Talk:British National Party

Explaining my edit

Firstly there has been an attempt to add a disclaimer to the infobox, claiming per Jobbik. Edits to this article are discussed here, not made with a claim of alleged consensus on another article. Secondly the Times article does not have a denial by the BNP of being racist, not in the slightest. What it actually says is that they believed they were exempt from the Race Relations Act, which means "yes we are racist, but we're allowed to be". There is no way this is a denial of being "racist", and that word does not even appear in the reference. In addition the BNP's stance has changed since that article, since they had to climb down in court. Thirdly I have amended the sentence about "ostracism" to reflect the reality and remove a tautology. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The party does deny being racist in The Times article (“We are not discriminating on grounds of colour.”). But it also says so in the link at the bottom of the page[15]. The party makes the distinction between ethnic and racial discrimination and that must be noted (even if it seems farcical), otherwise I think our neutrality is being compromised. (The same rule should apply to other the Fascist label in the infobox - we always let parties have their labels; surely no academic source, for example, would today make the claim that the Labour Party runs on a platform of democratic socialism.) Regardless, I am not sure why we are dealing with the membership issue in what is effectively the first sentence when it cannot even be said to be the issue that has aroused the greatest controversy. We rarely lay out the membership rules for other parties, how they relate to other organizations in civil society etc. in the lead so if our intention is to insert the most controversial aspect then I suggest that we cover the issue of whether they are Fascist or not, the appearance on QT or something else. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not about giving prominence to the most controversial aspects, but the most noteworthy (of course, it might be a matter for debate what is most noteworthy, but the BNP membership issue clearly is more notable than for other political parties).

Given that this is contentious, would it not be best to stick as closely as possible to the wording in the source? --FormerIP (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the text of thier denile to be more in keeping with the source. Moreover theri stance has not changed, as has been pointed out they have not accepted they were in breach of the law (they have been let of the hook in that respect) what they have said is that they are not finacialy abel to carry on and therefore have to back down (without any actual addmision of guilt).Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making things up, this is not Jackanory. The BNP agreed in court to change their constitution "so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion", see the BBC and Telegraph. They did accept they were in breach of the law, their earlier posturing and excuse making is not relevant once that admission was made. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

From your BBC source

"Bankruptcy fear

On the BNP website Mr Griffin had asked supporters to help fund the "horrendous" bills for the legal case and accused the commission of "trying to bankrupt us".

Richard Barnbrook, the party's representative on the London Assembly, said he believed BNP members would vote in favour of a reformed constitution.

"The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections."

Prety much says what I said they said, that they could not afford to fight the case, also I do not see an admision of guilt in the source. You second source contains no admisioon of guilt, but does contain a claim that "they are trying to put us out of business." Its not earlier posturing its their response to the findings (well excuse for their backing down), they have admitted nothing (please find a quote were they say they have accpted that their membership cirteria was rascist). Also this "The Commission asked the BNP to provide written undertakings that it would amend its constitution and membership criteria to ensure and to make transparent that it does not discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds." that does not read like an accusation of rascism but a request to avoid any appeance of rascism. I would also request that you do not accuse me of 'making things up'.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that on all independent judgement they were going to loose the case then they had to come up with something that would make avoiding that loss palatable to their members. We work from third party reliable sources here, ie we do not take on, unverified, the posturing of a political party in trouble. --Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean unverified, are you susgesting they have not said this? Please provide a soource that says that their statemnt is untrue. By the wat I* presume that you would not say htat my quote from the EHRC is not true?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

They have used that excuse, and their use of that excuse has been reported. The validity of the excuse (is it real, or did they realise they were on a hiding to nothing but needed to save face) needs a third party. --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do certain people round here have some sort of tunnel vision that only allows them to see what the BNP say and only what's favourable to them? From the BBC, "BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard". Note exactly what the court heard, that Griffin agreed the consitution discriminated. The Telegraph says almost the same word for word, "The British National Party will amend its constitution so its rules on membership do not discriminate on the grounds of race or religion, a court was told". So unless that was actually said in court as both sources say, why would they independently say it? Crucial is the fact that both sources also mention religious discrimination, when the BNP's constitution doesn't even mention any membership requirements based on religion, even Muslims would have been at least technically available to join assuming they didn't fall foul of the "race" requirement. The BNP's posturing prior to the case is irrelevant. Both sources say that the BNP and/or Griffin agreed that the BNP's consitution broke discrimination laws, they do not say that in court the BNP did not agree their consitution broke discrimination laws but agreed to change it anyway. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask you to not accuse other edds of ignoring facts or accusing them of bias, please assume good faith. Now has any one said their excuse is not true?, if not then why should we assume its not true? I will also point out that this was not pre-case posturing. No one questions that they have lost, or that they have conceaded, the question remains did they accepet that they accepted that they were in the wrong, not if they were, the evidance from their own statments is that they do not. The BBC source also says ""The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections.". From the telegraph source "I just believe its another obstacle thrown into our way by the Lib-Lab-Con elite that now we are taking votes from them they are trying to put us out of business." that does not read like they accepet the courts fndings that they were in fact rascist, or in breach of the law. yes its an excuse, n ot one denies that. But has any said its not true?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of racism is wider than the question of membership, but more a question of; are their policies and fundamental aims still racist? The fact that one geriatric Sikh might want to join them in order to spread hatred towards Muslims will not make them not racist. It means they will allow him to be racist with them. The issue over the constitution is entirely irrelevent and the ECHR have undertaken the case just to wind up the BNP and cost them money, as the BNP have claimed, although that is not necessarily a criticism.--Streona (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is essentialy what Ms Chakrabarti is saying. But given the ammount of time taken up on this talk page with hte all white membership question its harldey irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And another thing; we are told that the BNP distinguishes between "ethnic" and "racial" discrimination, yet when I looked up "ethnic discrimination" on wikipedia I was re-directed to "Racism". Also I do not understand that the BNP has denied being racist from its website. The site is currently totally mucked up, but that is their concern, but my recollection is that their answer to the question "Is the BNP racist?" is that various other groups exclude white membership and that the BNP is no more racist than they are. Since they contend that such bodies as "The Black Police Officers Association" are racist, then this statement would, logically, serve not only to confirm their racism, but to contend that this is acceptable. --Streona (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Race is defined as "a group of people of common ancestry, distinguished from others by physical characteristics such as hair type, colour of eyes and skin, stature etc". (Collins English Dictionary) Ethnic is defined as "relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic and certain other traits in common". (Collins English dictionary). Not much of a differnace, but a differance none the less. Also another one of the reasons that the BNP droped the case (I seem to recall) was that the governemnt intends to make ethnicism illegal (or some such). colour nationality ethnic or national origins .[[16]]. So there is a distcition made between colour and ethnicity (which is what I belive the BNP were playing on (and what this page was sayiing, that they discriminate on the grouunds of colour). I seem to recall that the BNP's point about the BPOA was that it was no more rascist then they were. Not that the BPOA is rascist (untill now, they now contend that if they are rascist then the BPOA must be too). I also seem to recall thier they claimed that under the race relations act it was not illegal to operate a resticted membership policy to protect the interest of ethnic groups (I bleive it is this loop hole the government plans to close).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The quotes from the party about why they decided to give up the court case are one thing, Mr Barnbrooks quote is about why the party will allmost certainly accept the new constitution. Yes they are linked (and the reason given is the same) but they are differnt in context.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Other professions

Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration."Civil service BNP ban considered" BBC News, 19 September 2004, Retrieved 4 October 2008.Alan Travis "BNP ban urged for probation officers", The Guardian, 1 February 2005, Retrieved 4 October 2008. A proposal to ban the BNP from Dorset Fire Brigade, proposed by the management and the Fire Brigades Union, was turned down by the Fire Authority. BBC News Fire bosses stand against BNP ban", 24 October 2005, The president of the BNP-linked trade union "Solidarity", Adam Walker, resigned from his job at a college for accessing BNP websites and posting comments using a school laptop during working hours.[17]. He has been summoned to a hearing of the General Teaching Council, which could result in him being banned from working as a teacher in England. "BNP teacher could be struck off", 20 September 2008, His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for allegedly accessing adult pornography using school equipment, and he was eventually sacked on the basis of his sickness record.BNP row teacher sacked by school, Northern Echo, 16 October 2008, </ref> His supporters told the press that he had been suspended for accessing the BNP website and had been victimised because of his political beliefs. A report by the NSPCC found that "a substantial amount of emails indicating a sexual relationship between himself and a 17-year-old former Sunnydale student have been recovered from Mr Walker’s school laptop and the school server."NSPCC worries over BNP teacher, Northern Echo, 13 November 2008.

imo the whole lot is not worth keeping, some five year old consideration and some coatracking of not notable bnp members who did this or that, are there any editors who consider any of this content to add anything of value to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any comments regarding this content? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is. Five years, five months or 500 years is not relevant. The fact that certain individual members of the BNP are not personally notable is only an argument aqainst creating separate articles on those people and nothing more. Emeraude (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, lets look at it piece by piece.....

"Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration" this is five years old and very dated from 2004 and is in need of bringing up to date, no ban was put in place, you are allowed to be a bnp member, nothing happened... if you think in is worthy of keeping it should be changed to something like....In 2004 the probation service and the civil service were reportedly considering banning employees from being members of the BNP, they didn't do anything about it and as of 2009 you are allowed to work in the civil service and the probation service and be a member of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You see, what you get to read now is this.. "Bans on BNP membership in the probation service and the civil services have been under consideration" .. that is all you get in the article, no explanation as to when this happened, and if it was some years ago, what happened, what was the outcome, no explanation at all, it is only if you click on the link that you find out the this was five years ago, imo it is misleading completely. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 2009 only the police and the prison services have the power to sack officers for membership of the BNP. [18] . Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is too long, Rob. I think it could be improved as follows, which cuts out a little under 200 words.

Bans on BNP membership have been considered but, to date, not imposed by the Civil Service , the Probation Services and Dorset Fire Brigade. In February 2009, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ban its clergy from membership of the BNP.

The president of the BNP-linked trade union "Solidarity", Adam Walker, faces proceedings which could result in him being banned from teaching, following criticisms he made in 2007 against muslims, homosexuals and asyslum-seekers. The case remained unresolved in September 2009. His brother, Mark Walker, was suspended from another college for allegedly accessing adult pornography using school equipment, and was eventually sacked on the basis of his sickness record. His supporters told the press that he had been victimised because of his political beliefs., although the NSPCC found that there was substantial evidence that he had had a sexual relationship with a student.

Liam Birch, a sociology student standing as a BNP council candidate for Southway was dismissed as assistant warden at Plymouth University when his BNP membership was revealed on an internet blog concerning the Holocaust, in which he declared "The Jews declared war on Germany, not the other way round".

Simone Clarke was a principal ballerina at the English National Ballet and a deputy for the entertainer's union Equity. Clarke's membership of the BNP was revealed by an undercover Guardian journalist in 2006. Her performances were picketed by anti-fascists demanding her sacking.

--FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is all the awful coatracking that I am of the opinion that it doesn't belong in this article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, Walker...the case remains unresolved two years later, ok..that is code for no charges were brought or code for nothing happened, and he is not even a position holder of the bnp, he has no place in being here at all and his brother who also holds no position in the bnp at all...was sacked for his sickness record...none of which belongs here at all...it would be like adding to the conservative party that someone that supported the conservative party was convicted of murder...coatracking and has no place here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The walker case appears to still be active [[19]], the delay (in aprt) appears to be Mr Walkers fault. As to his having no place in the artcle, here I would disagree. His case links directly to his BNP activities. As to his brother, that is a different matter as his case appears to have no linkage to the BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Walker's case is still pending, which is in the cite. His brother's case seems to be claimed by his supporters to be political persecution, which probably does make it pertinent. Unless I'm wrong, "coatracking" normally means trying to insert material which is not connected to the subject of the article. This material seems to me to be fairly directly about the BNP. --FormerIP (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link from this February, at a quick look at the assertion of bnp relation is there, but at the end he resigned and his brother was sacked in relation to his sickness record...nothing officially to do with his bnp association, at the end of the day..he is at most a bnp member, he holds no official position in the bnp and was not sacked for that all, the rest is supposition and speculation. While I am prepared to discuss and consider this addition, I agree that the brother should clearly be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is acutally from September: [20]. I think the thing is to follow what RS's reflect in terms of whether individual cases are relevant in terms of being linked to BNP membership or otherwise. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

its an interesting point, is it linked becasue the BNP says it is (which is effectvly what we are saying). In that respect Walker2 may have a place, but then we would have to be clear that he was not officaly sacked for his BNP related activites, but that his supporters say he was (so far from mshortaniing the section it adds material. For my part I would say that only cases in which BNP activites were an offical reason for the dismisal (or disiplinary actions). At least if we want to shorten this section, else lets have every similar case. I am not sure (given the almost passing comment nature of most of the comments about Walker2) that any of the sources make the link. The Northern Echo seems to be saying there is no link, just an accusation of one. I am not sure that is definate enoughSlatersteven (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

EC..Yes thanks, these links are all good, I support the removal of the brother and prehaps? a correct cited comment regarding this guy, he has actually resigned and there is this case in an attempt to get him struck off not for membership of the bnp but for religious intolerance. the fact is that the religious intolerance is not related to his membership of the bnp but in regards to the comment that he made regarding the Jewish people asked for it .. not related to his membership of the bnp at all, and in this reality, he doesn't belong in the section either. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In reality, all there is at the most for walker brother one is that, he is accused of religious intolerance and there is a case attempting to get him struck of for the comment...... and he is a bnp member.. he is not accused of that at all, he is not going to be struck off for that either but for the comment that he made and is accused of the religious intolerance for..all of which does not belong in the section, clearly him and his brother do not belong in the section or in the bnp article at all,. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Teacher who is a BNP member is accused of racial intolerance...really? yes, but it doesn't belong in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusation that he accessed a BNP website, and that he admitted it[[21]]. Also it seem to make it clear that the initial investigation was directly linked to his BNP membership. Only question is how RS is the Sunday Sun?Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is not charged with accessing the bnp website, as that is not illegal,but the fact is that we have sources that say he is in court for racial intolerance, they are attempting to get him struck off for that charge, he is not accused of anything to do with his bnp membership and is not charged with anything to do with that at all. He is not an offical of the bnp and the bnp is not responsible for him at all, he is not charged or under threat for anything to do with him being a member of the bnp but is charged with racial intolerance, imo it is totally coatracking. Off2riorob (talk)

Rob, Walker's status within the BNP is not the issue here (although, just on a point of fact, he is President of their Trade Union). The question as regards notability is purely about the notability of the action taken against them (which, I suppose, should be decided by common sense and consensus) and what (if anything) links that action to the BNP. If nothing links it, then the material should not be included. However, if something links it, then that could legitmately arise in a number of ways, as long as it is reported in an RS. It doesn't have to be any one set of specified circumstances. "Ah, but that link should be ignored because..." ought not to apply. The section is about cases where BNP members have been persecuted/held to account (depending on your POV) with regard to their employment. Any case where it can be taken from an RS that that is what has happened, or there is a claim that it has happened, should be includable in principle. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO it is not like that at all, he has no position at all in regards to official within the party, he is not charged with anything to do with the bnp it is clearly coatracking his case on the party as there is a weak connection, the section is regarding the people and reasons for organizations that do not allow membership and this case clearly does not actually fit in that situation I have discovered this by the simple reading of the citations.He is not a official of the bnp and he is not charged or punished in any way regarding his membership of the bnp. it is simply adding two and two and wanting it to be related but the facts clearly are that it is not connected. As I said, there was a member of the Tories that was accessing the website and the day after he murdered someone...it is in no way worthy of adding to the conservative website, I am in danger on repeating myself as it seems totally clear to me, if you feel it is connected and worthy of inclusion I will ask for an independent third opinion. What I can also do is rewrite the comments to more accurately reflect the reality that is contained in the citations and then imo it will be even more clear that it is not worthy of inclusion.Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other issue, are we already clear that the brother that was sacked because of his sickness record does not belong in the article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there's a clear claim that his sacking was politically motivated. I think it's a question of consensus and waiting for other editors to comment. --FormerIP (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you want to keep it, I will rewrite it to accurately reflect the citations. If consensus is later to remove the lot then fine, but what is there now does not accurately reflect the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The part about Adam Walker definitely wouldn't belong, except for the fact that "His supporters told the press that he had been suspended for accessing the BNP website and had been victimised because of his political beliefs". Both brothers are BNP activists (not just members, there's a significant difference), by the BNP's own admission. The BBC source in the article says they are both BNP members. I think it's more than relevant to show that when the BNP claim their members are being persecuted for their political beliefs and/or party membership to show that the reality, at least in one case, is that the person in question is an alleged pervert who rarely bothered turning up for work. The proposed bans are still being called for occasionally and quite recently, see the Daily Mail. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The danger that I see is that as the schools have denied any link (even though is in Walker1's case they seem to have sent him a letter saying there is (according to him)) we have to be very carefull about accusing them of lying. Essentuialy this is an unproven accusation made by the Walkers (and the BNP). This is how it needs to be worded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ministers attempt to address fears over immigration in bid to counter BNP

