Talk:BNP Youth

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Othala

Should mention be made of the Othala rune making up part of their logo? I can't find any references for it... yet there it is! Drett 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good explanation of this symbol and its meaning on the Anti-Defamation League site.--Ketlan 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very poorly researched and sensationalistic write up to say the least. Please see the Wikipedia article instead. :bloodofox: 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This is hardly notable on its own and only occupies a few lines and the BNP page is hardly bursting at the seams. Lets merge this page and not have it as a seperate page and then the quality of this section would increase.--Lucy-marie 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it separate. The BNP page IS quite big. Rather than add a new section there it makes more sense to keep this as a separate and very easily managed article. Size isn't everything and the fact that this is currently only seven or so lines does not mean it should not be here - there are much smaller articles in Wikipedia after all. Besides, it is capable of expansion. Emeraude 14:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of stories

This article reads more like a collection of stories rather than an encyclopedia article that actually explains what the Young BNP is. Something needs to be done about it.

Merge it. The BNP article isn't enormmous anyway and it saves the user haveing from the extra link instead of studying the BNP as a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.160.245 (talk) 20:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Racists?

I'm not sure what this group is. Am I right in thinking it's just a load of organized racists? 82.1.68.117 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. See British National Party Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascists?

I edited the section that claimed the young BNP were a fascist organisation as I feel it was added for political bias. I searched Google for Fascism theory & practice and found nothing in connection with the BNP. I've struggled to find any connection to fascism. Edits must has some basis of fact. Citing a random book doesn't do that, it would need to be explained why they're considered fascist and if they actually are, if they aren't there's no point adding it. Posted 03:33, 30 November 2008 by anonymous 87.194.151.171 (talk)

Didn't struggle very hard, did you? Searching Google is not appropriate here, but in any case if you had put in "BNP" AND "fascism" you would have got thousands of hits. The reference was not to a "random book" at all, but one of several citations given on the BNP article page. The BNP article clearly cites the fascist background of the BNP; the Young BNP is merely the junior version, ergo, the same references are acceptable. Reverting. Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you source some of their facist policies? If not I'll revert back in a few days. Wikipedia isn't about bias.Posted 03:33, 30 November 2008 by anonymous 87.194.151.171 (talk)

There is really no need, for several reasons. Firstly, the article does not mention any policies by the Young BNP. This is not surprising; after all, the organisation's policies will be those of the main BNP, so what applies to the party almost certainly applies to the YBNP. This would be true of the youth section of just about any other party.

Secondly, no one has ever suggested that the BNP's policies in toto are fascist. There are some things there are accepted by all parties in the UK (the NHS for example). However, what makes a group or party fascist is not its policies but the philosophy behind it. It is in this respect that the BNP (and hence YBNP) is defined as fascist. Perhaps I can illustrate with an example from the 1974 General Elections, hopefully long enough ago that not contentious. Both the Communist Party and the (fascist) National Front were opposed to Britain's continued membership of the EU, i.e., same policy. That did not make the CP fascist, or the NF communist! You need to look at the reasons they gave, i.e. the philosophy. To put it simply, the CP said the EU was a bosses' conspiracy to oppress workers internationally; the NF said the EU was run by inferior foreigners.

Thirdly, for convenience, here are the references given for the fascism of the BNP on the BNP page:

Renton, D Fascism theory & practice (London, 1999)
Thurlow, R Fascism in Modern Britain (Basingstoke, 2000)
Copsey, N "Contemporary Fascism in the Local Arena: the British National Party and Rights for Whites" in Cronin, M (ed) The Failure of British Fascism (Basingstoke, 1996)
Copsey, N. Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006, Patterns of Prejudice, v. 41, Issue 1, February 2007 , pages 61 - 82.

It would be possible, though I would suggest pointless, to add all of these references to this article.

