Talk:Arthur Kemp/Archive 1

Archive 1

The link I posted

The link I posted in "External Links" is by an amateur Portuguese historian with the same academic credentials in this field as Arthur Kemp.

It would appear that Mr Kemp is currently in the midst of an extensive rewrite of his own biographic article.. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedic notability

Even as a published author, I'm not feel'n it. and may propose this for deletion in a couple of days. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The sources used mostly don't seem to be reliable sources. I removed a few things that were clearly not good sources, marked a few places that need sources.

Mr. Kemps blog and books are only good for his opinion and response to things, not as facts for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[PA by USer:Arthur Kemp removed. See his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)]

after looking a bit more at splc, I'm inclined to remove the whole section as unverifiable. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to either bash or promote anyone. I also put a note at the reliable sources noticeboard, hopefully some regular there has already investigated the reliability of the splc. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

also please sign your posts with four (4) tilde's (~), or the signature button (next to the red circle ignore wikiformatting button at the top of the edit box). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the SPLC section is completely inverifiable, and, as I have said before, an obvious personal attack, based on completely made-up and invented alleagtions which have no basis in truth whatsoever. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

According to Gnews hits, it might appear so.[3] However, Arthur Kemp should not be editing his own biography, and if he continues to edit war here, he should be blocked from editing. The article itself is quite poor right now, but I think it would almost certainly survive an AfD. SDJ 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm, yeah. I guess so. Likely that stuff will take the article to places the subject will object to. Have to be a bit later though, to check out the newsbank articles. Hopefully, Mr. Kemp doesn't do something to get blocked in the mean time. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one else cleans this mess of an article up, I may do it myself. As you say, Kemp may not like where the reliable sources take it though, so I'm not real anxious to dive in right now. SDJ 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources? All that will show is what I posted originally.

Once again, I want to highlight was happened here:

1. An anonymous poster made a Wiki entry on myself, quoting an utterly unprovable and unsubstantiated pack of lies;

2. I edited the entry, using references, pointing out the huge number of serious factual errors (starting with simple stuff such as getting my birth date wrong -- so much for the 'facts' being quoted)

3. My comments then get rejected because it is my 'point of view.'

I find it bizarre that anyone can post any lie they want to about somebody else, and then where the subject says 'no, that is not true' then his comment gets made out to be the 'bad' one. Amazing.

Let me give one example (there are many. many more). The original article said that I was an international 'contact' with the NPD in Germany. Now, I have never been to a NPD meeting, know no-one in that group and have never had anything to do with it.

Now, my comment to that effect gets marked up as needing 'citation' -- how on earth do I 'prove' that something never happened, when there are no references to it, precisely because it did not happen.

I hope you will see that this is fundamentally unfair, and I will not, under any circumstances, stand by while outright lies are published. You are free to say anything that is true -- or even repeat lies others have made, but if you do the latter, you MUST allow me right of refutation. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Quote: "An anonymous poster.." Not true; the original editor was quite properly named as Utinomen (talk), a nom de plume no doubt, but not anonymous. Emeraude (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, .....and other stuff

I have reported this article, as well as Mr Kemp, on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as well as trying to bring an Admin's attention to Mr Kemp's continued actions. In addition, due to Mr Kemp's above reference to someone as a member of a certain defunct German political party of questionable refute, I posted an attack warning template on his user talk page.Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also reported the original biased article, which consisted of nothing but a pack of lies based on a single report from the well-known extremist leftist SPLC, whose "facts" were so utterly wrong that they could not even get my year of birth right.

As for 'calling someone a nazi' -- anyone reading that entry I made could see that reference purely as an example of how, according to these 'rules', anyone could write anything about anybody else, anonymously, and then when that subject objected, his comments are deleted because it is his 'point of view.'

It was in that sense, and that sense alone, that the remark was made, and it is OBVIOUS from the context what was meant. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again the entry has been edited by another anonymous user repeating the lies from the SPLC (which itself heavily edited its own article on me after first claiming that I actually live in a room in the National Alliance's chairman's house -- which so was so unbelievable that not even they could continue with such an outrageously hilarious lie) and subjectively accusing me of all sorts of things.

As I said before, if you want to keep this article repeating SPLC lies, then you are under an obligation to allow me the right to refute it. If someone makes up a story about me, I have the right to refute it. Common sense and fair play demand it.

Arthur Kemp (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing, removal of sources, etc.

I do not have this page on my watchlist, but I noticed that the attempt I made to reincorporate some of the information from the Southern Poverty Law Center was removed. There was a note about this on WP:RSN to which I responded. I'm fairly certain the version that was reverted is better than the current version, so I'm going to revert back. However, if someone would like to explain exactly why we must remove any and all mentions of SPLC, please be my guest. I will note that the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. It could be that the SPLC is totally lying (I doubt it, but anyway). That doesn't matter to Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed to them and it is clear to the reader that it is their accusation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is not 'removing any reference' to the SPLC, but simply allowing me the chance to refute their subjective, and for the greatest part, invented allegations. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Removal of Refutations

All I have asked for is the right to equally refute allegations made against me. Please desist from removing these refutations. Arthur Kemp (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing the page per WP:COI. Your claim is in the appropriate section, and the claim is well referenced by a wp:rs. The fact you work for the BNP doesn't strengthen your denial. Verbal chat 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you reveal your subjectivity in the matter. As I have said repeatedly, I have not asked for the deletion of the allegations, merely equal space for refutation thereof.

I find it peculiar that you yourself put in my refutation at the bottom of the article, along with the SPLC claims, and then later add the SPLC claims once again, in the introduction, but this time seem intent on leaving out my denial. Why is that? What is your motive? Arthur Kemp (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't say "he has denied these allegations" because you haven't done. You must do it outside wikipedia and then cite where you denied them, otehrwise is constitues original thought which is not allwoed on wikipedia.--Patton^t/c 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is, if you continue editing in this manner, you will be blocked. This article isn't meant for a debate on your character. It's meant to be an accurate representation of what reliable sources say about you. SDJ 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AK, you have a COI here, and are going to get into trouble if you persist (however, you are very welcome to continue adding stuff to the talk page). That said, I think I'm on your side for the moment, on two grounds.

1. The SPLC says Arthur Kemp, a South African intelligence official in the era of apartheid, has been trying to resuscitate the neo-Nazi National Alliance in the United States. If we believe the SPLC, why aren't we reporting its claim that AK was an Int Off?
2. Why are people removing [4] the assertion that he has denied the allegations of being a WS? AK *is* a RS for his own opinions, and I think he's made it pretty clear that he does deny these allegations (no? maybe no - AK, could you clarify this please?). I don't even see why this is controversial - just about everyone except out-and-out racists would deny that.

