Talk:British National Party/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Video evidence

Have you seen this hard hitting British interview with Nick Griffin yet? He voices his opinions on Herr Hitler, sex, sexuality, his private life and racists very clearly and definitively [[6]].--86.29.132.44 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin exsposed!

David Duke

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

Inadequate leadership

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

Holocaust denial

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

Group-think

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

Mark Lecomber

Anthony "Tony" Mark "Martine" Lecomber (born 1963) is a former Group Development Director for the British National Party. [7]

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

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

Recent large removals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics

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

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

ARTICLE AREA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As it already says in the current version of the article, its membership now features (Specific quote as revealed by the Guardian infiltraitor)—"dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers".[8] You're wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

merge

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits and reversions concerning Nick Griffin and the KKK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generic 'Facist', 'Far-Right' terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions are not facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's an interesting discussion of the position of the BNP is this book:[9]. It argues that they've "airbrushed" their fascist and Neo-Nazi origins, but that "hints" show through. An article published this month clearly places them on the "extreme right":[10]. Slatersteven's argument that "The argument is not that they were once fascsist, but that the party has changed. The burdon of proof lies with you htat they have not"[sic] is weak. The burden for arguing that they are no longer fascist lies firmly with those who asserting this. The insistence on bang up-to-date scholarly analyses is bizarre. Can we please rely on the independent sources that are available, rather than accepting the word of a party with clear roots in Neo-Nazism that they're not now fascist? Fences&Windows 19:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Young BNP article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young BNP, Student BNP

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

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

"Extreme views"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To compare the contested edits that lie behind this debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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