So, it's not about bias. It is, though, about providing enough information in this article that anyone coming across it without also reading the main BNP article has the full picture. In the interests of avoiding bias, it will be noticed that the BNP's denial of its facism is given promninence in this article, but without a reference! Emeraude (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude (talk · contribs) has continued to add the term "fascist" to the introduction paragraph. While there are certainly many adjectives one could use to describe the BNP, as made quite clear on the BNP Wikipedia article, the BNP aggressively reject the "fascist" label (a term which, these days, essentially means "anyone I disagree with"). Wikipedia is neutral on the matter; we currently have "critics have argued that the YBNP is a tool of the BNP to convert young people to what critics deem as fascist ideology", and this handles it quite well. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fascist" has been there a long time, is occsionally removed and put back. Be that as it may, the fact is that the BNP is fascist organisation. When you say "fascist" it may mean anyone you disagree with; please do not damn others with your own ignoraance. The term is used here (and in the parent BNP) article is a positively correct way, as understood by political scientists (of which I count myself one). Its use in the articles has always been sourced by references to resepctable and reliable academic authors writing in peer-reviewed journals - what is often described as the "gold standard" of Wikipedia resourecs, i.e above reproach. I do not us "fascist" as an insult, a term of abuse, a snub or anything else other than a way to describe fascists and fascist organisations. It is not my opinion; it is the academic judgement of experts in the field. Now, whether the BNP denies it or not (and, to e honest, I can't see them standing up in modern britain and admiitign it) they are a fascist party. Until you can find an equally "gold standard" source that says otherwise, then the BNP and the Young BNP are correctly described as "fascist. And that is neutral, because it is accurate.