Oh, and note: you haven't *refuted* the allegations: you have *denied* them, a very different thing.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Pat

I have removed all unsourced statements and removed an unreliable source. Arthur Kemp you are to stop editing your own article or you will be blocked. You have already crossed over into edit warring, but I am not going to block as you are a new editor and obviously confused about how Wikipedia works. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this [5] somewhat unnecessary? Its a non-controversial fact, and appears to be a good source for it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the BNP aren't generally a RS, I think for the name of their web editors we can trust them. I also think the two sentences I added to the lead summarised the article content ok. Verbal chat 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure guys, that's fine if you wish to add whatever back in etc. I didn't check who added it, just did a quick sweep over of all the stuff that seemed unreliable etc. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"knowing" people who were found guilty

Is the allegation he "knew" people who were found guilty of a crime actually proper in a BLP? Is there a possibility of "guilt by association" inherent in such a claim, no matter how it is cited? Collect (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your use of the word 'allegation' is itself suspect, but in answer to your question: Yes, it's prefectly proper. Look for other examples - there are countless cases on subjects knowing convicted criminals. Does the article on Kenneth Lay mention that George W. knew him? Is this a violation of BLP policy? Far from "guilt by association" being inherent "no matter how it is cited", it actually depends entirely on how it is cited. Emeraude (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing the reverse of this instance. An article on Lay should mention his legal troubles. In WP, by the way, "allegation" has a specific usage for any stetement which is proffered without proof other than it being written in a :reliable source." And per ArbCom: "Guilt by association 10) Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography. At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." [6]. WP:BLP "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. " Results from arbitration are about as close to "law" on WP as one can find. Collect (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right about my wrong-way-round example. However, I think it is still correct to say, in the light of your reference to WP:BLP that my comment that it depends "entirely on how it is cited" is correct and it is not right to say that such sources may never be used, as was suggested in the first place. Emeraude (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And as it is currently used, it is improper per ArbCom dicta. Collect (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

March of the Titans

Is this Arthur Kemp the same guy as this Arthur Kemp? If so, surely this should be a prominent feature of the article. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not mentioned on his blog, and not a rare name. Could be, but find a reliable source for any claim about it. Collect (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That Arthur Kemp is here: [7]. dougweller (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems dispositive of any claim, then. Meanwhile a note about the lede and another editor -- it is supposed to contain a summary of material in the body of the article -- it is not to have unsupported charges not even mentioned in the body of the article. (Not a note to Doug) Collect (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "dispositive of any claim" means, but the person in the photograph linked by dougweller appears to be exactly the same person who appears in other photographs and videos of talks. His prose style is also very similar to the Kemp whose blog is linked. The article states he has published five books. Five books by Arthur Kemp are listed here [8] . March of the Titans is one of them. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists of books on such sites do not mean the author is the same - only that the name matches (sigh). Seems that the search engine does not keep info to separate people with the same name, so the results are not a source for any such claim. Nor is the search complete. Sorry. Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your sigh is rather petty and unhelpful, but what is most problematic is the fact that you seem less interested in the truth than in wikilawyering. We should be concerned with identifying the truth here not with trying to evade it. It seems very very likely that this is the same person. We should be about building knowledge not trying to hide it. Are you interested in finding good evidence or not? By the way, the site in question is not a "search engine" it's is an author site, wholly different from searching "Arthur Kemp" on, say, Amazon. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of verifiable cites. A search engine which searches for name matches is not a "people match" reliable source. And the site you give does searches, and also allows wiki-style entries -- which is what your ref appears to be. I could edit it and say he was a blue transvestite <g> which means it still fails any WP standards. Did you note that you could easily edit his entry? Collect (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep explaining the obvious about what search engines are, as if that were relevant. They are tools for finding information. We judge the relevance of information found in that same way we do with other sources. My very first post made it clear that I was aware of the obvious fact that there is more than one Arthur Kemp in the world. Please stop repeating the obvious. The author page on Good Reads is a personal page. Any author can create one, but it is clear evidence that a person calling himself Arthur Kemp says that all these books are his own. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this Arthur Kemp is the author of March of the Titans. However this page has been gutted by wikilawering. That's why I raised the issue here instead of adding material straght away. I was hoping that other editors might help to build reliable evidence. Judjing by your tendency to use legalese, I assume that you are a member of the legal profession. May I suggest that what we need is rather more an inquisatorial than an adversarial approach? Paul B (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

{ud}A blog, admittedly, but it looks as though they are one and the same [9]. The Guardian makes it clear that our Arthur Kemp is a member of the BNP.[10] and [11]. Searchlight mentions March of the Titans [12]. What else do we need? dougweller (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Find a specific cite for the claim per WP:OR and WP:SYN. So far none has been given. Collect (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, what claim? dougweller (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

March of the Titans is bizarre. Kemp claims that anyone not British is basically part black since ancient times. Kemp forgets that the Romans for 500 years brought their black slaves to England, he just leaves that out of his book. Kemp is a real nut case. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Romans had African troops, but there's no reason to assume that they were slaves, or that they were black. However, black or not, their genetic contribution would have been utterly tiny. This page should not be for refuting March of the Titans, but it should include it. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kemp does not consider it tiny, his book makes a good deal of it in other areas where the Romans were, why not England too. Fair is fair. - And Romans of course had slaves as well as soldiers. 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course they had slaves, but slavery was not based on race in Roman culture. The overwhelming majority of slaves were white. Paul B (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

new article tags

The article has been tagged as needing a longer lede, that the article needs third-party sources, that it needs additional verifiable sources, that the article needs expansion, and that a "self-published source" should not be used.

There is some doubt as to whether the person is sufficiently notable for an article in the first place. The lede currently accurately represents the contents of the article in summary fashion, and does not include material which is not in the article. The material in the article is all currently sourced, although the "self-published source" is used only for a denial of an attack. The reference as used makes it clear that Kemp's denial is on his personal website, and is unlikely to confuse any reader.

As for "third party sources" - they abound here compared with many articles about not very notable people. Collect (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ostara Publications

Only published Kemp's books - well, sells them at least, Lulu self-publishes them.[13] dougweller (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is relevant for what reason when we already note the author published them?Collect (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the author published them is ambiguous, it could just be clumsy wording. There is no reason why we can't be specific about lulu.com (which I've put back in). Ostara seems to be just the name of his site on lulu, it doesn't publish his books. And 5 seems in error. dougweller (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems his website claimed 5 -- it is not a bone of contention. Meanwhile it is against policy to make parenthetical claims about a site being blacklisted as spam. Let's try to make this an honest NPOV article as far as possible. Collect (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely nothing in policy about my explaining why Wikipedia won't let me put the full url in a reference - it is blacklisted by Wikipedia, that is not a secret. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty for pointing out why I couldn't include the full url. I've replaced published with self-published to make it clear, and changed five because I can find more than 5 books by him that he is selling. Meanwhile I am waiting for a reply to my question in the section above. dougweller (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to mention the site at all -- but saying it is blacklisted as spam is not NPOV. Note also that WP is not allowed as RS for any WP articles either. Collect (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

