Talk:British National Party/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions about British National Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
The citations supporting that the BNP is today a fascist organization
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713722453
http://books.google.com/books?id=vAWGAAAAIAAJ
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjsp/2008/00000047/00000004/art00009
http://gawker.com/5051334/palin-emails-reveal-press-hate
These are most of the online citations supporting in the infobox that the BNP is today a fascist party, Gawker? The citations seem poor to me to support that this political party has a fascist ideology or that it can or should be labeled as a fascist organization here or at any other reliable source. The other couple of citations are to dated historic books.Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the English far right is no longer fascist, could someone please provide a reliable source for where between Oswald Mosley and Nick Griffin they abandoned it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt if there was a specific day when the label fell off but change is the only guarantee in life, to be honest I care less about historic similitude, right now, according to multiple independent major publications none of them are referring to or asserting that the BNP is a fascist organization, neither do the parties action or policies assert that either. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- What changes did the BNP make that makes them no longer fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not interested in any historic assertions, my position is simply that right now, today, the consensus of major reliable citations are not reporting or accusing that the BNP is a fascist organization, please provide recent reliable citations that are asserting that claim, or is it your assertion through citations that the BNP was considered in mainstream reliable citations as fascist ten years ago so it is still fascist now?Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles you link to above are from 2005 and 2008. Uber linkes above to the second edition of Copsey's Contemporary British Fascism, published in 2009, which includes a chapter discussing the changes in the BNP since 2004 (when the first edition was published), and concluding that it is still a fascist party. The BNP have continually been described as "fascist" by experts up to the present day. If you want to challenge that, you need reliable sources that explicitly disagree.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken, which two links are you talking? I am challenging that the consensus of reliable citations are at this time calling the party fascist or asserting as such. I have presented multiple major citations that they are not, please provide your citations to support that the British national Party is considered today to be a fascist organization. Let us present strong recent reliable citations that refer to or assert that the British National Political Party is a fascist organization and discuss those citations.Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles you linked to at the start of this section are from 2005 and 2008. The Copsey book Uber linked to appears to be from 2008 (though Google lists it as 2009). So there are strong recent reliable citations that the BNP is fascist. I don't see where you have presented citations that they are not fascist; you've provided citations which do not say that they are fascist, but this is not the same as citations which say they are not fascist.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken, which two links are you talking? I am challenging that the consensus of reliable citations are at this time calling the party fascist or asserting as such. I have presented multiple major citations that they are not, please provide your citations to support that the British national Party is considered today to be a fascist organization. Let us present strong recent reliable citations that refer to or assert that the British National Political Party is a fascist organization and discuss those citations.Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles you link to above are from 2005 and 2008. Uber linkes above to the second edition of Copsey's Contemporary British Fascism, published in 2009, which includes a chapter discussing the changes in the BNP since 2004 (when the first edition was published), and concluding that it is still a fascist party. The BNP have continually been described as "fascist" by experts up to the present day. If you want to challenge that, you need reliable sources that explicitly disagree.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am not interested in any historic assertions, my position is simply that right now, today, the consensus of major reliable citations are not reporting or accusing that the BNP is a fascist organization, please provide recent reliable citations that are asserting that claim, or is it your assertion through citations that the BNP was considered in mainstream reliable citations as fascist ten years ago so it is still fascist now?Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- What changes did the BNP make that makes them no longer fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt if there was a specific day when the label fell off but change is the only guarantee in life, to be honest I care less about historic similitude, right now, according to multiple independent major publications none of them are referring to or asserting that the BNP is a fascist organization, neither do the parties action or policies assert that either. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Rob, the only thing you've presented are a few sources that just happen to lack the term fascist when describing the party. You have not presented any sources that claim the party is not fascist. Please learn to make this distinction and stop repeating this glaring fallacy.UBER (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- "The British National Party (BNP) is a British political Party based mainly in England. It was founded in [place], [time], from a splinter group of the National Front led by [leader]. The most noted policies of this political party involve racial disintegration and expatriation. The partys existence was put under legal scrutiny in 2009 concluding that some policies, particularly membership criteria, were racially discriminative and therefore illegal although the party is not outlawed and implents various reforms to comply with legal requirements." Facism is a topic of college. If you want to label them facist, or similar ideological labels, you should need a significant study of proper scholarly comparison, not just what the papers or the politicians say. Papers and politicians are great for references on events, facts and dates, but not so good for classification sources. There should be no debate about that. If you hold that up you should be able to write the same article with the same sources without so much dispute. ~ R.T.G 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- During this discussion nothing has been presented that supports that this organization is considered to be a fascist organization, nothing at all. Major publications are also not referring to them as such either. I challenge editors that support this claim to assert it to me here with citations. I am totally open to accepting that this organization is considered by the major reporting and referred to as a fascist political party. Nothing has been presented at all by any editor here that moves me to agree yes this party is considered to be a fascist organization. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually evidence has been presented to you, evidence that effectively proves this party has a fascist ideology. What you choose to do with that evidence is up to you. So far, you've shown clear intent to ignore it, and unfortunately there's little else the rest of us can do about that.UBER (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing has been presented here that asserts this claim at all, please present whatever you have below. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually evidence has been presented to you, evidence that effectively proves this party has a fascist ideology. What you choose to do with that evidence is up to you. So far, you've shown clear intent to ignore it, and unfortunately there's little else the rest of us can do about that.UBER (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The book linked above does seem to be from a qualified assessor to claim that the BNP are fascist but just how notable is Richard Thurlow? Why are other studies of that note not so readily available as other sources on the BNP? There is plenty of association to the term, UAF, other "anti-fascist" groups etc. but it does not seem that scholars have generally classed them like or or even the news reporters, not that they are often qualified to make such a study on their own. I am not saying they are fascist or not, they probably are the way that people rave on about it, but it's not reliably sourced or even viewed as such except, perhaps, by the UAF. I am surprised though that there are not ranks of the UAF producing ample qualified papers about it. Here is that guy Richard Thurlow, [1] at Sheffield University, B.A., M.A., Senior Lecturer in history specifically related to facism of USA and Briain and extremism and security in Britain. ~ R.T.G 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for that detail and the link RTG, is it clear from his comments what aspects of the BNP or when he is asserting the BNP are a fascist organization? Are we talking about this person Richard Thurlow and this link http://books.google.com/books?id=vAWGAAAAIAAJ Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- RTG, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "it does not seem that scholars have generally classed" the BNP as fascist. It's true that not all academic discussions of the BNP refer to them as fascist but many do, and in particular, all the most detailed studies of the BNP that I can find refer to them as fascist; studies which do not refer to them as fascist seem to be only referring to the BNP in passing. Even those studies which do not themselves refer to the BNP as fascist often cite the work of Thurlow, Copsey, and others, without disagreeing with this classification of the BNP as fascist. Furthermore, there is a significant academic debate about whether contemporary radical right parties are best classified as fascist: if there were academics who did not agree that the BNP are fascist, I would expect to find papers explicitly arguing this, but I can't. So it seems to me that scholars do indeed generally classify the BNP as fascist. If you are aware of papers that disagree with the claim that the BNP is fascist, or extended discussions of the BNP which do not endorse the claim that they are fascist, please mention them, as that would indeed through doubt on whether the sources currently cited represent the academic consensus.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thurlow's book Fascism in Britain was published by Blackwell and part of it was reprinted in The fascsim reader published by Routledge. The book is used in university courses about British fascism. You can check Google scholar to see the degree to which his works have been cited.