November 30th 2009. Communities Secretary John Denham comments are the latest attempt by ministers to address fears over immigration in Labour heartlands, and confront the threat from the British National Party.They follow a speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this month in which he said it was 'not racist' to talk about immigration. Government bodies and councils have been 'blind' to the needs of white working class communities, a Cabinet minister said today. Communities Secretary John Denham called for a new focus on the needs of poor whites affected by mass immigration. Read more: [22] Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Something should be added regarding the mainline political parties, at least labour, (the tory party are already right wing), attempting to address peoples fears regarding immigration as a reaction to the threat of rise in support of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP does not own immigration as an issue. You are in danger of producing OR or a synthesis. You need to find more than one Daily Mail article on this, and you need to show the relevance to this article, then come up with a form of words which doesn't endorse the BNP. --Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP might not own immigration as a policy but here in this citation the minister directly refers to the lack of immigration control and the rise in popularity of the BNP as cause and effect. There is absolutely nothing at all or or sy about it, all the comments are directly from the citation. It is actually very relevant to the article, I will post here more citations as this is enlarged on, the mainstream political parties accepting that their failure to address immigration worries has been (in their opinion) one of the reasons in the rise in popularity of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable third party citation to support that so don;t synthesis reports. I also suggest you draft and edit here so others can comment. --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly posted a citation concerning this position and all the comments I posted at the top of this section are from the citation. The daily mail is reliable, I am opening the discussion here, anyone who has more citations to support can feel free to add more links. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Daily Mail is not always reliable; in fact it is probably one of the least reliable British dailies. However, this talk page is for discussing the BNP article, not the Daily Mail's comments on a Labour Party minister which do not belong in the article, so this whole section is really out of order. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not, in the lede and in the article, is comments regarding the mainstream parties ostracization and rejection of the BNP, so imo it is also relevant that the recent reaction and comments from the mainstream parties regarding the BNP are included as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It was pointed out previously that you are attempting to synthesise the Daily Mail article. Neither John Denham nor the Labour Party have stated that they have reacted to the BNP. (In fact, to be really pedantic, neither does the Mail - "in the face of" does not mean "because of".) Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is clearly refered to in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From the article...and this is the point...."His comments are the latest attempt by ministers to address fears over immigration in Labour heartlands, and confront the threat from the British National Party." . The point is that there is a reaction that is being commented on in the press that the mainstream parties are reacting to the rise in support from the bnp by trying to address the voters concerns. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But you are adding your interpretation. Also this has nothing to do with the universal condemnation which is not about immigration but relates to the fact the BNP is seen by all other parties as racist. --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for more equivalent comments, but it would not be sync or OR right now to say...according to the Daily Mail the comments from Minister Denham are the latest attempts by ministers to address the voters concerns as regards immigration and an attempt to confront the threat from the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See comments by Emeraude and others above. That type of statement is denigrated in wikipedia, the idea is to make a statement supported by reliable third party statements rather than a success if he said/she said comments. --Snowded ^TALK 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is only opened here for added input, as you know there are comments cited and attributed in this way all over the wikipedia, I have simply opened the discussion here for editors to add citations and add comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war

In respect of the recent court case the main BNP line has been that they withdrew to avoid cost. Given that costs were awarded against them and the judge;s view is clear this is clearly an excuse and a way of handling their members. It is however worthy of note. Until the 25th of November we had the following: Griffin has written to BNP members preparing to concede the case, stating that it will cost £80,000 to proceed or potentially £1m if the case goes to the House of Lords, they also were qouted as saying that "that to continue fighting the commission would bleed the party dry", "and would strip the party of the ability to fight the next general election"

On the 26th of November the point about costs was repeated with an additional paragraph saying:He said that 'I believe the vote will go for yes. The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections.. I reverted that on the grounds that the material was already in the article.

On the 28th November the material was reinserted without discussion on the talk page, I reverted it on the same grounds

On the 29th November the material was reinserted. I attempted a compromise by editing out the first reference and generally shortening excessive quotations, but this was promptly reverted on the 1st.

In addition the following phrase was inserted (and went through the same reversion cycle): the BNP claimed that its decision to consult on changing its constitution had meant that it had "outflanked" the EHRC

Now we have a set of things "it will cost too much money" " we are withdrawing from the court case" and "it will persuade our members". While (given the award of costs) this is a dubious reason it is worth of note but it needs ONE sentence not two. The other phrase out "outflanking" is simply bluster and has no place here.

Aside from that we have in effect three reverts without discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The material added on the 26th did not repeat material already in the article, in was about whether the membership would agree to the new constitution (and why). This was not at this time in the article. The article only discussed why the BNP drooped the case

On the 28th you not only removed the material you called repetition but also additional new material, which you accepted was new and should not have been removed (and was added as per your request that it should be there in your revert summery of the 26th). Which you also re-inserted. Moreover you revert of the 28th undid two edits of mine, one of which contained no repetitive material (which you also accepted), effectively 2 reverts with 1 edit.

On the 1st of December you changed the material. You removed the line about the party almost certainly saying yes, reverting it back to talking about the court case and not the likelihood of the membership accepting the new constitution. You also in this edit do not object to or remove the line about ‘outflanking’ (which is be the way sourced, bluster or not it shows how the BNP regard this). Moreover I did raise this matter with you here[[23]] so I did not revert without an attempt at discussion.

This hinges on whether or not the same excuse being used for two related by different events is the same or not. It is my contention that this is not the same and that the fact that an offical of the BNP has stated that they wil almost certainly accept the new constitution is both important and relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I happily reinserted material that was not a repetition on one edit (although I was surprised you wanted it there), happy to admit a mistake if its made and correct it. The fact remains that you have inserted material three times despite the fact it has been disputed and without giving your reasons on the talk page until now. The obvious solution to this is to combine the two sentences (something I attempted to do on the 1st by way of compromise) and get rid of the bluster statement. Will you accept that? Happy to give this a day to reach agreement, but if none I will revert to the 25th version pending agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also raised it here (though this was today)[[24]] when i actualy realised this might be turning int an edit war. besides as only you and I wereinvolved I felt that your talk page was as good as this one. I do not see why the bluster statment needs removing, surley this shows the attutude of the BNP about this matter. I fail to see why the two sentances need combining, at the moment they are in their respective sections, the coourt case and the new constitution (I would like to know what the second reason they would agree is). Try this though.

"Richard Barnbrook said he believed BNP members would vote in favour of a reformed constitution. He said that 'I believe the vote will go for yes'. one of the reason he gave was cost"?Slatersteven (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved that up to the other paragraph so the statements are together and simplified the statement. The bluster statement is simply that, it is reported but in no way endorsed and its adds little if anything. There is more than enough bluster. Other editors may agree with you (which is why the discussion should be here), but pending a consensus and in the sprit of compromise I have modified that statement as well rather than simply remove it. --Snowded ^TALK 00:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I belive the outflanking comment has value becasue it shows the fact that the BNP are not only making excuses as to why they backed down, but are even trying to portray this as a victory. It also ties in with Ms Chakrabartis comments, That this has (the EHRC case) has not bowed, broken or subdued the BNP, ot fundamentaly changed them. I also fail to understand why you do not wish the comment about the membership saying yes to the new constution should not be attributed to Mr Barnbrook, I would have thoguth that his standing in thbe partry makes his views on this matter notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

At present the article says that "and endorsed Did Six Million Really Die?, a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial booklet" yet the source says that "Now Nick Griffin queried numbers... I've read a thing called Did 6 Million Jews Really Die?... If they'd have kept the crematorium going in this little camp for 24/7 for 50 years they still couldn't have burnt that amount of bodies." Firstly this is edited, secondly it seems to me (and without the full statement we cannot say) that she may be quoting what Mr Griffin said. She may not be endorsing the book, she may qouting Mr Griffin. Granted she seems to be saying she belives the book, if she is not quoting Mr Griffin).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like she is quoting Griffin, unless the newspaper reports are misrepresenting her. Which is not an assumption we can make. There's no quotes around any particular wording to suggest this, for example. What makes you think she might be quoting him? --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she says Nick Grffin querries the numbers, then we have an edited out portion, then her (alledged) comment. She may not say she querries the numbers, she may say Mr Griffin does, and that she belives him. Moreover the source says "Naming the BNP leader and a notorious neo-Nazi book, she said:" (followed by the quote), there is no claim these are her words (that is she is not quoting someone else about the book). All there is is the claim she "attempted to minimise the scale of the Holocaust." not that she was not quoting someone else. For all we know the missing text could have said "He went on to say about the book". The fact is we do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is better, and makes it clear she did indead say it[[25]]. I would sugest using this instead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that an RS would not misrpresent her by missing out parts of what whe said to make her appear to say something completely different. --FormerIP (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't see your later response. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats OK but I think my doubdts were partialy justified, if the The Jewish Community Online can be considerd RS for this. The quoted artciel (and the wiki article) did leave out some material that puts some of here comments in a less dark (and just more stupid) light. For example she does not appear to endorse 'Did Six Million Jews Really Die?’, just that she has read and, and that she is unsure how many died (rather diffent from the impresion the article gave). Also the line about denistry seems to have been mis-represented, she does not appear to have said that it was a "positives to come out" what she said was "The only good that came of it was" (which also tends to imply that she considerd everything else a bad thing). So the article should reflect what she said. full interview here (it looks like the Jewish Chronical more of less quotes her in full)[[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that its not holocaust denial, but a rather crass challenge to the numbers. I inserted a better quote and removed material (like where she said it) which can be easily found in the reference. I also tried to tidy up the dentistry point. --Snowded ^TALK 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That *is* Holocaust denial. Claiming the accepted numbers are too high by a significant degree is denial in itself. In addition Griffin has referred to it as the "Holohoax" and said that "I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

She does not say that they did not kill 6 million she says she does not know, a bit of a differance. Moreover Mr Griffins opinion is not relevant as we are not discusing him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are, try reading your first post in the thread. It's quite remarkable that you claim Griffin's denial of one thing belongs in the article since he's the chairman, yet as soon as details of his holocaust denial are brought up you try and stifle discussion. Convenient.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Griffins denile is already in the article, we do not need repatition of material, it is not relevant to this womans views. I would also point ouot that the source does not say that good came out of the death camps “The only good that came of it was what they gleaned from what they did. Didn’t they get a lot of dentistry and plastic surgery – they found out by what they did [the German experiments].” is what the source says no mention of death camps. She also says that “I do maybe query the numbers.” note she may not, not I do, at the moment the article mis-represents what she says by cherry picking. Also given we like peoples past in this article should we not point out that she used to be a libral democrat?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven, I'm not sure what your exact point is here, but I think the issue over whether this is technically denial or not may be purely a semantic one. I think it is clear that what she is expressing is (although she doesn't necessarily say it using the most inflammatory lanuage) that she sees pros as well as cons to the Holocaust. That's clearly an offensive view, and the correct term for this is probably "Holocaust apologism". She absolutely is saying that good came out of it - those are almost her exact words. She also says she queries the numbers, which is "Holocaust revisionism". --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy of the bnp and actually would be better on an article about her, but there isnt one, so actually it is already an excessive comment of little value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Its notable material from someone in an official position. However the level of quotation was a nonsense. Off2riorob you need to avoid misleading edit summaries, calling a revert a "tweak" is not on. The clear majority here is for a simple summary so I am restoring the position. --Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not a revert at all, I am afraid yours was, please take care about claims of consenus for you position that are totally unclear, also take care you have reverted once and the article is on a 1RR condition.Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My original modification was reversed, restored by another editor and then reverted by you with the misleading edit summary. Given the above discussion I have restored my simplified edit 30 hours after the original. Wikipedia is not meant to have extensive on line quotations - it is an encyclopedia. I will repeat my suggestion that time when the ANI case was raised against you - you need a mentor. --Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional discussion about these accusations from user snowed took place on his talkpage if any one would like to read them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh --Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made were designed to reflect better what she says, and what the source says.

She says she questions the numbers, we should have that, and that she says that Dentistry and plastic surgery were the only good (she says only not some) we should have that too.she does not say they came from the camps. Use her words or do not use her at all. By the way why (given that the rest of the section says when and where is when and where she said this being removed. The clear implication being made is that she made these comments in 2009, she did not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this position, sample sections of her comments affect what she actually said, in the previous version she was being misrepresented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Snowed and FormerIP on this one. Verbal chat 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying is that we should use her words (in context), and allow the reader to judge here. I am not saying do not include her appolagism, but use the words she uses so that the reader can see what she is saying (after all if its so obvious what she measn that will be apparent). I am not saying do not include her saying she does not kn ow how many died (by the way does any one actualy know exaclty how many died?), but use her words (more or less) in full so that the reader can deteremine the extent of her guilt (or stupidity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the woman-in-question, have her own article? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NO, and I really do not think she is notable enough to have one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns on long strings of quotations - it is meant to be an encyclopedia after all. I think the original summary was better, but given something that approaches a tag teaming set of reverts I have attempted to modify it to something simpler in the hope that will stop the edit war. If there is another revert to the extended text then I think we take it back to the position a few days ago and discuss it here. --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that her line about Denistry should be there, but it needs to reflect what she actualy says. As tol tag teaming, there were four edds making changes, two on each side.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Count the number of reverts :-) That said, while the Dentistry quote evidences either an inability to articulate a point or gross stupidity I don't really see what it adds. Its not at all clear what she was saying, it seems to be saying that some good came out of the holocaust which would be perverted, however it just seems to be a stumbling statement. Its not either for/or against Holocaust denial which is the subject. Well done on clearing up the other entries to remove the locations by the way. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that her performance is at best rambaling, but all that does is reinforce the idea she shoulsd not even be here at all, her whole statment has that inability to striing two words together feel for it. But I think that if we are to have this womans comments in the articel I feel that the part out some good has relevacne, not only does it show this lack of cohesion to herviews, but also the fact that she does not seem to really know much about the subject (after all thre were more then one death camps, and not all the bodies were cremated). Now her otehr statments are not for or against denile, she does not say she bleives the figures a fake, she says she does not know, but based upon (obviousley) incomlpeate data beilvies thyat she does not know. If ramabling incohearency is the reason for rejection then this whole segmont should be removed. I felt that we need to follow the same layout, but I do feel that this article is in serious need of a re-write, tehre is material all over the place, and no cohearant format.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial articles get like that, best to let it get to a stable state then develop an alternative version , some piecemeal stuff in the meantime can improve it, but I'd wait on a major rewrite. I think the relevant material in this quote is the "numbers" issue which is a variant of holocaust denial, the dentist stuff is stretching it I think at least if you want a full quote. A short sentence summary possibly. --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need the full quote, as long as the abridgment does not distort or alter the source. Example, She has also said that Dentistry and plastic surgery were the only positivs to come out of the holocaust. Its what she says, but its not the full quote.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems in local government

Not a good section title, and it may need to be moved as well. I think that all ssues of poor performance in office need to be i a separate section, not randomly placed wherever it seems most convenient at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

electorial demons

Is this RS ([[27]] (I do not think so) for any ellection results (especialy as it its self says it mighyt not be accurate? Also this source [[28]] makes no mention of the BNP, so whats it exaclty sourcing?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

fasionism

I have reinserted the material from teh gaurdian interviews in then fascism section. I was not aware that material had to say the BNP wer not something to be incluyded in this section. Moreover the views expressed were in repsonse to the question "Does the election of two BNP MEPs and the success of the far right elsewhere in Europe mean we are facing the threat of fascism? Or is this just a protest vote that will quickly fade?" as such the comments are about teh BNP and facsism. the first makes it clear that the author does not consider the far right to be fascist in the sence that there is nothing like true facsism (and the question was about the BNP, so its included in the answer IE the BNP are not fascist in the sense a histortian would undestand it). The second says the same thing. That it is diffent from the fascism of the 30's. Niether say the BNP are fascist, both imply that there are similarities, not that they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of some politicians calling them "Nazis" (in the fascist-section) to classifying the party as "fascist". Also, by this logic, why isn't also "Nazism" included in the infobox? User:Gabagool/sig 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more then a few politicans. The interviews above make it clear (as does the new line I inserted into the section) that historians and a number of political thinkers and social commentators consider them a form of fascism or Neo-fascism. I agree that it perhsaps is not a clear cut enough fact to be in the info box without some kind of "contested" tag, after all tehy themselves do deny it. Ironicly Nazism is probolby closer to what they are, as they are (in a sense) a left of centre rascist party (nationalist socialism).Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Culture of Fascism

Just a note. I reverted Voluntary Slave's removal of the cite from The Culture of Fascism, but messed up my edit summary. The source clearly is talking about the present-day BNP...is what I should have said. The 1960s BNP are indeed mentioned on p70 (as is the later NF splinter-group), but the relevant part of the text is at the top of p 71, which is clearly talking about the subject of this article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking again, you're quite right. Sorry for removing the text incorrectly.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