avoiding OR

Per WP:OR claims about the book should reflect third party sources. Using the list of chapters to make a claim about the book is SYN and OR. Collect (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. The contents of books can properly be summarised without transgressing OR. Paul B (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it is not "summarising" the book. The "race mixed with non-white blood" is not found in the chapter titles or summaries. "By the presence of the Roman Empire" is not supported by the wording on the web-site. As the website is not RS for anything more than (at absolute most) the material on the website, any inferences from it are OR and SYN. Kemp may be despicable, but we can not violate WP policies to hit him harder. I can not actually even prove Kemp has anything to do with the site as it is registered under a Dutch company. Nor have I found any definitive proof that the Arthur Kemp is the only Arthur Kemp from South Africa. Collect (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The website is legitimate as a source for its contents in an article on its author. Regarding its theories, which are legitimately within the category of WP:FRINGE, it is clear policy that such sites can be used to describe the theories they contain. This includes NPOV summaries, which are normal practice. It is found in articles on other fringe authors, including other so-called "white nationalists". There is no actual dispute that this Arthur Kemp is author of March of the Titans, which is repeatedly cited by members of the BNP. This is not about 'hitting' Kemp, but about providing basic information about him which is currently being suppressed. One learns almost nothing from this article. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As non RS, it can be cited for what it specifically says at most, not for what one desires to imfer from it. In the case at hand, the site does not say what was imputed to it. I found no sign of it being sold on the BNP site, which means that part was unsupported. There is more than enough here to condemn Kemp's positions without pushing the WP policies. As to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is a remarkably weak argument. This is a BLP, and must conform to that policy. Collect (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but what is says can be properly summarised. I am not sure what is "imputed to it" that it does not say. You will have to specific. NPOV summarising inevitably means that some complexities of arguments will be lost. This is true of summaries of any text or viewpoint. It is certainly sold by the BNP, but it is not, as far as I know, marketed through its website. I do wish you would not quote policies that have already been shown to be irrelevant. Citing OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant to an explanation of how Wikipedia actually works. Paul B (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The material in the claim did not fit what was on the webpage. If you stick to precise quotes, you should be safe. And I would suggest the average reader can darn well figure out what sort of person he is from the material already here. Collect (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Constant Vandalization of Article

This article has become the target of constant vandalization by 66.194.104.5 who is also known to Wikipedia users as a disruptive influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alvestrand/POV-history by inserting lines which have nothing to do with the subject and which are merely pushing his own POV on the topic of racial mixing in Classical Rome and Greece. He has now resorted to outright lies in this effort. For example, one of the irrelevant lines he has inserted into this article reads as follows: "Agreeing with Kemp's claims are Afrocentrist works such as Martin Bernal's book Black Athena whose thesis is that Blacks built Ancient Greece." Kemp argues nothing of the sort: in fact he argues that whites built ancient Greece, not blacks. This is obvious from both Bernal and Kemp's books. He is engaging in deliberate distortions and lies, and needs to be prevented from further vandalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.229.242 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia does not allow slander of living persons, and Alvestrand never positively identified 66.194.104.5. Second, that contributor simply pointed out that Afrocentrists do indeed have some common ground with Kemp. Both believe there was significant African presence in Europe.

Encyclopedia Britannica Contradicts Kemp

The following is well sourced and must be included by Wikipedia rules, where there in the article where Kemp listed the sources that supposedly agree with him: Contradicting Kemp's claims is the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for Slavery in Ancient Greece, which states that Athens' slaves were of Aegean origin. [18] from Britannica 2005, p.290, vol.27 66.194.104.5 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably much better suited for an article on the book in itself, rather than in the BLP where I have doubts about the amount of space already devoted to the book. Collect (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

KEMP INSERTED SOURCES AGREEING WITH HIM, SO CONTRARY SOURCES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You need an RS for any claims you wish to have in the article. And the claims must be remotely relevant to the BLP. Collect (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kemp´s book "March of the Titans" has a chapter about the decline of Portugal due to aleedged "race-mixing" with black slaves. The following web site refutes his white supremacist theories. http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp I suggest it be added to the links as it represents a well documented critique of Kemp´s race centred theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.129.150 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Kemp Left South Africa

According to the SPLC, Arthur Kemp testified to South African police that two white comrades had killed a black man, and the two comrades both got life sentences thanks to Kemp. Fearing punishment by other white comrades who then despised him, Kemp fled to Britain, where he now works for the BNP. All this is in the footnote 11 of reporter Heidi Beirich, but it belongs in the article proper, not simply buried in the footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.157.50 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kemp's research not peer reviewed

Added the following, Kemp's research was never published in any peer reviewed scientific journal. It is impossible to disprove a negative and this is necessary for perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.157.50 (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can not find an RS which makes that observation, it can not be used here. See WP:RS and WP:V Collect (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

Can someone explain if there's a good reason for this? --Yuma (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it comes down to whether the Intelligence Report, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a reliable source. Given that the Report has won journalism awards, my inclination is yes, although the follow-on question is whether they are neutral. I'm inclined to restore the text (except for the uncited comment at the bottom of the article which was also deleted). —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Be advised that SPLC report on the subject has already undergone several major edits by the SPLC staff, after the original report was exposed as containing a series of outrageous lies, including the laughable allegation that the subject actually lived in a spare room at the National Alliance chairman's house in Ohop (actually the subject lives in the United Kingdom). As a result, in this particular instance, the SPLC report has been shown to be a pack of lies, and the allegations contained therein can not in any way be regarded as accurate. As such, quoting from that report is contrary to Wikipedia's BLP policy, and must be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.144.129 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Who exposed the "outrageous lies" in question? Knowing that would allow us to evaluate the claim and then remove the statements, once disproven. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The refutation has already been sources in the article itself. Please see the entry under the "criticism" section. For your information, the reference is http://www.arthurkemp.com/?m=200712 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.144.129 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Report looks like a reliable source of information about hate groups and hate crimes. --Yuma (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And unless the content on arthurkemp.com points to articles elsewhere, that is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is not a reliable source. They've changed that article at least six times since initial publication, each time substantially changing so-called facts therein. Does this mean if I put up an article about you which contains blatant lies that I can then quote it as a reference on Wikipedia? If you and Wikipedia are interested in pursuing this in a court of law, then continue on this path. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.200.237 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

SPLC was previously deemed a reliable source in this case. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Southern Poverty Law Center. Nothing there says they can't be mentioned in this article.

If anything, the content there suggests that the IPs are on the same agenda as Arthur Kemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider SPLC a RS only for their own opinion, just as arthurkemp.com is only usable as a source for what it says as opinion. I do not particularly like Arthur Kemp one whit, but any BLP must conform to reasonable standards, and the SPLC material does not so conform. Collect (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this revision you just made has clarified that it's SPLC's opinion that he left South Africa for the asserted reasons. That wording works by me. —C.Fred (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Court Records: Kemp Testified against his comrades

Here are the court records proving that Kemp testified against his comrades, see lines 20-21:

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1994/189.html

This testimony of Kemp is what put Kemp's friends into prison for life.

The SPLC is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

removed unprovable allegations and insults.12.184.176.57 (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

All the court records show is that Kemp confirmed what the accused had already told the investigators, and that the third accused, Mrs gaye Debry-Lewis, was acquitted because of Kemp's testimaonty. A quick reading of the sourced material will prove this to be accurate.

There is therefore no justification for the allegation as made in this seciton heading, and it is clearly contrary to BLP policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no excuse for Kemp's testifying against his comrades.67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the law required him to testify? And that his testimony exonerated one of the defendants? Collect (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The two men both got life in prison. Kemp could have said he didn't remember. He didn't have to go into detail about exactly just how they were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

When a person is called to testify, law says he must testify. Would you say "except when you do not want to testify"? Collect (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He volunteered the information about exactly what they said,he did not have to do that, he could have not volunteered that detail, read the court documents, he clearly went into unnecessary detail to incriminate them, the SPLC says he cooperated to save himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Court records" are "primary sources" by WP policy. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:NOR They are clearly not properly used at this point in the article. Collect (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The court records clearly show that Kemp did not testify to anything which the Derby-Lewis's had already not told the police, and furthermore that his evidence secured the acquittal of one of the accused. The accusation by user 67.79.157.50 is obviously untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is no excuse that the police 'already knew'. Kemp confirmed it to the court that both Walus and Lewis were involved in the murder, it is clearly there on lines 20-21 of the court records, and there is no getting around that. Kemp's confirming testimony was nails in the coffin. Kemp never addresses the contents of lines 20-21 in the court record, he chooses to simply forget them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Exact Wording: Quote

Read Heidi Beirich's article for the SPLC, she states precisely that Kemp gave 'testimony against the Derby-Lewises'. It is exact wording, and conveys information that is in fact nowhere else in this wikipedia article.67.79.157.50 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that in the section "Continuous Removal of Refutations" above, the point was made by William M. Connolley at 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC) as follows: "1. The SPLC says Arthur Kemp, a South African intelligence official in the era of apartheid, has been trying to resuscitate the neo-Nazi National Alliance in the United States. If we believe the SPLC, why aren't we reporting its claim that AK was an Int Off?"