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- RTG, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "it does not seem that scholars have generally classed" the BNP as fascist. It's true that not all academic discussions of the BNP refer to them as fascist but many do, and in particular, all the most detailed studies of the BNP that I can find refer to them as fascist; studies which do not refer to them as fascist seem to be only referring to the BNP in passing. Even those studies which do not themselves refer to the BNP as fascist often cite the work of Thurlow, Copsey, and others, without disagreeing with this classification of the BNP as fascist. Furthermore, there is a significant academic debate about whether contemporary radical right parties are best classified as fascist: if there were academics who did not agree that the BNP are fascist, I would expect to find papers explicitly arguing this, but I can't. So it seems to me that scholars do indeed generally classify the BNP as fascist. If you are aware of papers that disagree with the claim that the BNP is fascist, or extended discussions of the BNP which do not endorse the claim that they are fascist, please mention them, as that would indeed through doubt on whether the sources currently cited represent the academic consensus.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for that detail and the link RTG, is it clear from his comments what aspects of the BNP or when he is asserting the BNP are a fascist organization? Are we talking about this person Richard Thurlow and this link http://books.google.com/books?id=vAWGAAAAIAAJ Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- The book linked above does seem to be from a qualified assessor to claim that the BNP are fascist but just how notable is Richard Thurlow? Why are other studies of that note not so readily available as other sources on the BNP? There is plenty of association to the term, UAF, other "anti-fascist" groups etc. but it does not seem that scholars have generally classed them like or or even the news reporters, not that they are often qualified to make such a study on their own. I am not saying they are fascist or not, they probably are the way that people rave on about it, but it's not reliably sourced or even viewed as such except, perhaps, by the UAF. I am surprised though that there are not ranks of the UAF producing ample qualified papers about it. Here is that guy Richard Thurlow, [1] at Sheffield University, B.A., M.A., Senior Lecturer in history specifically related to facism of USA and Briain and extremism and security in Britain. ~ R.T.G 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thurlow seems to be a respectable scholar specialising in fascism and British home troubles, unrelated to Ireland. I find it hard to believe that he is definitive in researching the BNP or fascism on his own though. There is probably a fascism expert for every few universities so if Thurlow is the only one to produce studies between BNP and fascism, it is a fringe source, an endangered species, even if the UAF and all those are up against them. Is there not some other book that shows them to be fascist as well? I don't know if BNP ticks all the boxes of fascism on the authoritarian side, for instance. Closely related to it yes definitely but are they fascists? Do they seek to impose the authoritarian state? You should need to get all that rather than just that their opponents call themselves the anti-fascists. The UAF hardly get up in the morning and check for sure if the BNP are exactly fascist by definition or not before carrying on. If someone came along in the morning proving that the definition of fascism doesn't completely cover the BNP would the UAF then say, "Forget about everything BNP now!"? I doubt it. ~ R.T.G 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thurlow is not the only academic who concludes that the BNP are fascist; the article cites a book and two articles by Copsey, an article by Renton, and a further article by Wood and Finlay (references 1-6 in the article). I don't UAF are at all relevant to this discussion.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Richard Thurlow, Nigel Copsey, Chris Renton, refereed to in the article as a BNP activist? Wood and finly? linked to this citation in the article, all of this does not assert the claim of a fascist organization, please present actual assertions from notable individuals and major popular publications to support your claim. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- David Renton, not Chris Renton. The Wood and Finlay article does indeed assert that the BNP is a fascist organization, see page 708, where you will find: "Academics studying right-wing extremism argue that the organisation is still fascist." VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thurlow is not the only academic who concludes that the BNP are fascist; the article cites a book and two articles by Copsey, an article by Renton, and a further article by Wood and Finlay (references 1-6 in the article). I don't UAF are at all relevant to this discussion.VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thurlow seems to be a respectable scholar specialising in fascism and British home troubles, unrelated to Ireland. I find it hard to believe that he is definitive in researching the BNP or fascism on his own though. There is probably a fascism expert for every few universities so if Thurlow is the only one to produce studies between BNP and fascism, it is a fringe source, an endangered species, even if the UAF and all those are up against them. Is there not some other book that shows them to be fascist as well? I don't know if BNP ticks all the boxes of fascism on the authoritarian side, for instance. Closely related to it yes definitely but are they fascists? Do they seek to impose the authoritarian state? You should need to get all that rather than just that their opponents call themselves the anti-fascists. The UAF hardly get up in the morning and check for sure if the BNP are exactly fascist by definition or not before carrying on. If someone came along in the morning proving that the definition of fascism doesn't completely cover the BNP would the UAF then say, "Forget about everything BNP now!"