EDL

The text says "EDL spokesperson Paul Ray confirmed this" but it is impossible to verfiy this as its a radio show, can we have the text of the interview, or a link to the actual broadcast episode?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to link to YouTube, but you'll find the radio interview used there under the title "EDL Humiliated in Swansea + Newport". The source passes WP:V regardless of the link, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that it appears (including the times source) that it was not "the EDL website" but a website linked to (the times source) or another (the Guardian source) EDL website. So in the ninterview he seems to say that the website was set up by Renten, but other RS say that there appears to be more then one website. Moreover it would appear from these same RS that there has been a split between these two.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a weak statement with weak references - the only relevant material is the BNP activist setting up the web site --Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He set up one of two websites, the other was set up by Tommy Robinson (the self confessed leader of the EDL) The whole things looks very confused and rahter ramshakle. So the part about Mr Renton is the weakest part about it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that it is a BNP front has one very weak source in support. I doubt it is by the way, I think it is and will be exploited by the BNP. However opinions aside we don't have clear evidence that there is a substantial view that it is a front. The web site "tiff" is minor as far as I can see. I suggest wiping the whole paragraph if there are no more sources. --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is one reason for it to stay as it shows (or at least shows an accusation) the BNP trying to hijack a nationalist group. Moreover it has two source for teh claimk that an EDl website was set up by Renton, both the times and the gaurdian report this (and the hijack accusation). Moreover the section has say unchallenged for sometime, I fail to see what has changed about it other then more sources have been added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been other concerns on the article. After your amendment today I checked the sources and the accusation of it being a front is based on a web site - not a RS. The stuff on the web site being set up is a side remark in an article reporting conversations without and attempt to validate it. Its weak, does not stand up with the evidence currently available. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusation is reported in RS. Which website by the way?. its reported in two seperate RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Indymedia is not the strongest of sources, but this does not seem to me to be a dubious claim (Google and you'll find many similar claims made on politically-aligned websites), so I'm not sure it really needs the highest standard of RS. Perhaps this would be better though: [29] It's worth noting that the EDL reference these claims themselves in a number of different sections of their website, such as here: [30]

The website is referred to as "the EDL website" in the radio source. I think the EDL moved their site to a new URL after the fact that a BNP activist had set it up was discovered through a whois search (I'm sure I read that recently, but can't find it now). Hence, perhaps the unclear wording (does that make it a different website? - I don't think so, but the Guardian may have been unsure). I think this is too trivial a detail to get into, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gaurdian says that Mr Robinson set up his website in March (which is odd as the organisation has only existed since June). It seems that his website was a kind of proto EDL. Here is his website [[31]], sadley there apears to be no similar website run by Mr Renton, nor any clear indication that this is the website set up by Mr Renton. this says that the EDL have tried to distance themsleves from MR Renton, but that her appears to still be active with them[[32]]. There is this [[33]] but its very iffy, but it does claim a falling out. We also have this, which puts Mr Rays position into a very iinteresting light [[34], now the EDL website says that "Only statements found on this site, or spoken by Tommy Robinson are the statements of the English Defence League.", so my Ray does not appear to be thier spokesperson . [[35]] says that "One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.", this cannot refer to the current site. By the way here is the full Talksport radio interview, it is very interesting [[36]]. Its all very murky indead.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven, I think we need to be careful about OR here. We shouldn't try to establish or disprove what website or websites Chris Renton was responsible for by looking at actual websites. It seems to me reasonable to suppose that he set up englishdefenceleague.net, which looks to have had its whois lookup anonymised on 12/10/09. Whatever, the nature of the allegation is clear from the sources (eg The Times think he set up the EDl website: [37]). Our job isn't really to test that theory, just to report it. It doesn't look as if he is still running the EDL website, but that's not what the sources claim anyway, just that he origianlly set it up.

Regarding Paul Ray's status, there's a bottom line that I don't think we can allow the EDL website to tell us what sources we are allowed to use. All they need to do is never have Tommy Robinson (if he exists) speak, and they've got us snookered. I believe Ray has fallen out with the EDL and is no longer their spokesperson. But he was at the time. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its triva at best. The material supported by Indymedia is not reliable, we really need something else as well. The material supported by the Guardian is a side reference. Per comments above I think there is an OR danger here. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say it is trivia, Snowded? It looks significant enough to me. Anyway, I've swapped the cite so it is not Indymedia anymore. What do you mean by "side reference"? --FormerIP (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was mearly pointing out that ths is not a lone issue. Moreover a number of sources seem to be saying (not just the gaurdian) that it was one of the websites linked to the EDL, that is not OR. So it is not clear from the sources which website it was, but it was one that was taken down. By the way that is what your Times source also says "One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.". So from a (if you will) conglomerate of unrealated, independant RS it would seem that a website with liniks to the EDL was set up by Mr Renton, and then when his BNP affilaintions were made public it was taken down.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To work our way around the doubt, the article(s) could say that he "set up a website on behalf of the EDL, which was later taken down". --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not what many (perhaps most) of the sources say. "He set up a website linked to the EDL, which was later taken down." Perhaps adding "When his links to the BNP were made public".Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "linked to" is too weak. One of the sources has the guy from the EDL calling it "the EDL website". If it was only "linked to", you would expect him to make that point. "Linked to the EDL" sounds too distant, as if it might have been independent of them. Not sure about adding "when his links to the BNP were made public". This might be true, but I'm not sure it is what any of the RS's say. However, since I think it probably is true, I don't mind it going in if I'm outvoted. --FormerIP (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "set up an EDL website", as i sas at present?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

honestly. someone set up a web site, someone else set up a web site, one may have been taken down. And you don't see just how trivial that is? --Snowded ^TALK 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You can explain why you think it is trivial, if you like. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. The EDL have been accsed of links to the BNP based on that evidance. By the way what is trivial, that the BNP set up thier website, or that the EDL have taken it down?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see we have a former BNP member who sets up a web site in the early days of the EDL formation. Then people from the EDL set one up. All of this based on a one sentence reference in a wider article. It doesn't show BNP involvement, maybe opportunism by one BNP member during a messy formation period. So I think the web site issue is trivial. The question of BNP involvement in the EDL would be non-trivial but requires a reliable source for inclusion. This is all 101 stuff guys, please --Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One none of the sources say which website came first, so your genisis is a best specualtion. Two it is based on more then one sentance from more then one source. Two the sources all claimed that this does show BNP involvment (that is the whole point of the articles), but that the EDL have tried to deny (or hide) this (there are far more sources that claim this 'proves' BNP involvment I shall post them if you wish). Many also say that the BNP tried to hijack the EDL (according to the EDL). So the website issue is not trivial, it goes to the vry heart (and indead is, and largly remains) the main evidance that the BNP and EDL are linked. The material is sourced by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

|hat aboput this source, this makes interestinf reading too [[38]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, there is no claim that this proves any particular relationships between the BNP and the EDL, but it suggests it, which has been reported by RSs. The suggestion of a link between two political organisations which claim to have nothing to do with each other is significant, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

its zionism Nick, but not as we know it

As a result of the above I came up with this [[39]].Slatersteven, I am in too minds if this should be in the Anti-semitism section or not. Basicly if it is it would mean that we effectly accept that the BNP means this. On the other hand leaving it out means that we bleive that this is just a rather ham fisted attempt to cover up llinks to the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think it should go in, Steven. It's definitely notable. I don't think we need to interpret or comment on what it means, just say that it was said. Even if Griffin doesn't actually believe it, it is still notable just because he said it. Here is an alternative source for it: [40]. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the question is where, I don't think it should go in anti-semitiam for the reasons above, that is to say its not really about Jews its about the EDL. As such I would susgest its put in the EDL section (with perhaps the most passing of mentions in Anti-semitism, though I am not sure about that). Now I wonder when tehy will start spitting on the groound and saying "EDL thats your swimmiing pool"Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe wait and see if there are other opinions about where to put it. You are right that it is more a statement about the EDL than about "zionism", but also the amount of content about the EDL is quite small (which is probably appropriate - there is no proven relationship), so would it be correct to beef that up? Also, the anti-semitism is what strikes be as being more notable, largely because I was under the impression that Griffin is currently studiously holding his tongue with regards to that type of comment, but obviously not. --FormerIP (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My concearn is that putting this in nthe Anti-Semitism sections, and then having a claim that there are links between the BNP and EDL we create a conflict of information. The articel will say that the BNP have accsed the EDL of being a Jewish conspiracy, but we set them up as a front. I realise its not quite that simplistic, after all we are only putting in an acccusd link, but it seems to me tt avoidiing adding more mud to the pond.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Neither of the citation provided here are WP:RS for adding comments about this. A blog and a daily star tabloid article that starts Bonkers nick griffin...please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Daily Star an RS for a direct quote. Go to the RS board if you don't believe it. The audio version is on Simon Darby's blog (he's the other person in the recording): [41]. At around 7 minutes. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree its relevant, not wild about the source but it has collateral. Suggest its a sentence in the anti-zionist section, and matched in the EDL page --Snowded ^TALK 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting it in an "anti-semitism" section would be WP:SYNTH and breech of WP:NPOV. Especially since "HopeNotHate" is the propaganda arm, directly ran by the Trotskyite Socialist "Workers" Party. It could be used simply to show how there isn't a connection or "alligence" between EDL and BNP, but thats about it. Also a significant amount of Zionists in UK politics are not actually Jewish (see Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, etc). - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote; "HopeNotHate" is the propaganda arm, directly ran by the Trotskyite Socialist "Workers" Party". Bit of bias there methinks. And a missed opportunity to slag off Searchlight that BNP apologists usually enjoy doing given the chance. From the front page of the HOPE not hate website: HOPE not hate is Searchlight's campaign to counter racism and fascism in elections and beyond.... Emeraude (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying it is ran by Gerry Gable, a convicted criminal and former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Thanks for the clarification. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Searchlight runs it. Gerry Gable retired in 1998, and left the CP in 1962, as you ought to know - after all, you linked him. Searchlight is a well-respected journal that regularly exposes fascist and Nazi organisations and the dubious pasts of their members, such as one Nick Griffin, convicted criminal and former member of the National Front. Emeraude (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

extreamist

According to WP:EXTREMIST we should not extreamist to describe a group. It says that if RS call a group extreamist then we can say that they have been called extreramist by the source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that wp:EXTREMIST is not the law. Despite your claims in your edit, it is most definitely NOT policy. It says at the top, and I quote "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (My italics.) Now, in the context of the groups referred to (which are not named in the article), I cannot think of a better or more accurate adjective. It is clearly nonsense to have no adjective at all as was attempted - this would only say that ALL Sikh and Hindu groups were involved. To use a word like "partisan" is meaningless in this context. As the guidelines say, let's use common sense and accept that as worded the sentence is not derogatory or insulting, it adequately separates these groups from mainstream Sikh and Hindu groups and quite simply is the best way of describing the situation. (By the way, I very much doubt that the Observer has ever described anything as "extreamist".)

I've replaced the whole thing with "the BNP has previously worked with extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities in an anti-Islamic campaign". The words in italics are straight from The Observer and don't need quote marks since it is clearly footnoted and referenced as such. Emeraude (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, I basically agree with you and I can't think of a better word as an alternative. But might it not be good to put quotes around it just to avoid the WP:EXTREMIST objection. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But there is no WP:EXTREMIST objection, as I explained. Besides, the whole topic is referred to the source. Seeing as you (and I) can't think of a better word, I would suggest, may be because there is no better word i.e. extremist is the correct word to use here. Quote marks in this case would be ridiculous. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "extremist" here, though, appears POV. It may well be fair, but it doesn't look like an objective fact. Putting quotes around "extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities" would help to resolve this problem, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Violence

I seem to racall that association with violance were only notable when the person was a notable member of the party. Is Terrance Gavan a notable member of the part?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I take it he is not then, so can this be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian edits this morning

Yorkshirian, there is some good factual stuff in what you are doing. However we are now starting to see edits that seek to justify BNP actions and label opposition (per your favorite Trotskyite conspiracy theory stuff). Also you are making it difficult for other editors as you are mixing edits that you know will be controversial, with factual ones. Other than spending hours on forensic examination of text that makes it impossible to do anything other than a mass revert. You know what is controversial, please keep it separate, ideally discuss here and respect WP:BRD--Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made some detailed edits to remove the controversial bits but leave other material. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted on your talk, you have simply removed referenced information which you don't seem to like, rather than anything being specifically wrong. The word "controversial" in the paragraph above seems to be applied in a sense of "non-hostile presentation", "non-inquistional presentation"—this article is supposed to obide by the NPOV, just like all of the others. Take a look at the article on the Labour Party (UK) to get an idea for what should be aimed at.

According to a participant in the Welling riot of 1993 and an organiser of Rock Against Racism, as well as being a prolific writer of pro-Trotsky, pro-Marx books, presents the fact that the protest was organised specifically by Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.[42] No "conspiracy theory stuff". Good. Lets name these organisations specifically, rather than the intentionally ambigious, anonymous, POV and shadowy phrase "anti-fascists". During the 1990s especially, there were various opponents of the BNP, non-Trot Marxists (Red Action), various anarchists, state and so on. Thus for clarification, its not "labelling" to denote the specific opposition partipant tendancy at Welling. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference is to Denton's web site and a diary type entry at that so its not good enough as a reference. Moreover he states that the organising group was the Anti-Nazi League which had wider support than the SWP (although I can see they would want to claim the credit). The organisers should therefore be the ANL in any reference. We also had some OR/POV material here about them being motivated by resentment etc. There were many opponents (and are) of the BNP including the conservative party so your reference to non-trot marxists anarchists etc. rather displays your POV. --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The conservatives "opposition" to the BNP during the 1990s, consisted of making anti-immigration plees to the electorate at beg-for-a-vote time. Entirely different kettle of fish. I'm talking about actual consistent clashes on the street, at meetings, throughout the year. There were a plethora of groups; Trots (SWP, Militant), Red Action, anarchists; not together as one large "mass", but specific events. At Welling it was police and Trots clashing, the latter of whom were trying to march on BNP headquarters. The Conservative Party are of absolutely no relevence to the clash at Welling, neither were Labour or Lib Dems. Thus why they were not mentioned. Here is a good reference from the Independent on it, not to sound harsh, but you don't seem to have an understanding of the specifics of the event, yet are trying to insist that something must not be right. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the evidence as you present it Yorkshirian. The Independent article hypothesizes that there is extreme left wing infiltration of anti-facism groups and that this is responsible for violence. That does not invalidate the support of leaders of other left and right wing political parties for those pressure groups. The march was organised by the ANL, your speculations as it its motivation or its membership are not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Speculation? I have quoted references, you seem to be offering incorrect speculation that "right wingers" were in Trotskyite groups during the 1990s. Independent: "Its main organisers are both members of the SWP." Specifically in relation to the riot at Welling with the police, the Independent, an undeniably reliable reference, as well as the left-wing RAR participant account that I linked name SWP and Militant as clashing with the police. No sophistry can negate that.