The point being that continous selective quoting from the SPLC article is clearly contrary to Wikipedia BLP policy, especially when it is based on unprovable assertions from a poltically baised source such as the SPLC.

Either ALL the allegations are reproduced, and Kemp is allowed equal space to refute them all, or none are reproduced, and the article is linked and Kemp's refutation is linked, as was the case before the present set of vandallization took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You must follow wikipedia rules, wikipedia goes by SOURCES and you cannot simply delete the contents of sources from the articles simply because you disagree with the sources. You must supply your own sources to quote from. Stop vandalizing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The allegation that Kemp left South Africa after testifying in the Hani trial is obviosuly untrue: the trial was in 1993, and Kemp moved muhc later than that. 2. The SPLC author Beirich has made an assertion based on zero facts. She has never interviewed any persons in South Africa to back this allegation, and has simply made it up. 3. Given Kemp's political views, it is far more likely that he left South Africa because he did not want to live under an ANC government. 4. It is contrary to Wiki BLP policy to quote opinions, even if referenced. There is therefore no reason to include obviously poltically biased opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually opinions of a specified author are allowed as long as properly attributed as opinion. Problems occur, however, when facts and opinions are conmingled in a single statement, which certainly appears to be the case here. Collect (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Kemp is lying. Mrs.Lewis testified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearing that Kemp had already left the country. Also, Kemp is upset on his blog that all these documents about him are on display on the site resist.com in the section 'news and views' of April 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User 72.15.212.126 is clearly motivated by personal bias as evident from the comment above, and is vandalizing this article to suit a personal political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Note "resist.com" is not within a mile of being a "reliable source" for anything on WP. Collect (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What is important is not the site but the South African documents displayed there.

Kemp's damaging testimony

Kemp writes on his blog I provided the court with no evidence which the Derby-Lewis couple had not already given to the police. The truth however is quite the contrary: Kemp's damaging testimony got Lewis and Walus into deep trouble. Kemp testified that the Lewises told him Walus would not talk. This was thrown at poor Mrs.Lewis at the amnesty hearings of December 1, 1997:

MR BIZOS: I want to take you to the bottom of page 693 of your evidence - before I do that, was Mr Kemp assured - in your presence, that he must not worry because Walus would not talk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don’t recall that, he testified to that fact but I don’t recall it.

MR BIZOS: Who testified to that fact?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp.

And later Mr.Bizos refers to Kemp as a material witness. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since any witness is a "material witness" pretty much if they are not an "expert witness" and since Kemp provided the "list" in court, the whole part above is joyfully unimportant. Collect (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The importance is that it proves Kemp did in fact supply information not supplied by the Lewises, contrary to Kemp's above claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article notes that Kemp says the SPLC is wrong. What are "Kemp's above claims" that you do not like in the article? Collect (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Was in reference to Kemp's repeated claims that he never told the police anything the Lewises had not already told the police- clearly a false claim by Kemp, look at Mr.Bizos questioning of Mrs. Lewis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User 67.79.157.50 has demonstrated amply to readers of this page what his "sources" (resist.com) and others are, and his motivation in continously introducing material contrary to established BLP policy. How much more evidence do we need as to his motivation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.202.63 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My sources are the court records and Truth and Reconciliation transcripts - both excellent sources. (unsigned) Please sign using 4 tildes.

See WP:RS etc. Primary sources are rarely allowed in any WP article. Collect (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The South African documents confirm the SPLC, the documents were sent to Metzger from someone back in South Africa who knows about Kemp's past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification in selective "cherry picking" quotations from the SPLC article, which is itself suspect as a politcally motivated POV. As discussed earlier on this page, the SPLC makes a large number of allegations about the subject. Why then only pick out one or two and hihglight them, while ignoring the rest? Especially when a review of the history of the article in question shows that the SPLC have altered it more than six times, each time cutting out another part which was so far fetched that not even they could maintain it. The article is referenced as a POV criticism, and the subject's response is referenced as a POV rebuttal. It is not necessary to expand upon in the BLP, and selective, politically motivated subjective allegations are specifically disallowed under Wiki BLP policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.206.243 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is selected because it is a professional conclusion pertinent to an important event in Kemp's biography, and the SPLC is a standard wikipedia reference. Also, Kemp on his blog very stupidly promoted a site which exposes Kemp by exhibiting the South African documents regarding Kemp's court testimony, Kemp is no doubt sorry his testimony is permanent court record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.212.126 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article

Possible new source: BNP's attempt to gain first European seat aided by man linked to ANC leader's killer guardian.co.uk Verbal chat 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually has no new information not already covered in the article. Use for "guilt by association" is not BLP stuff. Collect (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It also covers his work for the BNP, which I remember did have referencing problems. There may be other useful information. Verbal chat 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We found a source for him running the website etc. earlier. Collect (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New research from the SPLC regarding Kemp http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/05/06/transnational-white-supremacist-arthur-kemp-slammed-online/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.129.150 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A blog entry about posts from a person claiming to be Kemp's son is not RS, and has nothing of relevance to this BLP at all. BTW, blogs are not "research." Collect (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It shows SPLC standard and credibility. What is the point of this "research"? A person claiming to be Kemp's son in some blog comment. Maybe he really is but is information that Kemp has low-bred pubescent son notable for Wikipedia? --94.112.226.47 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blind items" in blogs are not "reliable sources" for contentious marterial in a BLP

Note: sources which do not actually use names are not valid for making contentious claims in a BLP. Referring to "A" is insufficient for making a contious claim about Arthur Kemp. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kemp's claim of 'non-white' is unsupported

Kemp's abundant sources which record foreigners in Rome are true, but they were not 'non-white' as Kemp claims in his irresponsible and sloppy style. Kemp mistakes the word 'Orientals' for non-whites. 'Orientals' refer to Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople) Greeks essentially, not non-whites. It is said that Greek became the majority language in Rome. There were some Syrians but 'Syrians' were not non-white and the Romans even stationed some Syrian troops as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Kemp is the only one who misuses the term 'non-white'; none of Kemp's academic sources use that term at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And all of this stuff is actually nicely irrelevant to the biography at hand. At least it is now so muddy no reader will actually think it means anything at all. Collect (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kemp's Quotes of Prof. Frank are Inaccurate

Arthur Kemp truncates phoney quotes of Prof. Tenny Frank, and Kemp simply leaves out the beginning and end of Frank's article where Frank admits that the evidence for races in Rome is questionable and uncertain :

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

This is the 'rest' of Frank's quote, that Kemp leaves out ! from: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html

I suggest this quote be added to the article, and all the rest of the out of context quotes be deleted and simply then all be referred to: See also Decline of the Roman Empire.