Until such time as you supply a decent reference supporting you assertion that the BNP is not fascits, i am reverting. ou amy like to seek arbitration on this, or perhaps you would prefer to read the archives at the BNP talk page for full and exhaustive coverage of this issue. You might also read carefully all of the above comments, where I have only recently dealt with this exact same issue.Emeraude (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the BNP Wikipedia article handles this much better: the article wisely describes the group as "far-right" instead of slapping it with a "fascist" tag and calling it a day. Anyway, I've tagged the article for neutrality concerns. I'm not willing to waste much time here on this, but I'm also unhappy to see people, such as yourself, edit warring their opinions on to an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, it's not my opinion, it's what third party sources reliably say. If we're interested in opinions, we might begin with the first sentence in your posting immediately above...... Emeraude (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As others have noted, the term "fascist" is being extremely loosely used here (at best), and thus the problem. This is just another example of the term being watered down to the point of uselessness. Furthermore, as I've pointed out a few times here (as have others, particularly on the BNP page) the group clearly denies the label, therefore anywhere these cries of "fascist" are placed, we must also note that the group itself vocally rejects the label. We are, again, a neutral source. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third party references above are pretty clear, and its third party sources on which we base wikipedia. In the absence of any counter authority the label should stand. Its OK to say (if sourced) that the BNP deny it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the BNP denies it is not important in this discussion. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not the voice of the BNP: in other words, we include what is verifiable by reliable sources and not what people claim or deny. In the same way, we do not avoid saying that X is a convicted murderer just because he "vocally rejects the label". And, to repeat yet again, the term "fascist" is used very, very precisely in this article and in the journal articles that support it. It is not, as Bllodofox claims, "being extremely loosely used here (at best)". Further, Bloodofox really gives the game away when he says, "We are, again, a neutral source." No, Blood, WE are not the source and if you want to be then you fail every test of Wikipedia from NPOV to OR! Emeraude (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Now, if you have a problem with this policy, I'm hardly the one to complain about it to, or if it's just that you don't consider what a subject has to say about itself to be "significant", then I'm afraid your bias has gotten the best of you. I'm not interested in debating whether or not Wikipedia is an information source (???), or similar red herrings. I ask you to please just stick to policy. Then we're gold. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's total rubbish, and you know it. You are gulity of OR - your postings have made it plain that you believe the BNP is not fascist but there has been no offering of any evidence to back up your opinion. To maintain a neutral point of view, you do not rely on the non-neutral and biased statements of the BNP. The content is neutral and does represent fairly, and without bias all significant views published by reliable sources. The fact is, and you would know if you had read the sources quoted above, that ALL of them describe the BNP as fascist. Without exception. (And they represent a small sample of a wider literature.) That, as you say is non-negotiable - 100% of the reliable sources descibe the BNP as fascist. Prove otherwise. You have been challenged to here and on the BNP page discussion and all you can come up with amounts to "They don't agree." That's not good enough, even by the criteria you have enumerated above. Incidentally, you have just accused me of bias. You have no idea what my views are; it is patently obvious from what I have written that I am relying solely on reliable, peer-reviwed academic sources. You are relying on, what? The BNP's denial of what every reliable source says? I'm adding fascist again, with so many references that the article is going to look silly. Until such time as you provide evidence to contradict the sources, your edits are simply vexatious and disruptive. Emeraude (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofix - its a common mistake to interpret NPOV as requiring a balance between any statements. It doesn't. If reliable third party sources are in conflict we have to reflect that, but we don't have to balance between the BNP position and those third party sources --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - a thought, it might be better to move fascist later in the sentence (next to right wing) --Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will make that a formal proposal, replace fascist with far right before the name and then include fascist later in the sentence. --Snowded ^TALK 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not replace fascist with nationalist, since that is the neutral truth? That you are enforcing a fascist-label on the mother BNP article is one thing, but the fact that you are here trying to present fascism as the main ideology of the BNP is simply repulsive. ..And yes, as you were so kind to offer on the edit-note, may I please request this change to you Dear Leader? -TheG (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not replace fascist with nationalist, since that is the neutral truth?" Simple: it's not neutral and its not truth. The BNP is both fascist and nationalist. As were its founders and the groups they led before the BNP. Fascism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive - in fact, they are good bedfellows. It's almost a self-evident truth while all nationalists are not fascist, all fascists are nationalist. Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, again, this comes down to a few users who don't want to acknowledge that the group itself rejects the label, and would prefer the group be muted as "unreliable" and simply labeled as "fascist" on every corner of Wikipedia. This is plain to see. As much as you may dislike it, to Wikipedia, the BNP is, yes, just another political party. Personally, I vote for something more concise than the modernly meaningless "fascist" tag (Fascist (epithet)—a term particularly popular to those on the opposite side of the political spectrum for, well, anything or anyone), but I don't have time nor the desire to get into a revert war with Snowded and Emeraude here. I simply have no real interest in the party. In fact, I only ended up here due to the fact that at one time they apparently used the odal rune for some reason. I'm sure it will all sort itself out eventually. In the mean time, I've tagged the article for NPOV concerns. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable it may be, but it has been quite common over the years for British fascist groups to take an interest in runes and other facets of Norse mythology. Indeed, Nick Griffin, BNP leader, edited a Holocaust denial magazine called The Rune. Is that fascist enough for you? Emeraude (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodfox, the groups view of themselves is not relevant. Read up on the rules of third party sources. And while you are doing that please do not change the text until there is agreement here. Slow edit wars can attract the same penalties as a 3rr. --Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually pretty remarkable, this enforcement of such disputed terms. I don't think I have ever witnessed anything close to this which revolves around the BNP on Wikipedia. What I also find highly odd, is that when for instance looking at parties around Europe, one finds pretty much no major present parties in Europe are labeled with the term "fascist". This include Jobbik in Hungary, a more extreme party than the present BNP wich even has its own militia, is not even labeled "fascist" in the infobox. Its just ridiculous, and we should have gotten some neutral persons to keep order to these articles instead of self-declared socialists that clearly have their judgement compromised here. -TheG (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to spend less time accusing other editors of having "compromised judgement" (an accusation for which you have no evidence) and a little more time addressing the issue of reliable third party references. --Snowded ^TALK 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be right in presuming that Gabagool would regard as "neutral" someone who agreed with him? Emeraude (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not trying to make the party "look better" or anything. I just can't see why the BNP is supposed to be fascist, in fact I have yet to see anything specific as an evidence of it, even from the editors who are enforcing the label here. All the response I have ever gotten can be summarised as "the party is fascist since someone wrote so in a paper, so just shut up". If you can't in any reasonable way explain why a paper claim something, I don't think it can count as a reliable source. This regard of course only the infobox, which is the problem (as well as this recent acts that try to present it as the main ideology of the party), not the article itself. This all just seems very dubious to me. Here is a very good article about "fascism" by George Orwell which I think all parties in this discussion should take into account, seeing how inappropriate this use actually is: [1] -TheG (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just thrown myself into the dispute, I reckon pretty foolishly, and removed the use of the term. This isn't to protect the party; here are the reasons I did so:

"Fascist" doesn't appear in the lead section for British National Party, probably for the following reasons below;
"Fascist" is more loaded and redundant to the similar, less-loaded description of "far-right", the term we use in the party's article.
"Fascist", even if technically accurate, is one of the most abused words in the English language; George Orwell said something about abuse of the word in 1948.
And on a philosophical point, I think editors are trying to prove a fact that isn't a fact. We see this all the time, especially on subjects related to fascism and terrorism, and other fringe areas of topics: the anti-fringe people, when trying to edit neutrally, include too many sources to cite what they believe to be facts but may not objectively be so. The overuse of citations—more than three or four, normally—to cite a single fact indicates cherry picking multiple sources to prove a point more than showing that the multiple sources actually represent scholarly and journalistic consensus. Actual facts take much less to cite. One of the most extreme examples of this was using sixteen sources to prove that a certain white power skinhead group were one of the first to exist. In response to this article, the appellation is sourced to three people, David Renton, "R Thurlow", and Nigel Copsey, in what appear to be partisan anti-fascist publications. However, as I don't have access to these papers, I can't see how partisan and/or scholary these papers are...

I think we need to tread carefully when using the word; not for protecting the party, but to stem abuse of the word by careful discussion. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested that the term is moved either within the lede or to an information box. Getting it close to the BNP article makes the most sense. However the only response to such a suggestion has been to remove it. On political articles the use of multiple sources often means that partisans are attempting to remove data, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is not the consensus. The BNP is a part of a long tradition of British Facist Parties, yes the term is abused but that doesn't mean that it is incorrect.--Snowded ^TALK 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Some critics have argued that the YBNP is a tool of the BNP to convert young people to their fascist ideology" is totally ridiculous. It's as meaningful as writing on the Young Labour article "Some critics have argued that the YL is a tool of the Labour Party to convert young people to their democratic socialist ideology." Regarding the mother BNP article, if I understood you correctly, I anyways believe the most appropriate solution would be to add in the lede that "Media and some scholars have claimed the BNP of having a fascist ideology, something the party itself deny" (with appropriate sources of course), and remove the term from the infobox. -TheG (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I'm assuming the majority of the (unsourced) 'Criticism' section, particularly the emboldened last sentence, counts as little more than vandalism in Wikipedia's rules? I'm not too sharp on them with regard to editing, but this example seems to drop below wikipedia's usual standards...

86.26.232.248 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of NPOV tag

Two users (Snowded (talk · contribs) and Verbal (talk · contribs)) have been repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from the article. Given that the tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" (my bold), this is curious behavior. In fact, in all of my Wikipedia years and in all of the numerous Wikipedia articles I've written, I haven't seen anyone attempt to do this. This doesn't exactly help your position on the matter, nor will such behavior lead to anything but arbitration (and the reinstatement of the tag until the issue is resolved). I suggest leaving it alone until it the issue is resolved. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with neutrality. There is nothing in the article that is inconsistent with mainstream views of the group. They are not Boy Scouts. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there's currently a dispute about the use of the term "fascist" in the article on this very talk page, which is why the tag is there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute requires you to present evidence, not simply carry on saying that you don't like it. In the absence of evidence (which means a third party citation) or any attempt to provide it the tag should not stand. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: there are at least two editors here (including myself) arguing that the BNP themselves have responded to and deny the label (which goes conveniently unnoted) and that the term "fascist" is very vague. I suggest that you get over your political prejudices long enough to acknowledge the discussion on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is well referenced. If you still have a problem, please raise it at WP:NPOVN for wider community input and to address ways of improving the article, rather than replacing an unjustified tag seemingly due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Verbal chat 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there's discussion, the tag is supposed to remain. Anyway, with the repeated removal of the the NPOV discussion tag on the article and attempts at smearing editors who argue against those that oppose the usage of the "fascist" tag for the group as supporters of the group ("leads me to suspect that you are attempting to push your own political agenda, which I also suspect is not a million miles away from that of the BNP." [2]), count me out. While someone should bring this subject to WP:NPOVN, I have neither enough interest nor enough time to spare on this banality. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more radical proposal

Why don't we just merge the article into the BNP one - it only has a couple of sentences after all and could be a section there. --Snowded ^TALK 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a poor subject for a split article. A merge of this one into BNP, and a creation of a separate BNP history article (with summary at BNP) would be much better. Verbal chat