As for the SWP nature of ANL in general. "The initiative for the ANL came from the SWP" (Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations, Barberis, 141). "It [SWP] was also behind the ANL" (Politics UK, Jones, 167). "Connected with the SWP, it [ANL] directed much energy to opposing NF marches" (The impact of immigration, Panayi, 184), "SWP, a party that assumed a certain prominence when it effectively took over the ANL." (Introduction to British politics, Dearlove, 108). "SWP started the ANL" (Left shift, Walker, 182) "ANL, an informal organization to which left-wing activists of the SWP.." (Social movement and democracy, Guell, 238) Need more? - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, does the source you are using (The Radical Right in Britain by Sykes) mention Christian parents withdrawing their children from schools in Dewsbury? Does he specifically say "Christian"? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) removes quite a bit of text. After reading it carefully, I support this edit - although the holocaust denial is now very short, but perhaps more for the Nick Griffin article. (Btw, I would have posted this on talk even without the discussion above as it is a big edit). --h2g2bob (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is far too much original research and dubious use of citations in these recent additions. For example this phrase "Thousands of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Pakistan and Gujarat, in India, arrived during the 1950s and 1960s to answer a shortage of low-cost labour in the wool mills." which is a very minor part of a report in the Times on general violence in Dewsbury is used to support "who had attempted to withdraw their children from socially engineered schools, following extensive immigration of Pakistani Muslims into their community" which it clearly does not. Given that type of misuse the use of Sykes needs full quotes here if we are to trust it. Similarly Yorkshirian's obsession with the far left is shown. The references here are used to try and portray the ARA as Trotskyite despite the clear reference to Livingstones support for the ARA and his condemnation of the actions of those persons. We have seen the same thing here before with attempts to label the ANL and others in the same way. Ditto the innocent native christians defending themselves against outsiders is a common theme so we really need the full reference as requested above so that we can check this. --Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dewsbury Reporter

Since this source is not easily verifiable, could a direct quote be provided here per Wikipedia:Verifiability please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree full quote whould be helpful. BigDunc 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A full quote is needed if the material is to stand --Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing a full quote from the source, and suggest removal forthwith unless it is provided. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dewsbury Reporter source is verifiable if you want to make the effort. You need to go into a good library. Wikipedia does not require sources to be available online or available in all good bookstores. Like all UK newspapers, the archive is available through the British Library and may be accessible from a local library or a university library. The Dewsbury Reporter itself is archived online (see here), but unfortunately only back to January 1990 - the relevant article is from July 1989. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if RJ and Dunc were in the UK (or more specificially England), but since they are in America and Ireland respectively the source isn't particularly verifiable for them without making serious amounts of effort. Since Yorkshirian evidently has access to the source, it should be a simple matter for him to provide the exact quote from it surely? I have good reason to know why there is a delay in providing the quote in question, but I'll leave it a few more days yet. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course, I was simply referring to normal Wikipedia procedures for acceptable sources and good faith. (We have had people here saying they refuse to go to a library or read a book!) Though it should be noted that the Copyright Act makes all British publications available to Trinity in Dublin (though thinking about it, this may only apply to books?). I must say I share your unease about the lack of a direct quote in this case though. Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not near Dewsbury at the moment, but the specific newspaper issue date is given in the reference. If you want further confirmation you can always call the Dewsbury Reporter on 01924 468282 and get confirmation for the story, or otherwise contact the Dewsbury Library and request a copy be sent on 01924 325 080. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd be able to provide a full quote, and this is why. I've alrady obtained a copy of the Dewsbury Reporter that covers the riot, and it isn't dated 1 July 1989, the name of the story isn't "Saturday rioting" and it doesn't reference the sentence you added it to. Anyone needing verification that I do in fact have a copy of the edition in question is welcome to email me (known racists excepted) or alternatively ask ArbCom member SirFozzie (talk · contribs) who I have emailed verification to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to scan and upload evidence for you claim. Anybody can verify the newspaper article as I said, either by simply calling the Dewsbury Reporter on 01924 468282 or Dewsbury Library on 01924 325 080. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing the images that ONIH has emailed me. The date of the articles is Friday, June 30th of 1989, and none of the headlines on page four or five (I also have the front page, which is also dated June 30th, 1989) that ONIH has provided me say "saturday rioting". I'm currently trying to determine the exact edit that Yorkshirian made to determine if it is supported by the text I have available to me. (more shortly) SirFozzie (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. had a chance to see the exact diff where this started: [43]. Please note, I am an American, so if I miss a nuance someone more local would pick up, let me know please. Also, please note I am most DEFINITELY not speaking as an Arbitration Committee member, but as an editor here. Here's the two sections that they list the BNP reasons for the demonstration.

Top page 4, under "When Sunshine turned to fear":

The BNP, refused permission to march through the town, instead held a rally in support, they said, of Dewsbury parents who two years ago refused to send their children to a predominantly Asian school

Bottom page 4, under headline "Summer afternoon of violence and shame", subsection "Injured":

The BNP rally was ostensibly in support of parents in the Dewsbury "school row" who refused to send their children to predominantly Asian school"

I would say that, in my opinion, that the source does not say what the article link says it does. Please note the "they said" and "ostensibly" that the source article used. While we must not read too much into what the source SAYS (have to avoid OR), it is important to note the meaning of what they said, and make sure that we not mis-represent it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just want to say this. It is possible,barely, but not probable that there was a second, special edition of the Reporter dated Saturday, July 1st, 1989. However, without proof that there was such a special issue (from what I understand, ONiH reviewed the microfilm records for that paper, and there was no such issue) I have to say that I find any such edit attributing the source to that date, with an incorrect title to be dubious mis-rememberance at best. SirFozzie (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So what hes claiming is, the date may be recorded down wrong by one day and the story on the event was there. OK. As I say, I'm not near Dewsbury at the moment, but I'll check again next time I am to be 100% sure. Or a scan should be provided. In any case, that confirms the basic theme written that the BNP march was planned in solidarity with parents who wanted to withdraw their children from those schools. Keep in mind for US audience, "Asian" in the UK is used primarily to mean South East Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, rather than Chinese, Japanese, so on). As The Times says about Dewsbury, "To the outsider, Dewsbury appears fractured, a town divided between two communities — white and Asian — living in mutual incomprehension. Thousands of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Pakistan and Gujarat, in India, arrived during the 1950s and 1960s to answer a shortage of low-cost labour in the wool mills." - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the above that the Dewsbury Reporter article does not support what you originally wrote in the BNP article. If this was a genuine mistake, an apology might be in order, but even now you are promoting your own interpretation of what (you say) the Reporter article said. SirFozzie has explained cogently the reliability of the report, but the lack of reliablity of the sources quoted in it. The same is inherently true of any newspaper that reports what people say - there is no guarantee that the interviewees/spokesmen are honest, truthful, unbiased, neutral etc, hence their use of terms like "they said" and "ostensibly". If a paper reports that someone said something, I'm inclined to believe it. That doesn't mean that what they said is true! Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We are still waiting for answers above, so I reversed Yorkshirian's attempt to restore a version of his/her preferred wording --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its time Jim, but not as we know it

This article dos not seem to have any flow at all. There are dated sections then text out of sequence then more dated sections. I would suggest that instead of adding new material we try to get some kind of order out of this first.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The BNP's cash, women and personal nouns (names)

I have fund out some facts about the B.N.P.-

The most common names among the B.N.P.'s 2,034 female members are Patricia, Joanne, Karen and Lisa, and the largest concentration of B.N.P. members is in Charnwood, a Conservative-controlled East Midlands constituency. Most men are called John, David, Paul, Michael or Nicolas. The B.N.P. has several different types of membership available, including "family", "family plus", "old age pensioner", "jobless", "student" and "gold", which is a £60 membership for members whom Griffin describes as "the elite of the party"

Hi. I think the part about Charnwood may be suitable for inclusion, depending on what others think. The other details seem to me a little too trivial (sorry). --FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 28C January 2010 (UTC)

I partialy agree, I'm not even sure charmwood is that notable. But it at least part about membership fees can be added to the structure section without any issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article in an edition of the Oxford Times last month, about the allegations that most party members have excellent dental hygiene, most of it's senior male members have age related baldness and Nick Griffin has a glass eye!--86.29.129.106 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a news artical on party finance to . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.128.2 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Islamaphobia and drugs

The Lancashire, the B.N.P. councillor Brian Norton Parker allegedly distributed leaflets which alleged: "Muslims are exclusively responsible for the heroin trade." in 2008--86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Membership hubs!

Sadly Leicestershire is awash with B.N.P. members and both Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and industrial Yorkshire is barely any better . --86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Class structure

Most of the B.N.P. are working class, Christian, English men, who dont' work in the reatail sector.--86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Video evidence

Have you seen this hard hitting British interview with Nick Griffin yet? He voices his opinions on Herr Hitler, sex, sexuality, his private life and racists very clearly and definitively [[44]].--86.29.132.44 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin exsposed!

David Duke

Nick Griffin was at a Texan meeting with the ex-KKK boss David Duke ! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate leadership

He nearly cracked up on the BBC's Question Time show in 2009 ! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Well, Nick, I couldn't have put it better my self! So, he's a avid Holocaust denier now! --86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Group-think

What's bad about being a poof?! So what if Nick's limp. Why is this such an issue, who cares, it's his private life and we should leave it out of here. Homophobic group-think? Please, just drop the gnder thing and let it rest now! --86.29.134.242 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Lecomber

Anthony "Tony" Mark "Martine" Lecomber (born 1963) is a former Group Development Director for the British National Party. [45]

Tony Lecomber was convicted for criminal damage in 1982, offences under the Explosives Act in 1985, and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 1991 for an attack on a Jewish teacher.

In 1985, he was injured by a firework that he was carrying to the offices of the Workers Revolutionary Party. Police found 10 grenades, seven [[[petrol bombs]] and two detonators at his home.--Sternsial. (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent large removals

Recent large removals seem to be very one sided and haven't been fully discussed (if at all). I feel agreement should be reached on what should be trimmed and what should be moved (to new articles) first, and then moves and edits made. It is important that criticism, one of the most prominent aspects of the BNP, shouldn't be hidden or minimised beyond reason. Verbal chat 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are to be presented in a WP:Summary style in following with WP:MOS. See the Labour Party (UK) for instance. The article has been tagged as too long since last year and I am in the process of copyediting the whole thing down to summary size. Wikipedia is not a news site, but rather an encyclopedia, relatively small news item events do not need whole sections with multiple paragraphs dedicated to them. If you have specific content questions go ahead and raise them, however, I suggest you keep in mind the policies stated above, in stead of fly by reverting and then not being willing to get your hands mucky. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the individual deletions or the previous discussions, but regardless of those the article is too long. 100kb, 10k words is a good limit. This article is now over 14,000 words and over 170kb. Can it be split without losing any material?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where a split could be made, but you're right that the size needs drastically reducing. I think its just that people have a tendancy to news dump on this article and then stories which feature in the news for a couple of days or so (the Gurka thing for example) are then widely out of proportion with the rest of the article. Thats why its got so long. Also activists seem to show up any time a politican "condemns" the party and puts their specific politican and a quote in there, when it could be put across in a single sentence mentioning the general cross-party opposition or "condemnation"- Yorkshirian (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The "history" section would be a candidate to split, and would be comparable to History of the British Labour Party.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Yorkshirian in summarising and cutting down the extreme length of this article which includes as said before, mostly news stories which could more easily be summarised than laying out every single thing that has happened with the party. User:Gabagool/sig 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What should be summarised and moved should be discussed first. I support the making of a history article per Will. Yorkshirian, please propose the changes you want to make to the entire page structure as three editors have now requested. The edits thus far seem to be a removal of valid criticism, replacing it with a summary which is favourable to the BNP. Verbal chat 09:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Favourable? On the contrary. Strickly neutral and emotionally removed is the word you're looking for. As the last peer review of this article stated, one issue "with the article is POV, as it seems fairly anti-BNP. It should not be pro- or anti-, just neutral." A concept some activists of an opposition view (one of which has openly stated that politically they're Marxist), don't seem to comprehend. The WP:NPOV policy is absolutely central to Wikipedia, no party article is favoured over another, BNP's must be as neutral as Labour's or the Lib Dems. Like it or not.

Everything relevent is mentioned and nothing important being cut out to somehow give a rosey view; early riots, opposition campaigns, infiltrations, splits and even parts from the parties past which it is now trying to distance from (a huge block quote of Griffin saying the Holocaust didn't happen, or Tyndall's national socialist past, all mentioned). The Armenian Revolutionary Federation is given in the peer review of a good example of a neither pro-nor-anti presentation. "I hate the BNP" types may be happier contributing to Hope Not Hate blogs than an Encyclopedia based on neutrality. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Some observations

• Yorshirian is not being entirely honest here. WP:MOS is not policy as he states. Read the intro and it states quite clearly that it is a guideline, as an MOS (Manual of Style) is. That means that editors should be guided by it but are are by no means compelled to follow it slavishly. It is open to question whether Yorshirian's proposals are actually covered by MOS, but that's by the way.
• In the nature of human knowledge, and encyclopaedias, some topics are bigger than others. This article is larger than some, but considerably smaller than others. Will Beback suggests that 10,000 words is a good limit. Why 10,000? That's a purely arbitrary number, and 14,000 for an important topic is not greatly in excess of his arbitrary number. It is commonly said that "Wikipedia is not paper", so size is not an issue. Relevance and coverage are.
• At the top of the article is a box saying "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." (My italics.) No comment needed except to say that this has not been considered by the community.
• The subject is controversial. A number of frankly partisan editors have in the past questioned every single addition/deletion and demanded that both sides or all sides of the argument be equally covered, or demanded a source (and when one is provided, demanded more sources). This explains to some degree the apparent over-coverage of some issues, but has been necessary for the article to progress.
• Gabagool writes "this article which includes ..... mostly news stories". Actually, it doesn't include mostly news stories, but:
• The article is a current affairs topic so naturally much of it is going to be based on news stories. The current BNP does not yet figure in historical and political studies texts in the same way and to the same extent as the Labour or Conservative Parties. Some of these news stories, though, are "flash-in-the-pan" items that, with hindsight have little historic perspective. The problem is, it's difficult to know which is which at the time. I remember at the time of the Guardian expose and the leaking of the membership list writing here (see in the depths of the archives) that it might be better to wait and see (And see my proposal below).
• Verbal began this section with the comments that "Recent large removals seem to be very one sided and haven't been fully discussed." I couldn't agree more.

A proposal By training, I'm a political scientist. One of the things which I notice is lacking from the article is any coverage of who BNP members are, the sort of sociological aspect that is well-documented for longer established parties (e.g., break down by social class, age, sex, previous affiliation etc). This information is availabe and, in fact, some is directly accessible from the article. I am willing to write a small section on this using the existing parts of the Guardian "infiltration", leaked membership list(s), employment, etc, which could then be removed, plus other academic sources. All of course, properly cited. Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the first part when you dance around with sophistry trying to negate the essential emphasis that WP:MOS, WP:Summary, WP:Article size are there to be followed... I see in a sense what you mean that we don't know for sure which post-2006 parts are going to be flash in the pan or not, however some common sense is to be applied. The article meandered on and on with reels dedicated to a flash-in-the-pan Gurka issue... then barely mentioned the election of two BNP members to the European Parliament, a continental level insitution. It doesn't take a mastermind to figure out which is more important there. The last proposal you make could be good for the development of the "Membership" section, which should also describe how its numbers have gone up over time. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While Yorkshirian is on this talk page, perhaps we could get a reply at Talk:British National Party#Dewsbury Reporter? I'll give it 24 hours before taking further action regarding this, as silence is as good as an answer for my needs anyway.

Moving on to this specific dispute, the fact that the article is too long is not a licence for one editor to act as sole arbiter of what should and should not be in it. In addition if a history of the BNP article is created, great care is needed to ensure it doesn't become a POV fork. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, you know enough, and have enough history to know that you should discuss controversial changes first on the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Given five reverts in three days and no real engagement here I have made an ANI report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yorkshirian here. Just to make it clear, simplifying the article is one thing, but one editor deciding what that should be without engagement here is not acceptable --Snowded ^TALK 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What I see agreement for here is that some of the page should be summarised after discussion to decide what, and the concrete proposal for spinning off the history section as a new article, to be replaced by a summary (some support). Could editors please propose further changes for discussion? Are there any objections to the history spin off? Verbal chat 08:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the purpose of making a History of the British National Party is to have an article which can be longer on that specific aspect of that party and go into more detail. A summary history would still need to be in this article, but it would just give more room to go into deeper detail in the history article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the summary should be worked out and the replacement be done at the same time as the other article is created, not before. Verbal chat 08:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the already completed history summary, atleast, nobody is willing to raise specifics and state what exact parts of that should be changed (other than very vague and non-direct illusions to it not being defamatory enough). - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian - you're missing the point. You have made so many edits recently, most of them very small, that there is real danger of death by a thousand cuts. It is extremely tedious trying to keep up with these edits, many of which have admittedly been entirely non-controversial (e.g. tidying the odd ref, spelling, grammar etc) but ploughing through them all to find substance is wearying. (Some might say this is your purpose.) Just as an example, in the space of eight hours on 24/25 January you made 19 edits; in 30 minutes on 30 January, 7 edits. As to the history summary (I presume you mean the history section) - there's lots wrong with it, but because of the way you have edited (thousand cuts) it's been impossible to keep track. To take just one example, which you and I have discussed previously - the alleged attack on a meeting in Kensington Library, whose only source is a bunch of criminal thugs with a very definite agenda interviewed in the Independent. Nowhere is there any evidence for your original edit that this was an attack on the League of St George carried out by red Action. Indeed, apart from the C18 assertion, there is no evidence produced to say it even happened. (I'm not saying it didn't; I'm saying there's no verifiable evidence and, to quote Wikipedia policy "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".) Oh yes, and I'm also still waiting for a reply to One Night In Hackney re: Dewsbury Reporter. Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifics

This is the last part of the history section to be copyedited and since nobody is willing to specifically state anything wrong. Lets put it here and then people can say whatever.. work any parts which need fixing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ARTICLE AREA
The Guardian revealed in 2006, that the BNP had broadened its membership, including business professionals, building on its older working-class base. With the dawning of the internet, the media campaign by the NUJ against the party was side-stepped somewhat by setting up their own website to express their policies. Hitwise reported in 2007, that the BNP website is the most visited of any party in the United Kingdom. There was a split within the party during 2007, as an anti-Griffinite faction associated with Sadie Graham and Kenny Smith, wanted officials Mark Collett and Dave Hannam removed from the party. They were themselves dismissed with their supporters, after making the dispute public. Matthew Single, a figure amongst the expelled faction was convicted after he leaked the 10,000 strong BNP membership list in 2008. The light punishment led to the Information Commissioner stating violators would be penalised more rigorously in future. During the economic recession the BNP supported a British Jobs for British Workers grass-roots campaign. Despite an extensive and well funded opposition campaign via BSD, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons were elected as Members of the European Parliament in 2009. Both for regions in northern England, elected on a Punish the Pigs platform following the expenses scandal. An appearence on BBC flag-ship show Question Time followed, proving controversial.