Kemp loaded the article with obscure early twentieth century sources from the Ku Klux Klan era, these sources are not standard sources, and are unacceptable for wikipedia.

Also, A.M. Duff is completely unknown and not 'famous' as Kemp claims. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kemp Has Made Many Mistakes...

Kemp knows he's made errors but he can't change his book now; Kemp lost his whole family, so he can't now also admit to what are obvious mistakes in his 'book', because he'd have nothing else left. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the Talk page? Collect (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Neutrality ?

The article makes it sound like Italians are negroids.

This quote of Prof. Tenny Frank should be at the very top of the article !

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html 173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Iterating stuff not intended to improve the BLP is not helpful. Collect (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote should be included, it negates all the others. Kemp omitted it on purpose to give a false image, he left it out. Wikipedia should not leave it out. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Rome Never Fell

The Roman Empire simply transferred its capital to Constantinople. This should be placed in the article, it negates Kemp's claims completely.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Of_The_Roman_Empire#The_West_demoted_to_the_periphery 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Curiously enough, this is a biography. All the other stuff is pretty much irrelevant. WP has articles on Constantinople etc. And oversimplifying the history of the Roman Empire does not belong in this article at all. Collect (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe what you just said, then remove all of Kemp's inserted Ku Klux Klan quotes. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I found no KKK quotes -- but shall check if any are cited in the article. A huge amount of useless prattle is now in the article. Collect (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove it all. It is simply quotes from the 1920's, the KKK era. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You made an assertion that the quotes were from the KKK-- if they are not, then you wasted my time. WP is not a place to make such accusations when you do not have anything to back them up. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If You allow quotes of Frank then use this one

If you are allowing quotes from Prof. Frank then add this one, for perspective, it is Frank's qualifying remark:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

'world famous historians'

why do you allow nonsense claims like this ? 'world famous historians', what a joke ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not "my" article. Other editors have made all these edits, and unless you establish a consensus for making chages, they are likely to just revert changes. Collect (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Something Wrong with Wikipedia's Administrators ?

Wikipedia Administrators know that "parenthetical editorial does not belong in article" so why are they not deleting any of it ? 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask an admin to drop in. Collect (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are one. You wrote that " parenthetical editorial does not belong in article ", so why do you not remove it all ? 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "administrator" has a special significance in WP. See WP:ADMIN Collect (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop playing games. You are the one who wrote "parenthetical editorial does not belong in article" and you are able to make changes to the text. Do it. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

None of Kemp's sources say "non-white"

None of Kemp's sources say "non-white", as Kemp claims. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source which makes that statement. WP is not a place for us to insert our opinions or findings as such, but a place to cite sources which make statements. Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No historian would bother to write about kemp. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you do not have a WP:RS for a claim, then the claim can not be put in. See also WP:BLP. This is how WP works. Collect (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"non-white" is only Kemp's word, the quoted respectful historians should not be painted as confirming that word. - None of those quotes describe Constantinople's "Oriental" Eastern Roman Empire as " non-white ", as Kemp is inferring by inserting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Your main problem is WP policies and guidelines. Google finds over six thousand books using the term "non-white", and well over a million web pages. Hundreds of current news articles, to boot. So asserting the term is in any way unusual is not likely to work. Collect (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the particular sources quoted in this here article. None of them say "non-white", as inferred by Kemp's inserting them. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are any quotations faked? If so, which precise quotes are made improperly? Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are out of context. The quotes are simply referring to the Eastern Roman Empire, and not to "non-whites" as Kemp is inferring by inserting them. "Oriental" in context simply meant Eastern Roman Empire. It is misleading to infer they were referring to "non-whites" as Kemp is inferring by inserting them. They should therefore be deleted as out of context. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in saying that you do not like the article, but that you can not point to cites for your specific claims, and that no quotes in the article are faked? BTW, "Byzantine Empire" is also a proper term, and it appears Kemp's primary thesis regards the Italian "fall of Rome" and not with tthe Byzantine decay. The quotes in this article which you dispute in fact uniformly refer to "Italy" and "Rome" making the thesis that they are about the Byzantine Empire untenable. Collect (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of context is the same as faked. Also, in these quotes the decay of Rome is being blamed on Easterners (Byzantium) but who were not "non-whites" as Kemp infers by inserting these quotes.Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk)

For clarification and correctness I would add the following sentence to the end of the article: However, none of these quotes regarding newcomers state that they were " non-white ", as Kemp claims. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Such a claim is OR in and of itself. (WP:NOR) Unless, of course, you can find a reliable source making that precise claim. And since you can not say any quotes are "faked" and since the cites for them are clearly given, you do not have WP policy on your side. Collect (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I would add the following sentence to the end of the article: However, in none of these quotes is found the word " non-white ". No one could possibly deny that simple statement. Otherwise these quotes in this context are misleading. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the WP guidelines about claims. As you do not seem willing to produce a cite for your claim, it is unlikely that iterating it will suddenly change the WP rules. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but let's remove all of the quotes that have no relevance, see next section here below. Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

March of the Titans

I suggest removing the part of this section that begins "However, Kemp’s claims...is supported by a number of acclaimed and world famous historians." None of these historians were commenting on Kemp's book so they have no relevance to the article. The statement that they support his claims is WP:OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources support Kemp, whose thesis is that Rome was " filled up with non-whites ". None of those sources even mention non-whites. The only source that bears upon Kemp is a man whom Kemp cites in his book, Professor Tenny Frank who in fact explicitly cautions against speculating on the racial make up of ancient Rome:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

from: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter that someone expresses similar views, no matter how esteemed that person is. Their views belong in their articles not here. Unless Tenny Frank was commenting on the book March of the Titans including them here is violation of WP:SYN. We cannot analyze Kemp's book here just provide commentary from published sources. Is there some book review you know of that we could quote? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Frank is relevant because Kemp's book references him. As for book reviews, no newspaper would even bother to review Kemp's book. Prof.Frank's quote which I have cited is perfectly relevant here. But I agree that none of the other quotes are pertinent and should be removed, I agree.Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If Kemp drew inspiration from the writings of Tenny Frank, then mention it. But when you say ""However, Kemp’s claims...is supported by a number of acclaimed and world famous historians" you are expressing an opinion that is not found in any reliable source. Please read the policy WP:SYN. By the way Kemp was written about in UK newspapers recently when he ran as a BNP candidate.[14][15] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write that about "world famous historians", it was Kemp who added that - and wikipedia's administrators such as "Collect" are letting it be there - wikipedia is protecting Kemp, very curious indeed. And wikipedia has blocked the article so no one can remove the nonsense. As for English newspapers, none will review Kemp's amateurish book. "Collect" is allowing Kemp to write in the article that "world famous historians" agree with him - that is a blatant violation of wiki rules and "Collect" is allowing it ! Contributions/173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the section. Let me be clear. WP:OR states Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. The claim that Kemp's ideas are supported by some historians is not found in any published source, and can only be made by someone reading both Kemp's and Frank's writings and forming a conclusion. The fact that Frank died before Kemp was born makes it impossible that he formed any opinion on Kemp's book. Reference to writings that are presented in support of this view should also be deleted. Similarly criticism of the views should be avoided unless they are from published sources.

Because the book was self-published and never reviewed I question whether its contents should be discussed at any length, and welcome any comments on that matter.

