonga, enabling them to safely post material that would fall foul of UK's anti-racism laws...
...the focus will be narrowed down in order to look carefully at how the Internet on an extreme-right political party—in this instance, the British National Party.
We're debating...what exactly?UBER(talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The British National Party, as well as the British National Front, is very much like Le Pen's Front National in France...both parties have been effective in establishing racism and xenophobia as important wedge issues that compete with conventional class-based politics.
This last one reminds me: it wouldn't be a bad idea to explicitly identify them as xenophobic as well, just to put it beyond doubt.UBER(talk) 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
...the Union Jack -- the flag which had earlier been appropriated by far right racist groups such as the National Front and the British National Party.
Clearly it's biased! The guy comes from the same university I attended!UBER(talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
We should avoid American stereotyping. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Reality check: John Preston (who called them white supremacist) is British, and although I haven't checked explicitly, most of the people above are probably not Americans.UBER(talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you not just attempt to describe the points which may be difficult to concieve so that the plain facts remain unobscured? Is it a class on the BNPs racial disintegration policies or a class on winged politics or racism and how to decipher them by label? I think that "racial disintegration policies" is quite sufficient to leave me in no doubt as to the direction. I can tell you for sure, I understood what "racial disintegration" meant a long long time before I understood what far-middle-center-right-back-come-up-with-the-best-scandal-on-the-opposition meant. What point of view was that? I have watched many commons leader debates and they are expert at label this label that but the nitty gritty is always in the statisics. Aren't the Torys the "New Labour" now just to emphasise that point, that it's stats that are important rather than labels? There are so many labels for this one which give no real extra information. You will not find the ultimate definition. Not for something like this and if you do, it will be some piece of work. Let the schools teach about good and bad so that we the adults can get down to events and statistics. ~ R.T.G 01:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "racial supremicist" is totally an American term. Elsewhere people say "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It's prevalent in the US there's no doubt about that. All I'm saying is that it's used outside of the US as well. But like I mentioned previously, white supremacist could also be replaced with racist to convey (roughly) the same point.UBER(talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is not widely used in this country to describe them. I would still rather any such label however (which ever one we use) its called an accusation, unless their own statments use the term. It does not have to be strong. "the BNP are widely regarded as rascist and far right". its the lead its not supposed to go iinto detail. Then you have a section that hass all that proof in it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The BNP are not a reliable source. We should follow the RS, which state far right clearly. I'm not bothered about white-supremacist, as it's more of a US term, but extreme also seems well supported. Verbalchat 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am asking for some kind of compromise so we can get back to editing the page. Soome kind of wording that will not lead to an edit war. I am not saying we remove the term, just make it clear its an accusation. It does not matter they are RS, they are still making an accusation that the BNP deny. How is some one comming to this page likely to regard it if they see the BNP labled as Dog kickers and then look at the BNP's own material and find no mention of (and indead explicite deiles of) dog kicking. They are likely to regard this page about as reliable as an MP's expenses claim. Dam the BNP for what they a admit to, and let the reader decide everthing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm personally fine saying "widely regarded," but that also comes off as a term to be avoided per WP:PEACOCK. But I'd agree either way, as long as the BNP denial is not included in the lead (that would violate WP:UNDUE by miles).UBER(talk) 16:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Could the editors who complain the the article is anti-BNP please provide some independent sources that show the BNP in a way that they consider NPOV? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, they can't. And the reason they can't is because there are no sources that do not describe the BNP in the terms to which they object, i.e any independent source that says the BNP is fascist, racist or extremist. And however well-regarded the source, if it uses any of these words or is any way critical of the BNP then they accuse it and the writer of being biased. So, those academics that say the BNP is XYZ are no good, and there are no academics who say it is not XYZ. I have, on many occasions in recent months invited BNP apologists in here to provide one reliable independent source that says categorically that the BNP is not fascist. They have provided none. I know they can't, because I am by training a political scientist and I read the literature. If I can't find one, they can't. Likewise, racist. Go back a year or so and you'll find similar arguments from BNP supporters that the BNP is not racist, though they gave up on this one when the relevant extract from the BNP constitution was added and have gone completely silent following recent legal cases. I object most strongly to suggestions that the BNP (or any topic) should be described in Wikipedia in terms that they find acceptable or should be qualified is some way (e.g. by the use of prose like "but the BNP deny this"). Taken to its logical conclusion, we'd have "Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 jews (but his supporters deny this)". Emeraude (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to we will have to discuse any addition to the page here and wait for an admin to add it, I never objected to the idea. It seems to me that the current situation is the only way to avoid future edit wars. I woulod also request that all material inn this articel sourced to either an archived or current BNP page is removed as it is not reliably sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Emeraude is correct in absolutely every way. I propose we also add "racist" with far-right in the lead sentence.UBER(talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Slatersteven is wrong in his thinking about the acceptabliity of BNP sources. As far as I am aware, and I haven't checked recently, all references to BNP sources in the article are of the type "The BNP Constitution says...." or "The BNP claims that...." or "The BNP Leader is...." and that is perfectly acceptable. It would, though, be wrong to use the BNP as a source for statements about membership figures, political stances, events etc, since clearly there is a very real risk of bias and independent sources are called for. Emeraude (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the lede which claims that "It [BNP] believes that there are significant differences between races." But from reading the entire alleged source, there is nothing I can see that suggest that the BNP believe there are any other "significant differences between races" than such superficial things like colour of skin and so on which nobody of course can object to. The sentence clearly make the impression that the BNP has some Nazi-like "scientifical basis" that they should claim differences in various peoples human capital/abilities or such. The only thing separating the BNP from other parties it that they politically seek to preserve different races. Otherwise the BNP don't seem to believe anything deviating from completely common perceptions of race. -TheG (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. The BNP have of course no intention to establish apartheid in Britain, which would be the same as racial segregation. -TheG (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What does "preserve different races" mean? Wknight94talk 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If I'm correct, it means for the BNP in practice to strongly reduce immigration and give already immigrated people money to encourage them to go back to the country they came from. -TheG (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be more like preserving nationalities, wouldn't it? Not races? Wknight94talk 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You're correct. I have no idea from where the sentence in the lede was taken from. In general however, it may be that race and ethnicity are sometimes used interchangeably. -TheG (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
How about the FAQ on that reference where their answer begins, "We are against mixed-raced relationships...."? The whole answer implies their belief in differences, doesn't it? Differences to the point where they are against mixed-race relationships? Otherwise, why would they bother with that stance? Wknight94talk 18:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it doesn't really mean that the BNP look upon races specifically different than others, but simply that they have another view and policy on the relationship between them. The fact that other parties agitate multiculturalism/multi-ethnicity, also of course imply that there exist different peoples/races. It doesn't really entitle to assume that the BNP believe there are any more "significant differences between races" than others do. Rather just different policies on existing realities. -TheG (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
All the reliable evidence indicates that the BNP is a racist, fascist party. Please stop trying to sugarcoat the sources. This is a fringe far-right group and this article should mention that explicitly.UBER(talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I wqas under the impresion that we could only say what the source explicitly supports. If the source does not say that the BNP belive that "significant differences between races" then we cannot say they say that. If thjey say they are against mixed race marriage then we cqan say that, we might even be able to stretch that to say intermixing of races (but that would be a push without other material.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd somewhat agree that the "significant" word is quite WP:PEACOCK'ish, esp. given the contents of the only source attached to that sentence. Do you have a better word/better source? Wknight94talk 14:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs a Cn tag. I cannot see (given what the source says) that this can be re-worded (as I do not actualy know what is trying to be said).Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have now placed a Cn tag on this text. Hopefully someone can now explain what this text is about.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"Left wing or socialist" in the FAQ
The FAQ box at the top of this page claims that the BNP, in rejecting the label "far right," cite "a left-wing or socialist approach to certain aspects of social policy." Is this right? I can't find any reference to the BNP referring to themselves as left wing or socialist, indeed, they frequently call themselves neither left nor right, and deny that their non-free-market economic policies are socialist. Does anyone have reference to the BNP describing themselves this way? If not, I'll change the FAQ box.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the fascist label in the infobox isn't labelled with a "(rejected)" tag like other political parties are when they don't agree with the (supposed) media concensus on their ideology. Wouldn't it be fairier to put this tag next to the "fascist" label. Nat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. Wikipedia is not about being "fair" - it's about being accurate and verifiable. The sources are up to Wikipedia's gold standard for reliablity. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam: please refer to the arcfhives of this page for details. Emeraude (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I also think we need to revisit this issue, to see what modern very recent reporting is of this description, far right seems acceptable but imo the party has moved away from the aspects of fascism that educated reporters were claiming ten years ago, the BNP strongly rejects the label. I also think that under the new constitution, when it is finalized that to describe the party as fascist is a derogatory attack. Off2riorob (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The constitutional changes were forced on them by the law and there are still legal issues outstanding. Its also far from clear what will happen in practice in respect of membership etc. If there was a reliable third party source that said they were no longer fascist; then maybe --SnowdedTALK 08:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well they were pushed to do so, but they did not have to change their constitution, they chose to do so, there were other options. When I was looking through their policies the other day, I am learning on my feet here, I did not see policies that were fascist. Perhaps in the early days with the national front. there were aspects of violent struggle etc, Fascist is worth a read, also I don't see them described as fascist in the recent press reporting, yes nationaliist, yes far right, but fascist, no. As it says in the article..
Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and the publicity surrounding the atrocities committed during the period of fascist governments, the term fascist has been used as a pejorative word,[28] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[29]
As in Nazi, fascist....name calling by people that just don't like the party or have been simply impregnated to think that way without actually looking at the party polices which imo are not describable as fascist at all. Off2riorob (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Third party sources Off2riorob, not your opinion on their internal documents --SnowdedTALK 09:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
They are not internal documents they are this political parties stated policy, I don't think it is correct to go down the road, that they are fascists pretending to not be fascists. I am challenging the description of fascism, as is the IP, I will present what I find to support my thoughts, I am in no hurry, I also want to have a good look at what we are using in our citations to support this label, later, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I was searching the recent news reports from various reliable sources and none of them are calling or referring the BNP a fascist organization, they refer to them as far right as a matter of course, has anyone got recent references of reporting from reliable citations that are calling the BNP fascist?
It's been a said a million times before and it needs to be said again: it doesn't matter what the BNP thinks of itself. If we're dealing with a racist and fascist party, clearly they will have ulterior motives in how they present their ideology to the public. The label fascist seems appropriate when describing the party, or at the very least its history.UBER(talk) 20:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the recent links that I have presented? None of the recent reliable sources are calling or refering to the BLP as a fascist organization, if in the past the party was considered to have fascist aspects that doesn't mean that we can or should label them as one now, far right is well supported, you also can not even say what you have said, it is untrue and wrong to say it, the BNP are not racist at all, this you will not insert, what we are talking about is the situation that exists now, the popular reliable sources are actually no longer calling the BNP fascist and we need imo to reconsider. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Reputable scholars still refer to the party as fascist. Consider this work in 2009 by Professor Nigel Copsey, one of the most distinguished experts on right-wing extremism.UBER(talk) 21:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That book is not an independent source to label the BNP as fascist organization, the title of the book is worthless as far as identification and labeling of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The book's description says: No other political party in the history of Britain's fascist tradition has been as successful at the ballot box as today's British National Party (BNP). This thoroughly revised and updated edition of Contemporary British Fascism offers an in-depth study of the BNP and its quest for social and political legitimacy. Copsey thinks that the BNP is fascist. Are you actually questioning that, or are you saying it doesn't matter if Copsey thinks so?UBER(talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, various mainstream media sources still refer to the party as fascist. I'm not going to quote mine like you did above, but you can undertake the search yourself if you so wish. It won't be hard to find plenty of hits.UBER(talk) 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please present your reliable citations that are currently referring to and labeling the BNP as a fascist organization. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
See above. I've just given you perhaps the most reputable scholar in the field. That by itself is better than all the pundits and commentators you can string together through a Google search.UBER(talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well, one scholar from a dated report, what did he actually say as regards the BNP and when did he say it, perhaps it has a value in the body of the article but it is poor support for labeling a political party as a fascist organisation today, I welcome discussing this as wikipedia should not refer to a organization as fascist if multiple reliable sources and the stated policies and actions of that organisation are not supporting that claim. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Two points:
The book is from 2009.