ARTICLE AREA

1 Well, the third word is suspect for a start but has been in this article for a long time. (How about "An undercover Guardian reporter revealed...."??) 2 "now consisted of a divergent membership drawn from broad professional, social and economic groups" - Well, "now" should be "then"; "divergent" is nowhere used in the source, and the whole is synthesis not supported by the source. "broad professional, social and economic groups" is meaningless. Need I go on? Emeraude (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Guardian revelation about membership, it gets across that the party has a broader make-up now (with various middle-class business professionals and even some bankers being members), contrary to the sort of working-class bootboy make-up of earlier membership. I don't understand what you mean by "broad professional, social and economic groups" being meaningless? Yes, do go on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Does that read better? - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. And I've only considered the first sentence. Emeraude (talk)

There's no evidence of the membership base having actually broadened, and the Guardian doesn't even say that. The BNP has always had middle class members, just the public was less aware of them when they were a bunch of street based thugs. The Guardian article is also being used incredibly selectively, the overall tone of the Guardian's article is negative towards the BNP yet the only information in the draft is information which attempts to paint the BNP in a more positive light. I haven't had chance to look at the text in full, but the source being used to claim that there's a media campaign against the BNP says nothing of the sort, and the book says nothing of the sort either and doesn't say what it's currently allegedly citing. In addition the book takes a more balanced look at the effectiveness of the BNP's online presence, but yet again only information which paints the BNP in a positive light is in the draft.

This discussion seems somewhat academic anyway, since there is no discussion about what information should be removed and why. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy of neutrality, The Guardian and National Union of Journalists do not have to follow the same non-partisan approach. Thus to paint something as either negative or positive is against the WP:NPOV policy which applies to this project. It has to be neither, to be neutral. The main onus of the story however is relevent in that the onus of the revelation was on a broader based membership focus, rather than purely "white working class" (words they use). The reporting of the BNP having a broader class membership according to the article, can neither be negative or positive, since its relative whether working class, middle-class or aristocratic membership is "better".

As to why the rest of the history needs copyediting and sorting to bring the article up to a higher quality; because Wikipedia is not news, shouldn't be weighted towards recentism and should be presented in a summary style, so that the length is not too long (consensus above is that it is) and for readerbility. And also must follow an ordered manual of style. To fall in line with this; the membership list leak can put be across in one sentence, rather than three bulky paragaphs. The 2008 internal split can be put across in two sentences with a note for further details also. The Gurka thing is flash-in-the-pan and not historically significant. Naturally, I was sorting this and getting it done, before the revert police flew by (despite their not contributing to debating content specifics here). - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty good coming from someone who has made literally hundreds of edits without consulting or debating even one! Emeraude (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Naturally. Nobody needs to ask "permission" before editing an article. Discussion is only needed if somebody directly requests something specific. Articles are brought up to a higher level by focused and energetic content editors who are willing to put effort in, not by sitting on thumbs or using Wikipedia more as a social game of chess. Long live the WikiDragons. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But again, you are misrepresenting what The Guardian says rather than quoting it. You don't even come close. You wrote: "The reporting of the BNP having a broader class membership according to the article...", but the article DOES NO SUCH THING.

• It does says that the BNP will: "attempt to broaden its support base and shake off its image as a party which appeals purely to the white working class".
• It does say that of new recruits "most are joining in its traditional white, working class strongholds"
• and it does say that the BNP is "attempting to recruit many more well-heeled members".
• It says that "Griffin signalled the importance of its attempt to mobilise new middle-class recruits last month"
• and it directly quoted him as saying that "a political party needs to be rooted in a broad-based movement that is constantly developing and expanding the social and cultural bases of its support".

This is all about plans/wishes/attempts/intentions. What The Guardian does not, repeat not, say is anything to support your reading that the BNP has a broader class membership. Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As it already says in the current version of the article, its membership now features (Specific quote as revealed by the Guardian infiltraitor)—"dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers".[46] You're wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've put that other Guardian ref in there which confirms the business professionals. Next? If this is going to be a pulling teeth job, so be it. Though surprisingly the two reverters from earlier are awfully quite in this discussion.- Yorkshirian (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have work to do Y, I got back at midnight from London last night, and I am on an early train again this morning. You need to WP:AGF and also realise that other editors are not full time. --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some immediate comments. (i) the Guardian is a reliable source (ii) I think we need to separate two things, namely shortening the article and a possible move of material to history and then the changes you are making which are more contentious. (iii) I'm with Emeraude, in general you read too much into some of your references. We saw the same with the Dewsbury stuff. (iv) the class basis of company directors etc. is not clear. The Guardian supports a 2006 posiition that they are getting more "well heeled" people to join but it doesn't support your wording. --Snowded ^TALK 07:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Snowed and Emeraude. I will be able to spend more time on this in a few days. Verbal chat 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording says, the BNP has broadened its membership now including business professionals. The Guardian says it now "includes dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers". Thus it clearly supports the wording. Lets not have grinding pedantry all the way through yeah? Because patience will be lost, really fast. We may actually need to get some neutral participants in to discuss the general thing too. If you are going to be taking days, in the mean time I'll work on the policies and electoral sections. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Learn to live with disagreement and stop accusing other editors of pedantry. You haven't even bothered to answer the various points above, try and do so and we can then see if the citations really support your proposed phrasing. I'm also afraid to tell that you that your threatening to loose your patience has little effect, you have to learn to work with others or the editing community may (again) loose patience with you. In particular I for one would like you to pay attention to the comments above about the sheer number of edits and the mixing up of routine improvements with controversial points. You do not {{WP:OWN|own]] the article. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously nobody owns the article, including yourself and Verbal. However, if some editors have the energy and drive to sort articles in an effort to improve them to a higher quality level, you have no ground to waste time and effort by obstructing progress, especially if you are unable to commit yourself fully to discussing the content you claim to disagree with. We are after all in the business of building an encyclopedia, not a social club. You say disagreement? But you're not explaining yourself fully or offering a clear alternative wording. For me it seems like negationism and obstruction, even on something non-controversial and minutely simple. The wording says, the BNP has broadened its membership now including business professionals. The Guardian says it now "includes dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers". How can "disagreement" arise from this statement other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Where is the counter-proposal for an alternative text? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the Guardian point above, you have just repeated your point here and not handled that objection. There is no obligation to propose an alternative wording. Volume of edits gives you no special status here and please stop attacking other editors, you have a very recent warning on your talk following the ANI report on this. --Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean "the class basis of company directors, etc is not clear"? OK, well the first reference mentions "encrypted lists of middle-class members" and focuses on their expansion into the middle class. Cobain in an article two days earlier, on the exact same infiltration mentions that directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers, estate agents are now part of the membership. Which are part of the professional class, white collar workers. This is elementary stuff. If you are going to suggest a wording is wrong, an alternative proposal would be helpful to see what you think would be "correct", so we have some sort of measurment and comparison and can come to a compromise between if your points are reasonable. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issues raised by Emeraude or myself. You are drawing an implication from a list of new members whose relative size is not established, and whose nature is not specifically class based. --Snowded ^TALK 08:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

merge

A recent merge of Edgar Griffin with Nick Griffin resulted in a sizeable chunk of irrelevant text appearing in the latter article. I've cut and pasted a section of that text below, if anyone thinks it worthwhile including on this article—it certainly doesn't belong in Griffin's article.

• Following the 2001 general election Edgar became vice-president in Wales of Iain Duncan Smith's party leadership campaign, despite the fact that his wife had just stood against Duncan Smith in his Chingford and Woodford Green seat. Edgar was subsequently expelled from that position, from his post as vice Chairman of Montgomeryshire Conservative Association and from the Conservative Party itself, when it was discovered that "he [was] assisting the British National Party" by taking BNP-related calls at home on behalf of his wife. A year later, in August 2002, he told the BBC that he was still loyal to the Conservatives and that he did not resent Duncan Smith's decision to remove him.

Parrot of Doom 11:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I think it belongs in Nick's article. It's relevant to him (family connections), but not everything about or connected to Nick belongs in this BNP article. My own opinion is that it was wrong to delete Edgar Griffin anyway, there was certainly enough about him to justify an article and probably a lot more that could have been added with time. I'd not be surprised if the article was recreated in an expanded form in the future, so I'd suggest leaving it with Nick so that it doesn't get lost and can be split off later. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but what does the paragraph above have to do with Nick Griffin? The actions of both are relevant to the BNP, not their son, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. If we're not to have an article on Edgar Griffin, and if it doesn't belong here, then it doesn't belong anywhere. Parrot of Doom 15:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it belongs in this article, as it's not directly relevant and we're trying to trim this article anyway. As to Nick Griffin, I'm not so sure but I'd lean towards no. Seems a shame to lose well written and supported material, but I can't think of a place for it (assuming he, his wife, and the IDS leadership campaign all have no article). Verbal chat 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Can we concentrate this particular discussion in the Talk:Nick Griffin page rather than spreading it over both, especially seeing as the AfD decsion was to merge Edgar Griffin with Nick Griffin. Regardless of outcome, I think it just be simpler to have one discussion on this material rather than two. Emeraude (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Try either the IDS or consevative party pages for th9is, if its notable it should be there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits and reversions concerning Nick Griffin and the KKK

I've reverted the edit again, because I don't think the sources justify the statement.

Two refs are provided. The BBC reference is to Griffin sharing a speaking platform with David Duke in 2001; yet according to our own article on Duke, he left the KKK in 1980.

The Guardian reference reads photographs emerged of Griffin alongside the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen 'Don' Black. (It doesn't give a date; our own article on Don Black (white nationalist) says that Black left the KKK in 1987.)

I am no supporter of Griffin or the BNP, but I don't believe these add up to open association with the Ku Klux Klan. It's a tangential association with two leaders of that organisation, one of them two decades after his departure from it.

On a practical front, also, if sustainable these points probably belong in the article on Nick Griffin rather than here. Barnabypage (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was admitted by Griffin on Question Time too, and the original ref made it clear. They belong in both. Verbal chat 08:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, which do you mean by "the original ref"? Barnabypage (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What was admited on question time? That there are direct links between the BNO and the KKK. If this is so then it shoul be in the article, but we would need to see what he had said on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Generic 'Facist', 'Far-Right' terms

Can we have some substance to these claims? These really have simply become buzz-words by the British media that seem to have crossed over onto wikipedia. Can have have some actual definition of how the British National Party are "facist" (which they have strongly denied) or far-right (which they've also denied, claiming to be a part of both right and left policies).

I'm not a supporter of the organisation by any means, but I am a supporter of truth and balanced reporting, and I don't think either are being addressed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.67.216 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The mainline press and Broadcasters in the UK are considered reliable third party sources. Also this is regularly raised as a topic by newly created IPs who obviously are already familiar with WIkipedia, you would have more credibility for your statements if you either had an edit history beyond the above entry or created a user name --Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article does not claim that the BNP is fascist but merely points out its neofascist roots and comments that have been made about it. The term "far right" is reliably sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The fascist nature of the BNP is equally well-sourced within the article. Emeraude (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See the info box, which clearly says that they are fascist not that they might be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a problem, that the infobox makes it seem like the BNP is a self-declared fascist party, when they clearly are not. When looking at the definition of "fascist", one also finds that it really does not fit the BNP in any serious manner. But it is clearly in the interest of certain people to have the BNP labeled as "fascist". User:Gabagool/sig 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been covered again and again (see Archives of this page). The fact is, respected academic sources which are quoted agree that the BNP is fascist. There is not a single respectable source that says it is not fascist. People have been challenged to find even one and have not done so. I don't know what your definition of "fascist" is, but suspect that you are not a political scientist or academic in that field, so it's largely irrelevant. The infobox does not "makes it seem like the BNP is a self-declared fascist party"; it is an infobox. It does not and is not required to give explanations - the article does that. Everything in it is sourced impeccably. I must say that your phrase "it is clearly in the interest of certain people" leads me to suspect that you are attempting to push your own political agenda, which I also suspect is not a million miles away from that of the BNP. Emeraude (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So effectivly the articel does say that they are fascist, but that some people disagree. Whilst the info box states that they are definantly fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who disagree are the BNP who want to avoid the label. As per the above, third party sources are what we rely on. Support Emeraude. --Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So the answer is yes the article does say they are fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are not facts

The BNP wants direct democracy, devolution and decentralisation. A complete withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Griffin is on record stating that the holocaust is a fact. They have Jewish members. The head of the southeast BNP branch is Jewish. They support the state of Israel. They just voted to allow in 'non-indigenous' members.

These are not the founding tenants of Fascism, nor the actions of Fascists. They are also not simply my opinion, but facts.

Fascism is not evident from the BNP's current manifesto nor from it's Ideology. They are on record consistently rejecting the label. They actually repeatedly use the word 'Fascist' in a derogatory manner to describe the actions of their more militant opponents.

The BNP are most certainly radicals, in that are outside of mainstream politics, and they are certainly Nationalists, but I cannot agree that they are Fascist. Even if they had fascist leanings in the past, the evidence just does not exist for them being a Fascist party, or having a Fascist ideology now.

Keeping the label goes against the facts. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to agree they have a strong record of rejecting the term. However third party sources consistently use it of them and that is what determines content in the Wikipedia. Oh, they were forced by the courts to change their constitution, it was not voluntary. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment just show how serious you are, with all these examples Gaius Octavius Princeps presented, all you are able to respond with is the most childish, arrogant and sarcastic "Happy to agree they have a strong record of rejecting the term", having no connection at all with what Gaius wrote. Actually I have also tried to remove some of your "third party sources" used for the "fascist" label, as some of them are up to 10 and even 14(!) years old, and highly inappropriate for use in the infobox here, trying to present it as having anyhting to do with the present-day. User:Gabagool/sig 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please follow WP:AGF, the point that they reject the term is a legitimate one to make and his points were addressed, we don't manage this part of the content based BNP propaganda --Snowded ^TALK 23:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What on earth is "propaganda" of what Gaius said?? It is all - plain - facts - , there can be absolutely no arguments or discussion, that could say otherwise. It is not opinions, it is facts. And I find it extremly amusing that you claim others of presenting opinions/propaganda here as you say. User:Gabagool/sig 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be cited by third parties not the opinion of one or two editors. BNP propaganda on their web site or elsewhere is not a reliable source. This is 101 Wikipedia . Suggest you spend some time on the help screens. --Snowded ^TALK 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The references for "far right" and fascism are properly sourced. These articles should reflect what appears in reliable sources and we cannot second-guess them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a party is fascist is never going to be decided simply by repeating its own denials. If that is the criterion, then every murderer in Wikipedia would have to be innocent. An encyclopedia deals in verifiable facts, ideally from reputable peer-reviewed academic sources, such as those used in this article. To extract some statements and policies from the BNP and then conclude that it is not fascist is nothing more than Original Research. But it is even worse than that, because the examples that have been given above are so spurious or misleading to be of no value at all. Let's examine just a few of them: "The BNP wants direct democracy" Well, it has to contest elections so it's not going to say otherwise. (And didn't Mussolini and Hitler say similar when they were contesting elections?). "..withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan and Iraq." is really a non-party issue and has support and opposition across the spectrum, so is of no use in pinning down the (non-)fascism of BNP. "Griffin is on record stating that the holocaust is a fact", yet Richard Edmonds wrote for Holocaust News that said teh Holocaust was "politically motivated hoax" and Griffin's paper The Rune said the Holocaust was a "mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria." He referred to it as "the Holohoax". His latest position seems to be to question the numbers rather than the fact. "They support the state of Israel." A relatively new and pragmatic position, and only relevant because they detest moslems. "They just voted to allow in 'non-indigenous' members" not from choice but because they would be back in court. "Even if they had fascist leanings in the past.." Well, they did, and there is no evidence they have have changed; indeed, the thrust of sveral of the sources is exactly this point. "They have Jewish members". So what? So did the Italian Fascisti and, for a while , the German Nazis. "I have also tried to remove some (the sources) for the "fascist" label, as some of them are.....10 and even 14(!) years old, and highly inappropriate for use in the infobox here, trying to present it as having anyhting to do with the present-day." Exept, they do tehrefore cover the whole historu of the BNP and demonstrate that the BNP hasn't changed - it was and is fascist.