If anyone restores this deleted material I will submit an RfC

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, in faact, more that you could trim. I am unconvinced that any of the content of the book is really relevant considering the rest of the BLP. If you check, you will note that I repeatedly tried deleting such useless stuff in this article in the past <g>. Kemp is likely despicable, but BLP is the governing issue here. Collect (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I reduced information about the book to what can be verified in reliable third party sources, in this case The Guardian and The Independent. As they provide little detail I have moved mention of the book to the section immediately above so that the book no longer has its own section. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the claims so each source's claim is identified properly. Neither one appears to conform with a claim of international popularity, however. Guardian has the Holocaust cite, Independent has him in BNP headquarters. Collect (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed details about the reasons for Kemp leaving the Conservative Party, because there are no reliable third-party sources for this. Please refer to WP policy.[16] The Four Deuces (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a very important bit in any case. It has been in a while, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Quote that Kemp Omits

Arthur Kemp's book contains references to Professor Tenny Frank. However, Professor Tenny Frank explicitly cautions against speculating on the racial make up of ancient Rome:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." [12] - Tenny Frank

Kemp loves to quote Tenny Frank, but Kemp simply omits this one ! 173.169.90.98 (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed here repeatedly. The outcome of the discussion is the same. You are simply verging on abuse of the talk page. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Original version of story

After all the edits the article Arthur Kemp now has very little data. I suggest that we restore the original version.[17] The Four Deuces (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Original was a BLP nightmare. The current version, such as it is, is not. Collect (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore his denial -- it was thoroughly discussed on several noticeboards, and removal would be contrary to the consensus reached in the past. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored it. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP violations

SPLC is a worldwide anti-white hate group.

I reverted the section because it was a BLP violation. Can I make myself anymore clear?--MonglerOfRocks (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise some outside input here; clearly other editors disagree with you. This edit-warring should not continue, especially since you are now on the reversion limit. Try seeking advice here. Rodhullandemu 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For the opinion of the SPLC on Kemp to have a place in this article it must have been reliably published, which a search on Google News and NewsBank shows it has not been. Leaving the section in the article would give their opinion undue weight. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Either sort this issue out here, or seek dispute resolution. Meanwhile, I've fully protected the article for a week. The BLP noticeboard should be the first port of call for any interested editor, which I am not. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You have protected the article after the anonymous IP removed the criticism section. I question whether this article requires full protection or semi-protection. The onus to go to WP:BLP should be on the IP rather than all the editors who have challenged his edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There now a posting on the BLP noticeboard [18] and the whole issue has already been discussed at WP:RS [19]. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the editor in question has started a thread on WP:BLPN and it seems there is consensus for this being reliably sourced, I will unlock the article. Any protection, of course, is always to the WP:WRONGVERSION. Rodhullandemu 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No source refutes the Independent

The Independent called Kemp a key witness, and there is no published source which refutes that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.222.5 (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is however clear from the evidence presented in the court case that Kemp was a minor witness. Key witnesses were the two eye witnesses to the shooting, the people who provided the firearm and the silencer, and the confessions of the two main accused themselves. Kemp on the other hand, only testified about a list of names drawn up by the wife of one of the accused, and nothing at all about the actual assassination. It is therefore obvious that this "key witness" claim has been inserted incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Independant is a major published reference which must be included. The Independant examined the court records and reported that Arthur Kemp, told the court that over lunch at the Derby-Lewises on 12 April, two days after the assassination of the South African Communist Party leader, Mrs Derby-Lewis had admitted to her involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.171 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Independent (not the Independant) article has no place in the 'criticism' section (the fact that 67.79.142.171 places it there is an indication of that poster's malicious intent). In any event, as proven above, Kemp was not a 'key witness' by any standard - - that title belongs with the really important witnesses already named in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I moved it back to the other section for you. The Independant is a major source, it must be included here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.178 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from the evidence in court that Kemp was not a "key witness" and this incorrect report is therefore irrelevant. Or are you suggesting that the main accused, eye witnesses to the shooting and the testimoney of people who handled the firearm is more important than someone who testified about a list which he did not even draw up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What I believe or you believe matters not; Wikipedia operates only by major published references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.179 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A full list of state witnesses, extracted from the official South African records and fully referenced, has been inserted. A false claim in one newspaper is not more weighty than the official verfiable records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to you to pick and chose the sources; all proper major published references belong in wikipedia. Also, there are too many details of the trial here, which only serve as a smokescreen. We should only be concerned here with the trial as it relates specifically to Kemp; the article here is about Mr.Kemp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing the Independant which is a proper source

Wikipedia should seal this article with the Independant source being included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The official records, as referenced in this article, are a far more reliable source than a second hand account in a newspaper.

Furthermore, it is clear, from referenced sources already used in this article, that Kemp was not a 'key witness'.

There were eye witnesses to the shooting; witnesses who described the source and handling of the firearm, and statement confessions from the main accused.

The Independant is going by the court records. That is what newspapers do. Kemp fried his former comrades in front of the court. This wikipedia article is concerning Kemp's involvement, not all those others. Court records show what Kemp did, the Independant published it; wikipedia must include it.67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the light of the evidence presented by the official records, which show that Kemp's testimony had nothing to do with the actual murder, it is totally false to claim that he was a 'key witness'. The official court records from South Africa take precedence over a journalist's second had account.

Even the use of the phrase 'fried' by the poster above, shows that there is a malicious purpose behind inserting this false claim.

Court records clearly show Kemp testified that Mrs.Lewis admitted her involvement in the murder, that is what the Independent states.67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. Mrs Derby-Lewis never admitted her involvement to anyone. She was acquitted precisely because she never admitted her guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not what Kemp testified. The Independant reported what happened, and not you. sir. Stop omitting sources.67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The official records show that Mrs Derby-Lewis did not admit guilt to anything. She merely confirmed that the list which Kemp had given her had ended up with Walusz. This is what the official records show, as referenced in the article. It is simply untrue to allege otherwise.

The Independant says what happened, not you. wikipedia goes by sources. 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable source is the official court records, as referenced in this article.

proper sources interpret the court records, not you. 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalist did not consult "court records" as they were not available at the time he wrote his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.48.61 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reporters are present at the proceedings. 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to Halt Malicious Vandalism

Editors at Wikipedia are asked to intervene in the latest editing dispute. Essentially the question is what consitutes a more reliable source: official court records, or a second hand newspaper story. The court records must take precedence.

proper sources interpret the court records, not you. Independant must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Independent journalist did not quote official court records, as they were not available at the time the article was written. Official records are only made available once the trial is completed.