It's a logical fallacy to find a source that happens to omit the fascist label and to therefore claim that the BNP is not fascist. For our purposes, the best sources are those that address the subject directly, like books or papers from established scholars.UBER(talk) 22:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the book discusses historic positions and apart from the mention of fascism in the title what content is actually supportive in the book that the BNP is today a fascist organization, it is a weak assertion that this title of the book gives us as wikipedia the position to claim that the BNP is a fascist organization and bears little reality to today and the way reliable citations are referring to the BNP, please provide up to date wiiki reliable citations that specifically name the BNP to be a fascist organization and talk about the current BNP policies as being fascist. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, it's a logical fallacy to claim that just because some sources don't mention the fascist ideology of the BNP that the BNP is not actually fascist. I'll keep repeating this until you eventually understand it.UBER(talk) 22:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You are going to need to bring reliable up to date supporting citations to support your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I have. You need to direct your comments at yourself.UBER(talk) 22:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That one citation that you have presented tonight is no support at all for the assertion that the British National Political Party is a fascist organization today or that the consensus of recent reliable citations support that claim. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Must we put up with this? Off2riorob knows very well that this has been discussed to death over and over and always ends up with the conclusion that "fascist" is accurate. He knows this because he has read the previous discussions. Hasn't he? He also knows that all the reliable, independent, third party academic sources describe the BNP as "fascist" because he has read them. Hasn't he? Well, quite clearly, no he hasn't in either case. I can only conclude that Off2riorob is deliberately setting out to be disruptive.
But let's just deal with one very simple issue: he suggests that because the BNP is described by the media as right wing, it can't be fascist because they didn't actually use that word. Which presumably means that the Socialist Workers Party is not communist, because the press describes it as left wing.....? There is though, one important difference - as far as I am aware, the SWP does not deny or attempt to hide its communist ideology. Emeraude (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am here to discuss this as an up to date issue, sorry if you find my wanting to do that to be disruptive but I totally dispute that claim, I am going to discuss this much more so if you find that disruptive you should make a report now because that is what I am going to continue on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
In reply to your comments, this is a political party that I think the BNP are close to in ideology and general policy the French National Front and yet there is no mention of fascism in the infobox, the article talks and explains in a educational way about the parties fascist past and includes opinions from here and there in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Fascism should only be used from a source of significant scholarly study, not newspapers and politicians who are not academically qualified to make such comparisons. Papers are good sources about facts and dates. Politicians are good sources for policy and diplomacy. Scholars are the sources for science and ideology. And the links to crime and other nationalist partys probably should be included in the lead as well. The specifics of the elections should be dampened so that they just say, they have a seat or they don't have a seat and anyone looking for the vote count can scroll down. Having read the old BNP constitution several times now, I think that the lead section on racial disintegration policies reads like an excerpt from it rather than an evaluation. I am curious that the splintering from the National Front is not covered in more detail further down but I haven't read much into it. ~ R.T.G 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems wikipedia also accepts 'journalistic opinion' as fact, thats sad because the fascism label is well-known to be a smear. The NUJ guidelines even say that journalists have a responsibility to only report negativly on the BNP; and they call the BNP fascist - hypocrits.
I'm yet see proof that BNP is actually fascist (i.e. other than opinions or reactionary claims by known left-wing/anti-BNP writers). For instance aren't democracy and fascism incompatible, and yet the BNP is a democratic organization? Also doesn't fascism incorporate 'corporatist' style economics? as far as I can tell from their policies the BNP seems very anti-corporatist and promotes small-medium sized businesses rather than large congolmerates. Nat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