So here's the challenge for the BNP apologists who want to say that the experts and academics, never mind anyone else with an ounce of common sense, is wrong. Read the sources that are provided for you. If you're not satisfied, come up with an equally reliable source that contradicts them. It's really that simple. Emeraude (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actuly er wouild not ber allowed to call some one a murderer no matter how many RS said it if it remianed an untested accfusation. We would have to say alledged murderer. I would also have to say that how can a source 10 or more years out of date cover ots whole history. By the very nature of its age it only covers thier history up to a decade ago. The other sources may cover more recent history, but old sources are that old.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a third party source (and a reliable one) which says that they have ceased to be fascist in the last decade? --Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me I might be wrong but I was under the impresion that it was the inclusion of material that needed sources, not its exclusion. Now it can be demonstrated (with RS) that the BNP have over the last few years (for example) re-jiged thier constitution (such as with the recent EHRC case). So we would need up to date sources (RS of cours) stating that despite these changes the BNP are still fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're flogging a dead horse here. Firstly, no one with an ounce of nous could possibly believe that the BNP this month is any different from last month, just because it was forced to amend its constitution by law. But, more importantly, the sources make it quite clear that the BNP has NOT, repeat NOT, changed its ideology/philosophy in the last ten years (why 10, by the way). Of particular interest here is one of the sources quoted: Copsey, N. Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006, Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82. I suggest you read it. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly we are not supposed to determine what the page should say based upon what we 'kn ow' to be true (whether it is true s irrelevant), we can only put in what we have sou8rces for. Secondly The BNP (in the last few years (I shall repeat it in case you missed it the first time)) has undergone more alterations then just the recent membership rules change over the last 4 years (since mr copley wrote his articel). What we need in more recent sources stating they have not changed their ideology/philosophy (for example anti-semitism) not editors opinions they have not. If its true they are still fascsist then it will not be difficult to find more up to date sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources are up to date. It's laughable that people expect new sources each time the BNP change a policy or their consitution, you've got it back to front. If you have a source that says due to that change they are no longer fascist go right ahead and share it with us. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that any source from late 2009 onwards can be considerd recent, but any other source represents older (and therofre it has been susgested out of date) information. Also "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." So those who challenge a fact do not have to provide a source to prove their point, it is those who wish a fact to be inserted that need to provide it. Now again I say if what you say is true and they are still fascist there will be sources saying this (and that will be the end of that argument). The argument is not that they were once fascsist, but that the party has changed. The burdon of proof lies with you htat they have not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No it most certainly does not. The sources were up to date when inserted. They say the BNP had not changed in any major way (which is what we are talking about if we say fascist or not fascist). No sources have been provided to say they have changed, therefore there is no need to change the article to say they have changed. So, once again, either provide a source (and I'm unable to find one so I'm pretty sure you won't) or call it a day. Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of the position of the BNP is this book:[47]. It argues that they've "airbrushed" their fascist and Neo-Nazi origins, but that "hints" show through. An article published this month clearly places them on the "extreme right":[48]. Slatersteven's argument that "The argument is not that they were once fascsist, but that the party has changed. The burdon of proof lies with you htat they have not"[sic] is weak. The burden for arguing that they are no longer fascist lies firmly with those who asserting this. The insistence on bang up-to-date scholarly analyses is bizarre. Can we please rely on the independent sources that are available, rather than accepting the word of a party with clear roots in Neo-Nazism that they're not now fascist? Fences&Windows 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a dispute between editors who have reliable sources and other editors who claim the descriptions are unfair. Unfortunately we cannot correct any perceived unfairness in reliable sources, and there are no mainstream sources calling them anything else. It is not as if we were calling UKIP far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Trotskyites popularly use the term "fascist" to refer to any persons or organisation, who does not support either Frankfurt School cultural Marxism or the oil-hungry neoconservative movement. To them; Ron Paul is a "fascist", Pat Buchanan is a "fascist", Alan Clark is a "fascist", Norman Tebbit is a "fascist". Unfortunetly because the Cold War never resulted in actual military conflict in Europe (as in South America), many of these people have been allowed to continue with their hegemony over trade unions in the United Kingdom. Including most relevently to this article, the National Union of Journalists. Thus the inherent bias. IMO for a more reliable, evenly weighted presentation, academic books are better than political tabloids.

While I would disagree that the BNP has absoltely no connection to intellectuals associated with that political ideology, what we see is the presentation of "fascism bad", "Marxism good". This polemic, obviously doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia, where all presentations of political ideology articles have to conform to the same strict policy of WP:NPOV (no exceptions). "Good vs Bad" is not for us to decide, but the reader. I am no red, but there is definetly an intellectual lineage between Tyndall BNP and Oswald Spengler via Francis Parker Yockey. Nowadays however they're closer to paleoconservatives and right-populism, not a thousand miles from Vlaams Belang. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments about the influences on the BNP explain why it was grouped with the far right. At present mainstream sources do not accept that it has moved sufficiently from its earlier nature that it should be re-categorized. I agree that there is a tendency to overuse the terms "fascism" and "far right" and in fact have argued against the use of these terms in the Augusto Pinochet and John Birch Society articles.

Young BNP article

Just a comment to note that Emeraude (talk · contribs) is attempting to "they're fascists!" the Young BNP article as well. Could use some more eyes and hands. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation has continued to escalate at the Young BNP. Two users (Snowded (talk · contribs) and Verbal (talk · contribs)) have been repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from the article, despite the discussion over neutrality that is occurring on the talk page. There's a certain amount of censorship and muting being attempted here, and the more users that take a look at what is going on at that article the better. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The situation has not escalated, you have continued to assert a position without providing any evidence to support that position. Tagging something NPOV on the grounds that you don't like it without providing any evidence to support is not acceptable --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the "I don't like it" nonsense. There are at least two editors here (including myself) arguing that the BNP themselves have responded to and deny the label (which goes conveniently unnoted) and that the term "fascist" is very vague. I suggest you get over your political prejudices long enough to acknowledge the discussion on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that both Emeraude and Snowded should not be editing anything to do with the BNP as they are openly hostile to them. We need NEUTRALITY and those two editors, whom are otherwise fine contributors, are therefore entirely unsuitable for the job.I have no confidence in their ability to be neutral.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, Both of us are arguing from third party sources which is the basis of the WIkipedia. We are not required to take a half way house between those sources and the claims of the BNP. In general you need to do more research, if you had checked you would have seen that Searchlight has been debated and established as a reliable source. Checking that out would have meant you would not have waster time with an edit which had to be reverted. If you also check, you will see that I did not revert your removal of material hostile to the BNP on local government. The reason being that the source of that material was not reliable. That is called neutrality, please try and abide by it and address content issue rather than making silly accusations against other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's discussion, the tag is supposed to remain. Anyway, with the repeated removal of the the NPOV discussion tag on the article and attempts at smearing editors who argue against those that oppose the usage of the "fascist" tag for the group as supporters of the group ("leads me to suspect that you are attempting to push your own political agenda, which I also suspect is not a million miles away from that of the BNP." [49]), count me out. While someone should bring this subject to WP:NPOVN, I have neither enough interest nor enough time to spare on this banality. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what I suspected. Was i wrong? You could have put me right at the time but chose not to. You are, though, happy enough to state categorically that Snowded and I "are openly hostile to them" (the BNP), for which you have absolutely no evidence from any of the postings we have made on this subject. Emeraude (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

First, have enough dignity not to misquote me. As obvious as it may be, I've nowhere stated that you are "opently hostile to them". It was, in fact, another user. Ctrl+f this talk page and find it for yourself. Secondly, your smarmy little assumption/micro-McCarthyism is certainly wrong when it comes to me, and I'll thank you to keep pathetic little tactics like that to yourself in the future when communicating with me. Again, I'm out. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sincere apologies: it was indeed someone else. That's what comes of speed-reading on a computer screen. Emeraude (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

You are also wrong on the subject of tags. They don't stand just because there is a discussion, they have to be justified.--Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the tag. It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Yeah. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And you need to read up on WIkipedia policy. The only arguments you are advancing are based on your own opinion or on BNP sources, either of which have validity. It is not legitimate to tag an article on those grounds. Either get serious about some third party sources or stop wasting people's time.--Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly in dispute and therefore should have the tag.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No you must provide a legitimate reason for the tags so that there is a possibility of resolution. The fact that the BNP does not like the way it is portrayed in mainstream media is not sufficient reason to consider this article POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things: The tag has not been justified, and this should be discussed there or (better) at WP:NPOVN, not here. This is off topic for this article. Verbal chat 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite. A couple of editors siding with the BNP in rejecting the prevalent description of them in independent reliable sources is not a genuine neutrality dispute. Gaius, Bloodofox, find some sources that reject the 'fascist' label or stop complaining. Fences&Windows 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Young BNP, Student BNP

The young one is barely mentioned and the student one is not mentioned at all. Just drawing attention to the orphaned student BNP article. ~ R.T.G 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is the youth YBNP section fo 17 to 19 year olds to.--86.29.134.247 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Extreme views"

An editor has asked me why I reverted an edit to the article which had replaced the word "extreme" with "controversial" when WP:EXTREMIST advises against using the word Extremist/Extreme'.

The views expressed by the BNP founder, John Tyndall were generally considered to be extreme in academic literature and in the mainstream news media. While Nick Griffin has moderated the party platform, this is normally seen to have been done in order to gain broader electoral support, and the revised platform is similarly seen as extreme. The guideline states "The terms "extremist"... are often particularly contentious labels...." (my emphasis) In this case it is not contentious since there is no dispute in reliable sources. I appreciate the BNP may dispute this label but the policy to follow is WP:Verifiability. In order to challenge the use of the term, we would need high quality reliable sources specifically disputing it.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't actually find an academic source which refers to the British National Party using the word "Extreme" and I'd be grateful if you could find one for the purpose of this debate. The main point im trying to make is the word "extreme" is subjective as something can only be extreme in relation to something else, controversial however is an objective description.

Also if we were to use the word extreme, the way it is written in the article in contrary to WP:LABEL , It would be better to phrase it "The BNP has been quoted by Source x/y/z as less publically extreme.

Even then, would it not be better just to make direct reference to the "extremism" by saying something along the lines of "Since Griffin took over its leadership, the BNP has abandoned it's most conservative policies such as compulsory deportation, promoting similar policies to the Euronationalist approach".

DharmaDreamer (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where there is consensus for a description there is no need to mention the source in the text. The same arguments have come up over numerous articles, including Barack Obama where some editors wanted to qualify the statement that he was born in Hawaii. I see no conflict with WP:LABEL: it says it is alright to say, ""The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism." So it should be fine to say "the BNP has become less publicly extreme". I do not think it would be accurate to say it had become less controversial or conservative. Its success has made it more controversial and calling it conservative is WP:POV. We should all look for academic sources that discuss whether the BNP is extreme. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Below are a few journal articles that describe the BNP as extreme:

• "The New Politics of Prejudice: Comparative Perspectives on Extreme Right Parties in European Democracies". Contributors: Lars Rensmann - author. Journal Title: German Politics and Society. Volume: 21. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 2003 (includes BNP)
• "How and Why Islamophobia Is Tied to English Nationalism but Not to Scottish Nationalism". Contributors: Asifa Hussain - author, William Miller - author. Journal Title: Ethnic Studies Review. Volume: 27. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2004 ("the extreme right-wing British National Party")

There are also numerous books published by the academic press, including:

• Into a World of Hate: A Journey among the Extreme Right. Contributors: Nick Ryan - author. Publisher: Routledge. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 2004

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

Can you see the difference? in the first example the Ku Klux Klan has been labelled Racist whereas in the second example they haven't been labelled racist as such, but rather, the statement establishes what makes them racist; without using the labelling word. Even though there is a consensus that the Ku Klux Klan is a racist organisation, it is still not wise to simply say "the Ku Klux Klan is a racist oraganisation" as it is contrary to WP:LABEL.

In fact it doesn't say anywhere in the article that the BNP is "Extreme" for it to be classed as "less extreme" later on in the article. Maybe controversial is not the best word to use, but surly there is a better one than "extreme". Perhaps something like "Since Griffin took over its leadership, the BNP has adapted policies slightly closer to the mainstream, promoting similar policies to the Euronationalist approach" DharmaDreamer (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The passage you dispute does not say that the BNP is extreme, merely that it "has become less publicly extreme". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

whether they have "become less publically extreme" or not is irrelevent, the wording just has so many issues, it's contrary to WP:LABEL for one there's WP:EXTREMIST for another, the word "extreme" is a subjective word and using subjective words isn't NPOV. Why is it nessecery to use that word when we could use a more informing phrase actually explaining how they have become "less publically extreme" DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us note that wp:EXTREMIST is not the law. Despite what has been claimed, it is most definitely NOT policy. It says at the top, and I quote "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (My italics.) In the context, it is fair and accurate to describe the BNP as "extreme" or perhaps, more precisely, "extreme right wing". After all, is that not part of the definition of fascism? The issue is really quite simple: the BNP is an extremist party, is accepted as such by academics in the field, by the press, by politicians and by anyone with an ounce of common sense. It has attempted to present a less extreme image (and that is also accepted by academics, press, politicians) but it is still extreme. Minor amendements or changes of emphasis in one or two policies do not affect the overall position. In the circumstances, this is clearly one of the exceptions envisaged by wp:EXTREMIST. Emeraude (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to argue in favour of the case for using the word extreme can you at least do it based on valid wiki policy points rather than POV-pushing, While Many would argue that the BNP are not merely "Far right" but have a mixture of Far Right and centre left views, it's perfectly fine to describe them as far right as it states this in academic literature and can be properly cited. However this is not the case with using the word "Extreme". I'm saying if we really must use that word can we at least do it properly by saying "Academic X/Y/Z states that the BNP have become less publicly extreme" rather than the way it is currently. If you wasn't reverting my edit and just found the page saying "Since Griffin took over its leadership, the BNP has changed its stance on a number of issues such as compulsory repatriation" with a proper citation, would you really think it would be best to remove that citation and insert "Since Griffin took over its leadership, the BNP has become less publically extreme" without citation. When you say "by anyone with an ounce of common sense" Thats highly subjective, I have an ounc of common sense and don't recognise that the BNP are extreme, but I'm willing to accept properly cited quotations that say so. DharmaDreamer (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that many BNP supporters (who while they are welcome to edit should be cautious in doing so) want to claim that it has centre-left views. I'm dubious myself and changes seem to be to have been driven by fear (court cases) or expediency. That however is my opinion so it may or may not interest but its irrelevant. What matters here is what is said in third party sources. Removing the whole phrase as uncited may make sense, replacing it with a misleading statement is another matter. --Snowded ^TALK 15:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, my point exactly Snowed, While we both have strong political views, we should put them aside for the sake of the encyclopedic content. While I would not for a second call the BNP fasict, far right or Extreme, It's perfectly fine to include it with the relevent citations in the proper format. I know WP:EXTREMIST isn't the law but why even bother having it if it's going to be ignored just because it's not official policy. Calling them extreme is contrary to the official policy of NPOV and the two unnofficial guidelines of WP:EXTREMIST and WP:LABEL, so if we really must use this word, and let's be honest it is subjective POV. Then please can we do it in the proper format. DharmaDreamer (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a third party source which says they are extremist then its OK - WP:Extremist is not policy. However my view is that the sentence should be removed but not substituted. Lets see what other editors think, --Snowded ^TALK 16:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong to consider the sentence in isolation. It is there as an introduction to the whole of the rest of the section and the point it is making is that the BNP has made well-documented efforts to be seen as less extreme, i.e. the BNP knows it was seen as extreme and wants to moderate its public image, if not its actual nature. The rest of the section and other parts of the article adequately back up both the BNP's past extremism and the falsehood of its moderation. To simply replace it with a random example of an altered policy makes a nonsense of the whole section. Interestingly, DharmaDreamer says he "would not for a second call the BNP fasict, far right or Extreme" and demands that we can only do so by citing academics; but the circuitry here is that although all of the academics do describe the BNP as fascist, far right or extreme, he wouldn't call them that! So, he doesn't belive the academics? No, this is a clear case where the exception allowed by the (non-mandatory) wp:Extremist may safely and logically be applied. If you must have a citation, and I would regard it as overkill, then I would suggest: Copsey, N. "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006", Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82, which is already cited within the article anyway. Perhaps some of the people who are debating here should read it. Emeraude (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I asumme WP:EXTREME and WP:ALBEL were put in place for the purpose of avoiding these disputes. WP:LABEL goes as far to use the example of a racist organisation, again im sure academics etc all agree the Ku Klux Klan is racist but it still suggests phrasing it differently, I know it's not the law but why ignore a guildline other than to support a POV? It's not like they've changed any other policy anyway so why not use the example I gave? You're also ignoring the fact that You're replacing a cited statement with another without bothering to put in a citation which just shows that you don't care about improving the quality of the article, just making sure it remains Anti-BNP. DharmaDreamer (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see this is really going nowhere, should we try some from of dispute resolution perhaps? mediation cabel or something? DharmaDreamer (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:EXTREME and WP:LABEL are there to give guidance, not to avoid or settle disputes. There are all sorts of reasons, in any sphere of life, when one might not folow a guideline (which is not the same as ignoring it). The most obvious reason is that a guideline is just that, a guide, and cannot and does not substitute for one's common sense. Neither can a guidelne cover every eventuality. Indeed, WP:EXTREME explicitly says that users should apply common sense and that there will be exceptions (and not to the rule, but to the guideline). This is just such an occasion. It is not POV pushing to not follow a guideline and it is not acceptable to suggest other editors are doing that. It happens that "extreme" (or technically, "less extreme") is entirely appropriate in this case as all of the quoted academic references have indicated. This is not like when I argued in a pub that the guy who said "Margaret Thatcher is a fascist bastard" was wrong on both counts. This is akin to someone saying Hitler was a fascist, i.e. it's accurate and verifiable.