The Independant court reporter was there. Wikipedia should protect this article including all sources. 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

verifiability requires that we use reliable sources. The Independent is a reliable source. A Wikipedia editor claiming the court records contradict that is not. Rd232 ^talk 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please protect this article

please protect this article including the proper source of the Independant. 67.79.142.179 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected for 3 days. Both editors reminded of three revert rule, and of venues like WP:BLPN if you can't sort it out alone. If edit warring persists when the protection expires, I'll come down hard on edit warring, which does not require exceeding 3 reverts. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris Hani trial

Does anyone else feel that the trial section in the article is much too long? This version of the article is more concise. I think we should revert back to that and then discuss what changes to make. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Chris Hani section does not belong in this article at all, because this article is not about Chris Hani or even about the trial. A one sentence mention that Kemp was a witness at the trial would be sufficient. Risker (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have cut the Chris Hani mention back to a sentence, and reverted the rest as noted above. Kevin (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hani Trial is an important aspect of this BLP and deserves fuller mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.72.72 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Details of the Hani trial belong in a completely separate Wikipedia article. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Need for Factual Content

This BLP suffers from a serious lack of factual content. Currently it consists of a collection of spurious and obviously politically motivated allegations. Wikipedia BLP policy states clearly that entries should be of a neutral and factual nature, and not be a repository for tabloid-style sensationalism. The changes being inserted now fulfill these requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.121.20 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the SPLC cannot be regarded as a neutral reference for its political opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.121.20 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates by sources, and does not reinterpret them as you are trying to do. 173.169.90.98 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

More information on March of The Titans

Much more should be included on MOTT than just it's holocaust revisionism. The book is a work of hardcore nordicist pseudo-history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.1.91 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This article must rely primarily on reliable secondary sources, like articles in mainstream media. If you can find any then more information may be added. However the information added must reflect what is in those sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

British writer and historian

An editor continues to include Kemp in the categories British writer and British historian. Could you please provide RS that either is accurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Just a note that the policy on biographies of living people also applies to this talk page, and that discussions here must remain focussed on improving the article. Random speculation based on blogs and other user submitted media is not acceptable. Kevin (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic Credentials

A listing of Mr. Kemp´s academic credentials would be useful for the public to acertain the true value and credibility of his historical research and theories. Does he have an academic background in history? What is his level of education? Have any of his works been published in any peer-reviewed publication or have they all been self-published or published by neo-nazi organizations? This information, which is indeed quite fundamental when the biographical article in question is of a self-described historian, would enrich the article and provide enough information to the public so as to permit a serious evaluation of his writings´ credibility and value as historical reserach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.197.73 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kemp and Harvey

Should this article make reference to Kemp's relations with Alan Harvey? Kemp wrote for Harvey's racist hate-sheet South African Patriot during the 80's See for example 'Rogues Gallery' article by Harvey reproduced on blog and attended his wedding (like Kemp Harvey would leave his wife and child in South Africa). Harvey would join Kemp in the South African Conservative Party. When Kemp came to Britain in 1996 Harvey was there to meet him. Later, they had an acrimonious falling out at the beginning of the century, Harvey blaming Kemp for the arrest of Clive Derby-Lewis. Harvey has edited the Kemp article [here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.135.143 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Revision of Article

This article violates several Wiki BLP policies and is little more than a politically motivated attack on the subject.

It contains almost no actual data about the subject, and is largely a collection of attacks on him by political opponents.

As such, the article needs to be revised in its entirety.

Here follows a proposed draft: discussion is invited before it is posted up.

Biography

Arthur Kemp was born in 1962 in the British colony of Southern Rhodesia, spending his formative early political years in South Africa. He has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration.

He was conscripted into the South African Police for four years -- from 1985 to 1988 -- as part of his national service obligation in South Africa, serving as a constable and a sergeant in the uniform branch stationed in Johannesburg.

After completing his national service, Kemp worked for The Citizen (South Africa) newspaper in Johannesburg and later as a journalist for the South African Conservative Party.

Kemp was expelled from the Conservative Party in 1992 for coming to the conclusion that apartheid was impracticable, indefensible and morally unjustifiable.

Kemp has also worked as an international risk consultant; as a retail market analyst for a blue chip company in the UK; and as a public relations consultant.

Having moved to the UK in 1996, Kemp is manager of Excalibur, the British National Party (BNP)'s merchandising arm and is in charge of maintaining the BNP website. He is also BNP spokesman on foreign affairs.

According to testimony from Kemp´s first ex-wife, Karen Mills, Kemp did not graduate from university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.133.17 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Books

As of August 2009, Kemp has written seven books, most of which are self published as Ostara. They are, in order of publication:

1. Victory or Violence - The Story of the AWB of South Africa (first published 1990, Forma Publishers, Pretoria. Second edition Ostara Publications, 2009). This book deals with the history, ideology and activities of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

2. March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (first published 2000 by Ostara Publications, Second edition 2001, third edition 2004, fourth edition 2006, fifth edition 2008). This book is a racial history of the European people of the world.

3. Jihad: Islam's 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation (first published 2008 by Ostara Publications). This book is a historical overview of the development of Islam and its invasions of the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe.

4. The Immigration Invasion: How Third World Immigration is Destroying the First World and What Must be Done to Stop It (first published 2008, Ostara Publications). This books deals with the extent and effect of Third World immigration into Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.

5. The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa (first published January 2009 by Ostara Publications). This book is a series of essays dealing with the apartheid, Zimbabwe, Ghandi and the author’s experiences in South Africa during the ending of apartheid.

6. Headline, The Best of BNP News Volume I, July-December 2008 (first published 2009 Ostara Publications). This is a collection of stories which appeared on the BNP’s website from July to December 2008.

7. Headline, The Best of BNP News Volume II, January-June 2009 (first published 2009 Ostara Publications). This is a collection of stories which appeared on the BNP’s website from January to July 2009.

In addition, Kemp has co-authored a 22 page booklet with Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, entitled Folk and Nation, Underpinning the Ethnostate (first published 2008 by the BNP, 22 pages).

Chris Hani Trial

In 1993 Kemp was briefly arrested and then released without charge in connection with the assassination of Chris Hani, the leader of the South African Communist Party and chief of staff of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC).

Kemp was subpoenaed to appear as a witness after one of the main suspects, Clive Derby-Lewis, gave the police Kemp's name as the person who had drawn up a list of names which was found in the apartment of the shooter, Janusz Walus. According to the South African Police, Kemp was arrested along with four other people had “on the basis of information provided by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.”

Kemp testified that he and Mrs Derby-Lewis had had nothing to do with the Hani assassination and we only cooperated with her in preparation for an article which compared the lifestyles of ANC and leftist leaders with those of their followers.

When Mrs Derby-Lewis was acquitted, the presiding judge, JA Hoexter, made specific reference to the fact that the reason she had been found not guilty was because of Kemp’s evidence in court.

Criticism

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Kemp is a white supremacist who has been active in providing some manner of support to the National Alliance in the United States, and asserts he left South Africa because he was seen to have betrayed those convicted in the murder trial of Walus and Derby-Lewis, by giving testimony against the Derby-Lewises.

Kemp dismissed these allegations as "total rubbish" on his personal website, saying they didn't even get his year of birth correct.