Disagree most strongly. The BNP article is probably too long anyway so this as a split makes sense. Yes, this is rather short, but that's only an argument for adding an expand tag and seeing what other material is available. Emeraude (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any other material fine, but I don;t see any sign of it. Best to merge and then split it out when the section gets big enough to justify it --Snowded ^TALK 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locked

Now the article is locked, conveniently just after ~~Verbal~~ Sceptre has come along and deleted fascism on the grounds that there were TOO MANY references and because he has read George Orwell, and not very well I would suggest. Emeraude (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I didn't remove that, I added a wikilink. Verbal chat 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the first sentence and misread the diffs. It was removed by Sceptre. Apologies. Emeraude (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my explanation above: oversourcing is often a major indicator that a POV is being pushed (especially when said sources lead to papers in partisan publications), because the editor who oversources is—perhaps unconsciously—trying to hard to prove something. WP:CITEKILL has a message similar to this, although it stops short of saying that it may be indicative of (un)conscious POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't prove that in this case there is a problem, and in fact it is clear that there is no problem. The oversourcing here is due to unreasonable objections being peddled on the talk page. The content is well justified and should be restored. Verbal chat 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; not from a "the word is bad" perspective as much as a "the word is unnecessary" perspective, from a couple of questions about the sources, given that they are slightly misleading in that the five sources only cite three people, and that they appear in publications that would be naturally anti-fascist (which is the worst kind of publication we can use [imagine if we used conservative journals to criticise the Democrats!], although I can't say anything about the sources themselves), and as a matter of consistency with the British National Party article. I think that the best way to improve on the sources is not the addition of more anti-fascist sources/publications, but replacement with more neutral sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, however three of the six sources is written by Nigel Copsey - whos "definition" of fascism has actually been criticised by the Communist Party of Great Britain(!).[3] The Communist Party claim "there is remarkably little analysis of what it actually means to call a formation fascist, let alone whether the BNP fits the bill", that Copsey "propose a theory of fascism which - he contends - includes the BNP" and Copsey of behaving "not so much like a political theorist or historian as an unimaginative literary critic" and his fascist label falling "under this ‘generic fascist’ definition". The other "source" used, David Renton, has written at least one book together with Copsey[4], and the other, Richard Thurlow is in a book connected with these[5]. I suggest the most appropriate solution would be to add in the lede something like "Media and some scholars have claimed the BNP of being fascist, something the party itself however deny" (with appropriate sources of course), and removal of this abused term from the infobox. -TheG (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the references at on the BNP article, then surely the discussion should be taking place there. This is a subsidiary article and inherits from the main one. The use of the communist party claim above is very dubious (i) as an authority it does not stack up against the academics and (ii) it is if anything another source to support the use of the term (saying The BNP is a fascist organisation; it is not simply that there are fascists in it, but the fascists in it form the leadership and party apparat, with the non-fascists kept sweet at arm’s length). Its perfectly reasonable (if sourced) to say that the BNP deny that they are fascist. However the sentence proposed above is simply not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Authoritative third party sources say it is fascist, so far the only sources which say it is not are the BNP ones and they don't count. --Snowded ^TALK 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "far-right" would still inherit from the BNP article, require less sources, and still be accurate. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using fascist only really requires one source - the others are there in part to deal with people attempting to remove it. We also have the BBC reference here which reports concerned about recruiting fascists. The term needs to be there somewhere, if the article continues (see my comments above) --Snowded ^TALK 05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that if you've no source, you're damned; if you've one source, you're damned; if you've five sources, you're damned! And then, if people don't like what the sources say, they damn the sources. The fact is, the sources are all entirely reliable (and are only a sample); a check in a citation index will reveal that they are highly regarded by other specialists in the field. There are not many writers in this field - modern fascism is not a major topic for political scientists - so it is not surprising that two of the major writers should at some point have collaborated. The criticism that the sources "appear in publications that would be naturally anti-fascist" is, quite frankly, bizarre: would it be acceptable if they were pro-fascist? If Sceptre wants other sources I can provide them, but if (s)he is going to suggest that peer-reviewed academic journals like Patterns of Prejudice, Politics Today, Political Quarterly, Race & Class or academic researchers from the School of Public Policy, University College London, are "naturally anti-fascist" and therefore unquotable, what's the point? Emeraude (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Sceptre's argument is unconvincing. Greater weight of RS means less reliable?? Er, that's not how it works. The "anti-fascist" sources comment also seems to be nonsensical. Please feel free to bring "pro-fascist" RS here for discussion, but that would only seem to confirm the label. What we have here is a minority of editors attempting to introduce bias and ignoring RS, therefore we've had to introduce a strong selection of RS to try to stop the removal of valid, supported, information. I would have no problem with only one RS being used, with the others left in as html comments for future reference. Verbal chat 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this article is a spin off from the BNP where the issue is thoroughly dealt with, I'd be happy with just one, i.e. the status quo before the disruption started. If readers of this article want further info, that's where they will go to find it. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying there's a balance in the number of sources you need to properly cite something. I'd be better with one or two sources than five; hell, the BBC source might be fine on it's own. But giving five or six citations for something that would really only need one gives the impression you're really trying to hard to prove a point, and that you're cherry-picking sources that agree with you. And Snowded's assertion that "the term needs to be there somewhere" kind of gives credence to the argument that the term doesn't need to be there; it's indicative of some sort of bias on the editor. So basically, I'd prefer "far-right" and then "fascist" with no more than one or two sources if it is really necessary, but definitely not "fascist" with more sources than that. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please remember WP:AGF. The origins of the BNP are in the British fascist movement and modern reliable sources say it is fascist. The term therefore needs to be there. I can't see how saying it should be there gives credence to an argument that it doesn't need to be. That must be some strange new form of logic I am unaware of. --Snowded ^TALK 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's because, really, nothing needs to be on Wikipedia; some people (even though they are a very small minority) even believe we shouldn't have biographical coverage of people who would normally be in an encyclopedia (say, Margaret Thatcher). While I am aware that the BNP is rooted in the fascist movement, it doesn't mean that we should use the word "fascist" if another word would be just as suitable and factual. However, you are now doing a reasonable job in explaining why "fascist" would be the most suitable word. This is basically what I'm trying to do here: trying to find the reasons below the argument of "well, reliable sources say so", because sometimes that's a smokescreen for an editor's bias. If you explain why and what the reliable sources say so, that works better than just saying they do. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, someone saying something should be there now means it probably shouldn't? That makes even less sense. Your argument is, as stated, illogical. The article should also state, indeed must state, that the young BNP is connected to the BNP. Should we therefore not state that, as it shows a bias towards the actual reality we are trying to document?? The removed text, or some variation, should be in the article as it s verifiable, from reliable sources, and relevant to the topic. Going on the bias of writing an encyclopaedia, it must be included in some form. Verbal chat 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say it should be there; he was arguing that it must be there. See my reply above. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Young BNP's connection to the BNP must also be there, as I said. So, by your argument above, it should not be there. Your arguments are logically inconsistent. Verbal chat 14:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting my argument. We have no obligation to cover either the BNP or its youth wing. But, as we cover both, it's a good idea to show the two are linked. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please state how I've misrepresented your argument ("gives credence to the argument that the term doesn't need to be there; it's indicative of some sort of bias on the editor"), and please clarify your argument. I'd also suggest you strike your accusations and apologise to Snowed, in a spirit of WP:AGF. Verbal chat 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the manner of how he argued, in the first place, that the term needed to be there. His second argument, however, explaining why the term should be there, was much better. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no argument? Then I propose the material be restored with one or two sources. Verbal chat 15:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for the complete removal; I'm arguing for careful usage. I agree that it would be acceptable to use "fascist" with one or two sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is made by a political opponent, a member of a highly controversial party, which has recently been involved in the deaths of many innocent people in Iraq. Its probably best to qualify and mention who the comment was made by in the article for context and neutrality (the politician in question derives much of his own views from Karl Marx, so obviously isn't neutral or removed). Though criticism sections do not belong in article as per WP:MOS anyway. I suggest using the BBC source, "Rhodri Morgan, a socialist and member of the Labour Party, cried out in execration that the BNP was "using the event to recruit fascists."" - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's well-balanced. Or do I mean unbalanced? Emeraude (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the proposal would you like to censure? The fact that the BBC states the comment was made specifically by political opponent Rhodri Morgan, or that the person who made it is a member of the Labour Party, which states constitutionally that is it a "democratic socialist" party? Context is good, context can only be neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your presentation disproves your thesis, or that you are not providing only context. Verbal chat 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, your comment is pretty much esoteric and translates as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rendering the position invalid. The BBC specifically and verifiably states that Morgan of the Labour Party made the comment. The Labour Party is an organisation which is politically opposed to the BNP. Negate, wriggle and writhe all you like, but that is the source used in the article and that is who the BBC says made "fascist" claim regarding Young BNP. Specific attribution is an essential requirement for Wikipedia when it comes to controversial claims for a reason, so that we do not fall into libel and avoid the potential of lawsuits. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a point, though. We should name Morgan in the article, but not as a "socialist"; most people will agree that, despite the Labour Party constitution, they aren't socialists anymore. Also, I'm concerned about whether this is genuine criticism or mudslinging by Morgan: Labour opposes the BNP, naturally, and someone high-up in the party would nearly always follow the party line, and we don't say that "Some critics have alleged that the Democratic Party are subversively introducing socialism to America", even though that's a party-line position among the Republicans. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC reports the concerns of the First Minister (he was speaking in that capacity), its not the citation to support the fascist label, there are plenty of others which do that. It can support a sentence on concern over the recruitment.--Snowded ^TALK 16:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I was referring to the citation supporting that sentence. I'm wondering if this is Morgan-the-person or Morgan-the-Labour-member who's saying this though; as I said, we don't say "some critics have alleged, etc" about the Democrats. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its Morgan the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's Morgan-the-Labour-member, then I'd support removing it, as I don't think it's actual criticism; I think it's normal inter-party mudslinging. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly views are notable and should not be removed. Verbal chat 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Boehner the House Minority Leader's views are notable and should be included in the Barack Obama article. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Raise it on that article if you think so. Morgan is FIrst Minister, not leader of the opposition, so his views are notable and he is clearly speaking as First Minister in that reference. Calling it inter-party mud slinging is nonsense, given that all the main parties consider the BNP to be a pretty nasty bunch. --Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom is a party-political, parliamentary democracy. Morgan holds office as a member of the Labour Party. The Labour Party could sack him and replace him with somebody else. People vote parties into office, not people. While I can see why anti-BNPs would be embarassed to mention the Labour Party as the critic, since most people consider Labour a pretty nasty and corrupt bunch, negating the party political position^{[citation needed]} which Morgan's career and position is based on isn't neutral or balanced. The ideological context here is very important, especially as he is referencing political ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay Boehner has much of an important role in US politics as Morgan's is in UK politics. This is the point: a party politician, speaking in the capacity of their position in the party, shouldn't normally be cited with statements regarding another party. Of course, there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them; we've got enough neutral academic criticism of the BNP to not even have to resort to relying on mudslinging. And, for the record, I agree with a merger proposal. This article is too short, I feel, and I think that the vast majority of problems would be dealt with a merger. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should say "a" facist ideology instead of "their" and the second sentence should be the first in that section. Besides that... there is not enough material here to warrant a seperate article outside of the parent article. There is even less material on the parent article than there is on this one. Should merge this with pictures to the parent article until such time as sufficient material is created to warrant the seperate article. ~ R.T.G 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with merger proposal but it did not get 100% agreement when proposed above. Yorkshirian you know enough about British politics and the way the system works to know that the officers of state speak in that capacity and WIkipedia reflects that. This was debated on EDL and elsewhere and clearly established.--Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That request above was hardly an adequate conclusion. If someone would unprotect the article and add it with BNP to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers a more acceptable outcome should result and who knows, someone might actually see this article and add something to it... ~ R.T.G 17:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Why should someone add something to it if it's going to be merged and swamped elsewhere? Especially if Yorkshirian gets his hands on it and carries out his protracted and controversial trimming of the BNP article. Look for a wider issue here guys. Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds well and good but in practice it is unlikely to find a link to this page from BNP let alone anything to describe this youth BNP. Whoever are the contributors here, they really should make something clear on the BNP article. The matter of it being swamped is of no concern. The matter of it being developed is. I don't know even know how old the page is I am just suggesting. ~ R.T.G 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]