To compare the contested edits that lie behind this debate:

Quote: the BNP has become less publicly extreme Context: Section heading is Political tendency and deals with the history of the BNP's ideology/philosophy, particularly the nature of its fascism. First sentence introduces the topic. Meaning: it is accepted that the BNP used to present a more extreme image than it has lately attempted to do, but this is more image than substance Evidence: not directly given nor needed because following paragraphs elaborate and expand with first class acceptable references

Quote: the BNP has changed its stance on a number of controversial issues such as compulsory repatriation Context: This sentence does not introduce the following topic. It deals only with policy, not political tendency, and uses one single minor policy shift to suggest that there have been major changes of a fundamental nature. Meaning: Attempts to assert that changing some controversial issues (controversial to whom?; controversial a loaded term) somehow marks a shift in ideology Evidence: none; "reference" is synthesis/OR from an unverifiable source based on one person's memory of a TV programme, without a transcript

Emeraude (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To use the phrase "extreme far right", it is precise and defined. There is no guesswork. It is a clear as saying "Third from the right." To use the phrase "publically extreme", it is about as clearly defined as saying "bloody extreme." Similarly, to use the phrase, "slightly closer to the mainstream," is about as clear as, "slightly closer to the jumble-sale." So, even if you are going to source the word extrme think about this, extreme what? I could have an extreme view of politics with a hidden camera. I could have a publically extreme view of a raised kilt. If I don't say, "hidden camera" or "raised kilt" when I write about it, nobody will know what I am talking about or at least they will have to use their imagination which is hardly the standard you are looking for here. ~ R.T.G 13:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

How about we just remove the opening sentance? It contributes little, has sparked debates several times and the meaning of the phrase can be inferred from the section itself.DharmaDreamer (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We're dealing here with political studies. While it is perfectly possible to say, with precision, that candidate A received 23,456 votes or that party X has 234 MPs elected, such levels of precision are not otherwise feasible in politics, or in any of the social studies. That does not mean that every term must therefore be banned. Political scientists understand perfectly what is meant by "extreme far right", but do not claim that it has precision in the same way that "Third from the right" does. Likewise, extreme. I can't see that R objects to this. So is (s)he objecting to the adverb "publicly"? If so, then (s)he misses the point. The BNP (or its apologists, I have no reference for the BNP saying they are less extreme) claim it is less extreme. Commentators (and, again, see the references) have shown that this is not the case and that all that has happened is that the BNP has hidden its extreme nature byt cosmetic means, e.g. by getting members to wear suits, to be less aggressive in public, to keep quiet bout some policies,to hide their Nazi pasts. This is entirely cosmetic. Hence, the BNP has become less publicly extreme, i.e. appears less extreme in public. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK how about "the BNP has attmepted to make its self appear less politicaly extreme in public".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the text pending agreement. Also the revision by Dharma relied in a television programme and cannot be verified. I am happy with Slatersteven's proposed change.--Snowded ^TALK 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

About the TV reference, I was considering using the youtube clip as the reference but thought that directly referenceing the show would be better. Anyway by only saying publically, you're assuming that they haven't changed at all, you give some examples such as "getting members to wear suits", so you're saying a political party whos members wear t-shirts and jeans is an extreme party !?!? you say "keep quiet about some policies" there's no evidence of these policies with your anti BNP POV you jsut assume that this conspiracy exists. "Hide their Nazi past" So you're admitting they have abandoned their previous veiws but then go on to claim they haven't really. Rule 2 that doesnt say hide. To someone who knows nothing about politics seeing 1 party labelled as extreme but not others would lead them to ask why. It would be like someone from Greenland seeing "-15c" being reffered to as extremly cold and itsatntly knowing this wasn't written from a neutral point of view. the BNP's policies are "extremly different to that of the main three political parties", wikipedia is written from a Neutral point of view not a mainstream point of view. I see you have had other conflicts on wikipedia about letting POV creep into your editing regarding the BNP, tagging Nick Griffin as LGBT and doing 6 reverts in 24 hours. Please try to remain neutral. DharmaDreamer (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Using television references or even a youtube clip is problematic in terms of verification etc. Its really not enough to support your edit. NPOV does not mean meeting the views of BNP members half way by the way.--Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But it does mean we should not represent opinion as fact. Perhaps then it should say "The BNP has been accused of attmepting to make its self appear less politicaly extreme in public".Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is enough in the various references to allow the statement to stand as a reasonable summary --Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone justify the use of the word extreme? What exactly is extreme about them? You could say the green party has the most radical environmental policies but you'd hardly call them Extreme would you? Extreme is a subjective NPOV and labelling word and there is no way around it. DharmaDreamer (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Political science and political commentary in the media and elsewhere know exactly what "extreme" means. It is not a question of NPOV but of accuracy. You're absolutely right - I wouldn't call the Green Party extreme and neither would anyone else, because they aren't. But, what I would call them (or the BNP) is totally irrelevant - it's what reliable third party sources call them that counts in Wikipedia. Therefore, the BNP is fascist and the BNP is extreme. It may be subjective if I say it, but if every commentator worthy of note says it........Emeraude (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I shall ignore DharmaDreamer's personal attacks on my probity and his attempt to accuse me of pushing a POV when he knows nothing about my views and can deduce nothing about them from my edits or comments. In might be more in order to examine his own POV, but never mind - it's pretty obvious where his sympathies lie. Slatersteven suggested "the BNP has attempted to make itself appear less politicaly extreme in public" and Snowded seems to agree with that. I am happy to accept that wording in place of the BNP has become less publicly extreme, though there are very subtle differences in meaning. Emeraude (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an easy solution to this. The problem as I see it is that the BNP say one thing and most other people say something else. As a consequence, the argument above as to which SINGLE form of words should be used is likely to be fruitless with no possibility of agreement. What is needed is to use BOTH forms of words. eg "the BNP say that they have changed their stance on their more controversial policies. Political commentators say that this is just window dressing and that the BNP remains an extreme right-wing party."

I haven't read carefully enough for the above to be a perfect solution, but I hope it gives the idea: say what the BNP say and say what their opponents say about it. Readers can then form their own judgment over what/who they believe. GDallimore (Talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, It may be clear where my sympathies lie, and clear where yours do too, but the point is what a Neutral person would have to say about it. GDallimore That actually sounds like quite a good idea and I'd support it. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Extreme policies of racial disintegration? To write that you should consider how they have been "publically" extreme in the past. Indeed, you should consider that racial disintegration of such a type is considered extreme by standard. Are their policies considered extreme by other racial disintegration standards? If not you would have, Policies of racial disintegration which is considered extreme. No need to add the extreme in that sentence. The problem with adding all the tag words is the length of the read. If you need to read very far for very short information you are best to shorten it. If you needed explained right and wrong to... Perhaps a note about how common the policies are among their coounterparts would serve better information than telling us how good or evil they are. ~ R.T.G 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article should reflect how the BNP is seen in mainstream media and academic literature. We cannot conduct our own original research about this. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't reflect that:- it should describe it. ~ R.T.G 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The BNP under Mr Griffin have attmepted to improve thier image. To appear less radical and extream. At the same time thier opponents (and it is their oponents) have atmepted to say that this change is not genuine. The article should refelct that. that is the NPOV stance. There fore the sentance should read as I have susgested. "The BNP has attempted to appear less politically extreme in public, but this has been represented as disingenuous".or somesuch.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven • Slatersteven|talk 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Specifically regarding your dispute: in general, it's not a good idea to invent terms when describing other people or organizations, so I would stick to the terminology found in reputable sources, and that seems to be "far right." Rather than worrying about less extreme, you could say they're moderating their core positions or some other such thing. Preferably, however, stick to the language in the sources, especially when the issue is controversial. Well we could try to directly quote from sources as i've sugested but we can't because no source is provided, in fact in my last edit i even added a citation needed tag along with my revert but Emeraude reverted that along with the main dispute, which suggested he isn't even viewing the diffs and instead is just RV'ing whenever seeing that I have edited the page. I'd be fine with "Since Griffin took over the leadership, the BNP have moderated their core policies" DharmaDreamer (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you would be happy with as that the official position. However the most that can be supported is that they have attempted to appear less extreame/moderate or whatever. I suggest you read through the discussion and look at some of the possible amendments that would have consensus and cease edit waring on the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, I think I must have missed you say this "it's what reliable third party sources call them that counts in Wikipedia. Therefore, the BNP is fascist and the BNP is extreme. It may be subjective if I say it, but if every commentator worthy of note says it..." You make a valid argument here but you're missing the point, when you say "every commentator worth noting" I assume that means every commentator with your POV, who decides who's worthy?. Anyway, the main point I want to make is that yes, reliable third party sources are what counts on wikipedia but there are other rules such as NPOV Manual of Style, and WP:LABEL a guildline obviously intended for this very thing but nevermind... There is no reliable source citing it for one and there are ways of wording these things so as to keep a NPOV. View this David Cameron Speech, (for snowded's sake lets pretend its a reliable transcript he approves of ;) ) at 1:55 David cameron refers to Nick Griffin as a "ghastly piece of filth". It wouldn't be appropriate to say on the Nick Griffin article Nick griffin is a ghastly piece of filth" I'm sure even you can see whats wrong there, but it would be fine to say Nick griffin was once described by david cameron as a "ghastly piece of filth". Can you see where i'm coming from? DharmaDreamer (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Across the world, many people consider the Labour Party to be "extreme" (invading Iraq "because America said so", causing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to die, is objectively extreme). Usage of the term however, is clearly a violation of WP:EXTREMIST and thus does not belong in the mainspace. It is also at root, a very clever and shifty form of Freudo-Marxian dialectics as developed by the Frankfurt School. Newspeak, based on the manipulate of language, through the invocation of certain words and phrases intended to "blacklist" or illicit a negative emotion response, specifically for political or financial acumen (in the United States, this has been perfected by B'nai Brith's ADL, in the United Kingdom, organisations such as Searchlight and Gerry Gable have tried to do the same; however their criminal records and history of membership in the Communist Party has made their propaganda far less effective). Obviously this method is not in following with the spirit of Wikipedia, which at its core has strict neutrality as policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not only does it violate WP:EXTREMIST, it also Violates NPOV, not because of the content, but the way it is presented, it also violates WP:LABEL, while not technically an official policy but a guildline intended for this purpose DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bring up policies you do not understand well. WP:EXTREMIST also says:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

All that's left is to find reputable sources calling them extremist, which would be the easiest thing next to breathing. I'd be more than happy to do this, but we have to agree here first to include the label, which seems more than justified.UBER ^(talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what Uber is saying assuming the good faith that he will appropriatly style it, you say "include the label" its its gogin to be in the form of a label no, if its in the form of "The BNP have been reffered to as extremist by X/Y/Z or X/Y/Z have reffered to the bnp as extremist. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Refer to the lead now. I've taken your suggestions mind, identifying the people who use such labels to describe the party.UBER ^(talk) 20:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Yorkshirian is edit warring under the guise of WP:EXTREMIST, which as I explained above is being totally taken out of context and blatantly misconstrued. The label can be included if it's backed up by reputable sources, and I just gave four from professional scholars. What are we still debating?UBER ^(talk) 20:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what you did was type the word "extremist" and "BNP" into Google Book Search and plastered into the intro any results found, to mould the article into your own personal worldview. Your edit is in strict violation of the WP:NPOV policy, as well as the WP:EXTREMIST (which having viewed this talkpage you already knew was an open issue). I can find many links which describe the United States Government as "war criminals" and "extremists", yet it would be a violation of the neutral point of view to edit "The United States is a country, which according to many political scholars, is governed by war criminals". The hatchet-job you entered into the article, aside from failing these policies, has no consensus, is out of flow and you also haven't presidented any evidence that these sources state "The BNP is an extremist party", nor have you proven neutrality of authors. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spare me your pathetic lectures and diatribes. What I found are reputable sources from political scientists that explicitly identify the party as an extremist far-right institution. You can either face up to that reality or deny it behind red herrings and ad hominem attacks. Your comparisons are absolutely non-sense as no neutral political scientist would describe the United States in those terms on a peer-reviewed publication or a book. And if some do, they are in a strict minority and can be ignored per undue weight. Here we have a fundamentally different case: a broad array of political scientists and journalists explicitly attaching the label "extremist" to this organization. That label needs to go in the lead, and I would appreciate it if you stopped edit warring and complied with the aforementioned Wikipedia policies.UBER ^(talk) 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stay civil Uber and do not focus on an editor focus on content, by attacking editors personally you detract from any actual point that you may or may not have had. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your advice is well-meant and well-taken. I hope all editors do the same, however.UBER ^(talk) 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually made this point to Uber on the talk, but it gets it across quite well so I'll repeat it here. Regardless of his inability to address the points raised above (including the fact that he cannot present explicit quotations within the supposed sources which state "The BNP is an extremist party", as well as other policy concerns). A quick Google search reveals that there are 195,000 results returned for "Obama is an extremist", 1,270,000 for "Obama is a communist" and 3,830,000 for "Obama is a racist". Many of these feature in the mainstream media of the United States. However, IMO due to the political position of the publishers, they do not fall in line the absolute neutrality, which is expected from the WP:NPOV policy on Wikipedia. Yet under Uber's rationale above, logically we can change Barack Obama's article to "political commentators have claimed that Obama is a racist and a communist" in the intro? There isn't one set of Wikipedia rules for those politicians within the doctrine of progress and Enlightement, and an entirely different set for articles covering "heretics", who hold a contrasting position—the project policy of Wikipedia is absolutely neutrality, across the board, without exception or emotional bias. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stricly speaking, I don't see why on the obama page it couldn't include "political commentator X once described obama as racist" with the relevent citation, but nor do i see a reason for double standards, Uber said "And if some do, they are in a strict minority and can be ignored per undue weight" Can be ignored? Who's the judge, how about we ignore all political commentator that don't have a strong bias in favour of the BNP?DharmaDreamer (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of political scientists, unfortunately for you, do have a clear opinion on where this party falls on the political spectrum. See below for a few examples. Again, stop bringing up Obama: it's not applicable at all. The commentators who call Obama those names are not considered reputable under Wikipedia guidelines. They often do not have PhDs, have not published anything in peer-reviewed academic journals, and it's fairly obvious most have an axe to grind. Like I said, see below.UBER ^(talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC British National Party dispute

Current attempts to resolve the issue above under Extreme Views DharmaDreamer (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC Response

This is a particularly complicated dispute and I hesitate to jump in, but I just wanted to mention a few things.

• I think that the present version of the lead is mostly fine, at least as I understand the sources. However, the information about the racial makeup of the party is extraneous material that belongs in the body. That's mostly my big gripe with the current lead.
• In general, I would say the article is very long. It currently comes in at over 170 kb. Almost every single major section could benefit from significant trimming, and Structure should be deleted and incorporated into History. Online presence and Affiliated organizations should also be deleted. That information has very little encyclopedic relevance.
• The article could benefit from a thorough copyedit to sort through problems with prose.
• Specifically regarding your dispute: in general, it's not a good idea to invent terms when describing other people or organizations, so I would stick to the terminology found in reputable sources, and that seems to be "far right." Rather than worrying about less extreme, you could say they're moderating their core positions or some other such thing. Preferably, however, stick to the language in the sources, especially when the issue is controversial.

Hope I was helpful. Feel free to flame me now.UBER ^(talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The views of the BNP are described as "extreme" in reliable sources and that should be our guide. Generally, support for fascism, racial nationalism, and plans to deport non-Nordic people is seen as "extreme". Calling it "controversial" is an extreme understatement. While this description may be offensive to BNP supporters, we cannot second guess mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On second analysis, I have now thoroughly reviewed the academic literature as well as newspapers and other reputable sources. The overwhelming consensus is to identify the party as something like "extreme far right." Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will change the article accordingly.UBER ^(talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes with the above guidelines in mind. Review them and tell me what you think.UBER ^(talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Update teachers allowed to be members of the party

march 12. Has anyone added that update, I know there was a section with some reports teachers and such firemen were not allowed and that a couple of teachers were under pressure due to their membership, has this been updated? ref here Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting. The report does not say "teachers allowed to be members"; it says that there should not be a ban on teachers being members - a subtle but very meaningful difference. There has never been a section in the article saying that teachers and firemen were not allowed to join the BNP, because that has never been the case. As to the couple of teachers "under pressure due to their membership", this is complete misrepresentation - two BNP members were, I believe, dismissed for misuse of school computers, not BNP membership. (I believe one of them was caught accessing pornography.)