Language and Neutrality

There must be a way to clearly state how objectionable Kemp's views are in neutral language that does not fall into the trap of condoning his views or rendering them respectable. The fact that he understands "race" in biological terms and sees it as the dominant narrative element with which to explain history needs telling, as even his supporters must agree, since this central aspect of his thought is what attracts them to him, and since this fact is clearly stated in the title of his main self-published book and is prominent throughout the text. What makes ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngt difficult, however, is he distances himself from many elements of white supremacy, thus trying to have his cake and eat it too. If someone could lay out these clear facts, one would hope the informed reader would understand them for what they are, though it does bother me greatly that racism is allowed to hide behind the mantle of neutrality here. Has anyone got other examples of how this issue was handled on WIkipedia, whether successfully or not? Or am I to conclude that this is a fatal weakness of this crowd-sourced project? mrs (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic. The white Caucasian race is dying, and all you can do is baw about 'racism'?--Lawinpotseg (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is not up to editors to state anything at all other than what others have written in reliable sources. If we allowed such, then the whole point of "neutral point of view" would be violated everywhere on WP -- with "favored people" getting paeans, and "disfavored people" getting pains. Collect (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

References

SPLC Article

Now having had chance to read the much quoted SPLC article, and by using the Wayback Internet Archive, it is obvious that the SPLC article has undergone at least three major rewrites since it first appeared. Given its nature, the changes to it and the overtly "political character assassination" nature of the article, I doubt very much that it can be used as a RS, and am inclined to delete it completely.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, correcting errors is a sign of a reliable source. The SPLC is a sufficient source, but its assertions should be attributed due to its bias.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC has been challenged many, many times, but they are a reliable source. TFD (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure. For example, if the SPLC had to allege that Senator John McCain used to work for the CIA, without providing any evidence whatsoever, would we allow such a reference on Wikipedia? I doubt it. The same scenario applies here. The SPLC has alleged that Kemp worked for the "Apartheid South African intelligence service" but provides no proof whatsoever. This is a serious allegation, and should be substantiated before being allowed into a BLP. I am still of the opinion that such unsubstantiated allegations should be deleted from BLPs otherwise it will open a free-for-all for anyone to allege anything about anyone else. without having to provide proof. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't require sources to provide sources. If we did there'd be no end to it. The "substantiation" is the SPLC. If it's a reliable source, as it's often been deemed before, then that's sufficient. Note that we aren't saying that the subject actually did these things. Instead, we're saying that the SPLC has said these things, which is demonstrably true.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources notice board. In the meantime, the SPLC is a reliable source for the far right. TFD (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is RS for the opinions of the SPLC. Collect (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate. Can you please provide a source for an alternative view of the far right. TFD (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are myriads of sources on political movements. There is no reason that I can see why I should specify one in the context of this section at all. What is clear from the RSN discussions in the past is that SPLC opinions are citable as opinions. Just like all sources which are based on opinions. Collect (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think they are not reliable for facts and what source(s) you consider reliable. Please disclose whether you have had any personal issues with them. TFD (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal - but read the RSN discussions from the past concerning SPLC. I would note, by the way, that WP:BLP has now been toughened substantially, anf that contentious claims require exceedingly solid references. There may be a valid issue as to whether any opinion-based categorization of a person belongs in any BLP at all. No matter who it is. Collect (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The current categories are: 1962 births | British National Party politicians | Living people | Far right politics in the United Kingdom. I don't see a problem with any of those. The only one that could be controversial at all is the last one. However the subject is a senior figure in the UK's leading far right political party.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to see a consensus emerging that the SPLC is a RS for its own opinions, and its own opinions only. Now, the question which follows, which Collect raises above, are opinions allowed in BLPs? Looking at the BLP Wikipedia guidelines, they are not. The guidelines state "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It is clear that the allegation that Kemp "worked for the intelligence services" as made by the SPLC fits all of these categories. It is contentious and completely unsourced (except that it is the SPLC's "opinion"). Furthermore, the BLP guidelines also stat that "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once." The tone of the SPLC article, and others by that organisation on the subject (which have already been deleted off this page by consensus) are clearly designed to "disparage the subject." On these grounds it is clear that the SPLC article strays far off from Wikipedia guidelines and if it belongs here at all, should be limited to an opinion. My suggestion is to delete it completely. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All I have read at RSN shows that the SPLC is a reliable source and should be treated no differently from news articles in major newspapers. Can anyone point me to anything that challenges that position? TFD (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All I have read about it shows that the SPLC is a not reliable source, but unreliable website that obviously hates conservative, nationalist and identitary politicians and activists. It includes many factual errors and left wing opinions presented like facts. On the other hand SPLC is notable political organization and it opinions can be notable in some/many cases. --Dezidor (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for that viewpoint? I understand that the people and organizations followed by the SPLC do not like their coverage, but on the other hand they tend to object to all coverage from all sources. What makes the SPLC different is that it reports these people and groups in far greater detail. TFD (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one disputes the right of the SPLC to have all the derogatory opinions it wants on its self declared political opponents. The only thing under discussion is whether Wikipedia should be a platform for their obviously politically motivated attacks or not. Furthermore, the SPLC article in question makes the extremely serious allegation--without providing any evidence whatsoever--that Kemp "worked for the Apartheid intelligence" services. This is far too much of a serious allegation to just be made and left hanging without justification, and must either be backed up or deleted. The alternative is, as said before, for Wikipedia to end up repeating any manner of accusation about anybody, and that will create a completely unsustainable free-for-all. It is a very dangerous precedent to set.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think the source is unreliable then you should take it up at RSN. Major newspapers actually use the SPLC as a source. The reason that few other sources can be found for this is that Arthur Kemp has received very little media attention. However, Searchlight (magazine) also says he was a member of SA intelligence. In the meantime, if we leave out the only sources that take any interest in Kemp, what justification is there for this article? TFD (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Current WP:BPL is exceedingly clear - contentious material requires exceedingly good sources. Otherwise, it should be deleted on sight. Please examine the RfCs on the issue to see how thouroughly despicable the insertion of contentious material is to WP and to the WMF. Collect (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog

http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/bnp-a-jew-masonic-front-group/

This article is highly critical of Kemp and the BNP in general. I think this is a good thing because the BNP are dishonest.--Calm After Strom (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That article can't be used as a source because it's a self-published blog, and this is a biography of a living person. See WP:V and WP:BLP for the relevant Wikipedia policies.   Will Beback  talk  23:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this blog -- which borders on the insane and calls the BNP a "Jew-Masonic front group" -- is even proposed as a "reference" here in the discussion page is an indication, IMHO, that this article only serves as a lightning conductor for weirdos and should be deleted.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of "Race" ?

This article in general is extremely poor. The description of the subject's philosophy of as one of "race" is laughable. What exactly is the "philosophy of race"? I have a degree in political philosophy and I have never even heard of it. I have voted for the deletion of this article on the deletion discussion page, and urge others to do the same.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference removal

I have restored this reference - "Revealed: The Welsh warehouse at heart of BNP Euro campaign; I'm no white supremacist, insists BNP activist Kemp". Western Mail. 2009-05-07. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-199158975.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31." which I added earlier today. It references the first paragraph of the Biography section which previously was unreferenced. The removal was made on the basis of "Removed irrelevant link" which I do not understand. The article is tagged with needing more references for verification so adding a source to do this should not be something that gets reverted. Davewild (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I was reading the truncated version of that article and now that I have the full article to hand, the reference is accurate.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I also added the sentence "In 2009 it was also reported that Kemp was in charge of producing the BNP's training manuals as well as being in charge of the BNP's internet radio station Radio RWB" which was referenced to the same article and I do not know what the problem is with that sentence. Davewild (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the BNP itself, this is inaccurate. The BNP says on its website that a John Walker runs Radio RWB http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/radio-red-white-and-blue-%E2%80%9Cpart-struggle-save-our-nation%E2%80%9D and that a Mike Howson is in charge of BNP training http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/county-durham-bnp-right-path I suspect that the BNP is probably a better source for their party official's activities than an obviously hostile media report, and as such I have removed that sentence.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo

With all this insightful biographical information isn´t it time to add the photo of Mr. Kemp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.38.197 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That picture is the subject of much speculation as to whether it is genuine or not and has appeared in a number of different and clearly photoshopped versions on the internet already. Caution is required. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010