Ideological orientation

Since you brought it up Yorkshirian, here are the explicit quotations and details from reputable scholars calling the party "extremist." These are books from professional scholars—not blogs, not National Review, not Glenn Beck, and not Rush Limbaugh. Have at it to your heart's content:

• The extreme right in Western Europe: success or failure? (2005) by Elisabeth L. Carter p. 50: Has a table listing "Five types of right-wing extremist parties in Western Europe," and the BNP is one of them.

• Whiteness and class in education (2007) by John Preston p. 111:

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 which white supremacy and extremist groups are still bonded.

• Fascism, communism and the consolidation of democracy (2006) by Gerhard Besier, Francesca Piombo, Katarzyna Stokłosa p. 99:

The danger potential of other extremist parties with a small, scattered group of supporters such as the British National Party (BNP) is low.

• Cybercrime and society (2006) by Majid Yar p. 104:

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...

• Political parties and the Internet: net gain? (2003) by Rachel Kay Gibson, Paul Nixon, Stephen Ward p. 226:

...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.

I think I'm done for now, although I can always indulge you some more if you wish.UBER ^(talk) 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the outstanding policy concerns still above. I'll glady deconstuct each. (1) John Preston, from the University of East London, is a member of the Critical Race Theory Dicussion Group.[50] According to Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, exponents of CRT expouse "radical multiculturalist views". The BNP, the subject of this article, is specifically and explicitly opposed to multiculturalism. Preston is an ideological partisan and activist in favour of it. Thus, logically he is not writing from an emotionally removed, neutral point of view on his greatest political opponents in the UK. CRT according to our article on it, overlaps with critical theory, a form of Marxist theory (as we know Marxism was directly responsible for genocides such as the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, the Katyn massacre, the Great Purge and so on is objectively an extreme ideology). The ideology of CRT which Preston expouses, has been described by Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago as the "lunatic core of radical legal egalitarianism." I think I have presented why Preston's views can not be considered a WP:NPOV on the BNP. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what Alex Kozinski says about "radical multiculturalism". Stop infusing your own personal opinions into the debate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I think you've made it abundantly clear by now that you don't like Marxism, the left, liberals, etc. Take it to a blog and please stop wasting our time.UBER ^(talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No sir, the "radical multiculturalist views" description of Critical Race Theory (of which Preston is an active exponent and theorist), is the terminology used by Judge Alex Kozinski of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published in the New York Times.[51] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is funny. So your strategy for discrediting an established scholar is to pull out a quotation from some judge in the US that maligns a viewpoint that the scholar apparently shares?!?!? Try again, this time with a bit more effort.UBER ^(talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this retort is not dialectically acceptable or favourably disposed towards clairty and an honest neutrality. A Chief Judge and legal authority for vast swathes of the United States is downgraded to "some judge", but an obscure Marxist theorist in the backroom of some East London university is suddenly transformed into an "established scholar"?? No, no, no. It has been very clearly, logically and fairly established as to how Preston's own ideological views are directly opposed to the BNP as to be POV. As you admitted earlier, somebody like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News who have called Barack Obama a "racist" and "communist" in the mainstream media, would not be a neutral source for that article, due to political bias. The rules aren't changed here. Next? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the NYT article that you posted, but is the judge explicitly attacking this scholar (Preston)? If not, the judge's comments are absolutely irrelevant to what's happening here. If this were an article on multiculturalism, maybe they'd hold more weight.UBER ^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob is deleting his talk page warnings...

In theses particular cases I think they should also be made on the talk page of the article in question.

People can spend time discussing the nature of 'extremism' in Talk, but the term "far right" stays in the article, as has been the status quo. We argue with the consensus edit in place, not without it.

The BNP are seriously in the news today (its constitution has been deemed illegal in court), and Off2riorob's attempts to continually remove the term "far right" are unacceptable. You cannot say it damages Wikipedia, as that is impossible because Wikipedia is inherently damaging - but it damages society, and Wikipedia (and all its endless 'technicalities') is utterly worthless compared to the real flesh and blood world. Anyone who thinks that their personal take on 'policy' comes before the 'wider world', should have their windows prised open and their computer baptised with a municipal hose. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, warnings about user conduct belong on their Talk pages, which they are assumed to read, and removing warnings is explicitly permitted by WP:BLANKING; it's just taken as an indication that they have been read, so I wouldn't read too much into that. Rodhullandemu 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also repeatedly warned the user to put the brakes on a very dangerous edit warring mentality. Such conversations certainly belong in user talk pages, however, not here.UBER ^(talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you both sure about that? Warnings are supposed to be valid from anywhere. I personally always assume they are read (although I don't like being told what to 'assume', I have to say), but I still think it is fair enough to bring them here too. Warnings have a secondary role of alerting/informing other Wikipdians - why else to do people immediately delete them? They cannot be deleted from here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, and arguably should be as not directed towards improving the article, which is the proper function of an article's Talk page. As to whether I'm sure, as an admin, yes I am, since I spend about 90% of my time here applying our policies and guidelines. That's different from a disagreement on content, of course, which can take place anywhere as long as it is civil. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am taking about 3RR warnings over content (or content warnings in general) - I'm not talking about 'civility' warnings, or templated warnings (which I rarely use anyway). Content warnings are often given on article talk pages, even from admin. When an editors response is to immediately delete the warning/section/comment from his own talk page, it makes a lot more sense to use the article's Talk page instead. It saves going around informing fellow contributors in person. I don't go for the 'round robin' talk page 'discussion' route myself - I'd rather put it on the main talk page where all the contributors can easily see it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, 3RR warnings properly belong on User Talk pages because then they get the yellow "New messages" bar, which they might not receive if, for example they have unmarked article Talk pages from their watchlist. Whereas you might state on an article Talk page that you have warned a user about 3RR, and why, there is no guarantee that they will have seen that warning unless it is also placed on their user Talk page; and even so, some editors might not edit here in a week, so will not see such messages immediately. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If he removes them he is deemed to have read them and you shouldn't reinstate or you will fall at risk--Snowded ^TALK 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The temptation to reinstate a deleted section on the user talk page is naturally a strong one (esp if the comment requres an answer) - I'd rather avoid that. There are occasions where the in-built flexibility of Wikpiedia can actually benefit the project. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

I have tagged the article, there are clear issues easily visible by the additions from tonight, editors should attempt to rise above their personal issues and attempt to edit for the bigger picture which is an NPOV article that is educational and neutral in its commentary. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The user above has placed various tags all over the article in a (quite common) attempt to taint its credibility. I've seen this tactic very often in Wikipedia. However, as far as the lead sentence goes, all its claims are cited from reputable scholars. I think the tags should be summarily removed, but I await comments from others on how to best approach this difficult issue.UBER ^(talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Descent from POV into BLP and libel

Uber is now compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by personally libelling members of this organisation as "white supremacist" and "extremist" in the introduction. Using as a reference an obscure critical theory Marxist. This obviously is a grave violation of the WP:BLP and he should propose such extremely controversial changes first. Do not re-add this without first establishing a clear talk consensus that this is a NPOV. Content issues and NPOV discussion on talk is one thing, BLP has to be removed on sight (to protect Wikipedia's interests and integrity). - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you invoking BLP? This would be funny if it weren't unbelievable. BLP applies to biographies of living persons, per its name. We're dealing how political scientists characterize a political party here. And just so we're clear: Preston is a reputable scholar and he is not the only one who calls the party white supremacist. I'll bring more to your attention later. I am pressed for time right now.UBER ^(talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A political party by nature consists of a mutual association of living peoples. It isn't an inanimate object like a shoe, a tree or an apple. By asserting that they belong to a "white supremacist" association, you are by proxy, personally libelling the living people whom the party is made up of as "white supremacists" (an organisation which now including people who are not even white at all, a bit of a paradox). You are fully aware that Preston works in the field of Marxist critical theory, specifically the Critical Race Theory branch (thus is not a neutral or reliable source on the BNP) and yet you decided to enter such controversial and WP:BLP claims into the article? You should discuss on the talk page first and gain a consensus before making such a controversial change. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

later, yes, tomorrow the BNP will suddenly jump up and become white supremacists, today they are simply far right tomorrow they will become something else, oh,...its the BBC, today the courts said that teachers are allowed to be members of the far right white supremest party the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• ...although the party disputes the far-right label.[52]

I don't see where, in the cited page, anyone "disputes the far-right label". Could someone quote the relevant text?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That entire part of the sentence is a sham and should be swiftly removed. Wikipedia does not care what people or organizations think of themselves, but merely reports on what reliable secondary sources say about those people and organizations.UBER ^(talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The party dsiputes the far right label, I did cite it but that must have been removed, oh well I'll restore the citation in a moment. Wikipedia does care about what the party have to say about themselves. it's inportant information about the party what they have to say about themselves and it can't be simply ignored. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem you have here is that you have a "BNP supporter" userbox on your userpage, and that immediately calls into question your neutrality in relation to this article. Now, as regards the sources, what is important to us is considered, well-sourced and peer-reviewed analysis by academics who study these things, although my own experience at university has been that there are those who will plough their own furrow under the guise of "academic freedom". Since your general typography and grammar would seem to militate against such an assessment in your case, it is nonetheless clear that you have a conflict of interest here. However, as a classical liberal, I must defend your right to put your point of view, even though that does not necessarily amount to an exercise of Free Speech, and my considered opinion is that you should restrict yourself to countering allegations made against the BNP by citing reliable sources that put their position; in this way, our readers (who are all to often forgotten in these disputes) can make up their own minds; that assumes, of course that they haven't already done so from other sources, but our function is to be a dispassionate, neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for one point of view or the other. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as long as we're having a coming-out-of-the-woodworks party, I also defend Dreamer's right to participate in this conversation as a social liberal (we're so much better than everyone else). I don't care at all that the user is an avid supporter of the BNP. All of us have personal biases and we should check those at the door when we start editing Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who you are, what you think. Everyone's welcome here.

Beyond that, I strongly endorse the call for secondary and reliable reputable sources, which is exactly what I added (see above; five books written by reputable scholars) and is exactly what was blatantly and shamefully removed by other users who came awfully close to violating just about every Wikipedia policy in their efforts to remove "far-right" from the lead.UBER ^(talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have userboxes about my commitment to maintaining neutrality, on wikipedia, some rules overlap and there are guildlines for dealing with this, which you seem to be ignoring, as a person who is in favour of an opening which claims the BNP is Far Right, and I was even willing to accept extreme, Do I really sound like someone who is letting their POV get in the way? DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom your reply is addressed, but it's quite plain to me that the ongoing disruption here has gone way beyond the normal hurly-burly of content disputes. Everybody has an opinion here, but the bottom line is that we are trying to inform our readers, not push a point of view, and that is what I'm seeing here from the outside. It is incredibly difficult to evaluate such polarised competing opinions when both sides of the argument use more or less equally supported sources. On the one hand, we have academic analysis by (supposedly neutral) political scientists, and on the other, we have rebuttals by the BNP itself. It is not, repeat not, our job to evaluate these commentaries; it is our job to report them, without (apparent) bias, and leave it up to our readers to make their own judgements. Unfortunately, in this context, we seem to have two mutually hostile camps, each armed to the teeth (much as prevailed before the First World War) and the only possible and probable outcome, as then, is war. Now, to be practical, I don't see mediation being a reasonable solution here, since there seems to be little in the way of common ground; Arbitration is not for content disputes. That leaves Request for Comment, which throws it open to the whole of the community. TO avoid that, perhaps a tad of give and take would be appropriate. Rodhullandemu 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant to include the BNP's official denial - it's just that the source provided doesn't include a denial of the "far right" label. Instead it denies certain other claims made about the party. We can include those, in the appropriate location. As UberCryxic says, it's best to find secondary sources though.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodullandemu: Thats what im advocating, we simply report the facts, both what the (some of which clearly biased but nevermind) political scientists say and what the BNP themselfs have to say. and let the readers decide. I've actually seen noevidence of PRO-BNP POV pushing, merly trying to make it as NPOV aspossible infact it seems most of the BNP supporting people on here are even advocating an anti-BNP POV just to try and settle the dispute. We've tried discussing to reach consensus, third opinion is not appropriate here with 6-7 participants, when we tried RfC, the commentator became the most active participant in the edit war. Informal Mediation cabal, and formal mediation ahve both been dismissed. Arbitration is not for content disputes. As far as I can see there is no route to resolve the dispute. DharmaDreamer (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been one of the problems throughout, we are not required to be even handed between the BNPs position and that of political commentary. 6-7 participants is normal for WIkipedia and a Rfc does not mean that you will get editors favorable to your point of view, it means you may get more opinions.--Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Take the 2010 Chilian earthquake for example, just because no Seismologists had written a book about it, that didn't mean it couldn't be reported on for months. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an academic journal. I wasn't trying to game the system when arguing for RfC, as it obiouvsly worked out in your favour. How do you propose we resolve the dispute then? Or shall we just leave this page locked for ever more. remeber that reaching consensus includes everyone involved, not jsut a consensus of Anti-BNP editors. Another sort of related thing, for the infobox, how about we split it up into "constituational" and "ideological currents" like on other political party articles DharmaDreamer (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're taking examples, let's just get to Godwin's Law already and mention something related: Holocaust denial. To paraphrase someone above: we have on the one hand academic analysis by (supposedly neutral) political scientists and a fringe group that has a hard time understanding reality. Whether we like it or not, the BNP is a fringe group, and their fringe voice should not drown out the opinions of the rest of the world, and especially not those of established scholars. We can't give the BNP undue weight, given what we all know the rest of Britain (and civilized humanity) thinks of them. Per this argument, my proposal above is the best: we tell readers what the party has been described as by political scientists, and later on we can cover what they think of themselves too, yes. But secondary sources are paramount here, as others have said.UBER ^(talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At least you're accepting their view counts, so we're getting some progress. But the lead is meant to be a basic summary, everyone knows they are not white supremacists even their opponents don't class them as such. So calling them white supremacist in the lead based on one marxist scholar from 3 years ago is the most blatent abuse of undue weight I think i've ever seen on wikipedia DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

OK we have had a flurry of changes and edit warring. I have restored the position as of last night. Would people please propose changes here before starting up the fight again. Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources for my proposal are listed above (under Ideological orientation). I want the first sentence to say this:

The British National Party (commonly known as the BNP) is a far-right and white supremacist political party in the United Kingdom that political scientists describe as "extremist".[references above]UBER ^(talk) 01:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the prior day position again - lts take it as a WP:BRD. Dharma, your edit summary was misleading, there is no evidence of a consensus for the changes. Valid soured material has been removed. You have asserted positions that have been rejected by other editors. COI issues are now starting to show through. Lets slow this down and discuss it. --Snowded ^TALK 02:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not like that version either. I am mostly ok with the sentence that's there now, but I also think, if we care about reliable sources like we say we do, that my version actually comes the closest to describing those sources.UBER ^(talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Enough; either sort this out here, and let me know when you've reached WP:CONSENSUS, or take it to Request for Comment. This to-ing and fro-ing insults our readers, who see one thing and then see another thing a few hours later. It must stop. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

lol I was gogin to request page protection last night when it was at the revision me and Uber agreed on, nevermind, you won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DharmaDreamer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough of what though? Surely you're not saying that Wikipedia insults its readers by being organic? Readers who try and edit it now might feel a little aggrieved, esp given the news which hasn't been dealt with yet. I don't agree with the conservative/protectionist approach to these articles. Wikipedia is never more important than the subject, and there has been nothing libellous argued over here - just the extremist element. Yet again those who revert a couple of times get the page protected. In my view, these kind of articles tend to show how Wikipedia is consistently more concerned over its image than the subject or the reader. It's not good. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Woeful

...The article as it is now is heavily POV, bloated to obscene proportions and congested with recentism. The main culprits gleefully revert any change that does conform with their view and then call for it to be locked.

I propose a major review of the article as it stands now. The recent edits were a massive improvement and were approaching encyclopaedic standard. Reverting back to this edit and then locking it is a step beyond the pale.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, after hours of heated debate we finally reached a compromise, albeit not a permanent fixture, something we could all roughly agree on to stand for the duration that we formed a consensus on the final outcome, then it gets reverted to someone noone but snowded agrees with then it gets locked, I was gogin to ask an admin to lock in the version we had after forming the temporary consensus, but he got there first. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I saw no consensus, I saw a continuing edit-war, and of course the version that gets protected is always the WP:WRONGVERSION. Anyone is free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Rodhullandemu 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Welsh language Wiki

Please revert this edit once the page is off protection. The article name at Wicipedia is British National Party, as is shown here, and was correct before the edit. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)