? I doubt it. ~ R.T.G 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Richard Thurlow, Nigel Copsey, David Renton, none of these people are notable in their field enough to warrent a wikpedia article..page 708! achedemics (which 0nes) achedemics argrue that the BNP are still Fascist (what aspects of the BNP do these guys argue is still fascist?) its very vague, please cite the exact claims and names who it is that asserts it, vague claims like this to assuse and label a political party and its members of such a derogatory disputed claim should be a strong claim and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- So, if they were writing about Mussolini, leader of the Fascist Party, would it be an arguement? What exactly is the arguement? Not exactly definitive is it? ~ R.T.G 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the relevance of Mussolini is here. They aren't writing about Mussolini, they're writing about the BNP, and they assert, quite clearly, that academics argue that the BNP is still fascist. I don't see how you could get much more definitive than that.VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- So, if they were writing about Mussolini, leader of the Fascist Party, would it be an arguement? What exactly is the arguement? Not exactly definitive is it? ~ R.T.G 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am asking you, when they describe the fascism of Mussolini, of the Fascist Party, do they "argue" that he was a fascist? Does the word "argue" apply? I assume that a professor of literary work, i.e. history and paper publishing, is a safe bet to have a professional standard of writing, much beyond me for a start, and an understanding of his history interests so as to be beyond mincing words. He works at his own pace you understand. He copyedits his own work professionally before handing it to a professional to have it copyedited again not to mention reviewed. He is not writing off the top of his hat. He writes the work of his life every time if he can manage it. He puts it to you that it was an unsettled arguement waged between forces beyond his control. There is obviously some merit in the arguement, a bit of this, a bit of that. Is there a definitive point of view? I would note, as David Renton has, that academics argue but I would note which academics if possible and with whom. Can anyone here suggest a phrase in different words which means the same thing as "academics argue"? I think not. ~ R.T.G 06:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- @VoluntarySlave, If you have actual access to those publications and can establish the authors, and can discuss the whys and fors written in them, it might go some way towards producing a final debate. You should note that those citations as can be accessed by most editors are not definitive. Verifibility. Quote us a few bits. Nigel Copsey is a "reader" for Tees University, I am familiar with the title but do not know for sure what it entails, search of "Wood and Finlay" produced nothing. Renton is a BNP activist, hardly a source for calling them fascists. Can you clear it up? Could the findings go on a subpage for reference? ~ R.T.G 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We do not need multiple sources to support that the BNP is fascist, just one reliable source. Only if there are conflicting views would it be necessary to look more deeply at sources. However in that case we would find a source indicating what the majority opinion was, and again would need only one source for that. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting but this section is to present citations but you haven't presented any? Are you really asserting that you need only one citation for such a controversial claim, sorry but your claim is incredulous. Please discuss in another section as this section is specifically for citations that support that the British National Party as it exists today with its present policies is a fascist organization or that it is considered and reported to be a fascist organization by major reliable citations. 00:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
- There is no controversy at all. We do not need multiple sources to say the sky is blue, clouds are white or the BNP is fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We do not need multiple sources to support that the BNP is fascist, just one reliable source. Only if there are conflicting views would it be necessary to look more deeply at sources. However in that case we would find a source indicating what the majority opinion was, and again would need only one source for that. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I second what Deuces is saying. Please let's stop arguing about this silly matter and move on to more important things, like the way Yorkshirian sabotaged and butchered this article over the last few months with misleading edits. This article needs a thorough source verification review to remove the spiteful propaganda of the BNP.UBER (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I echo what others are saying. If we were using old news sources to source "fascism" there may be a point. But we are using peer reviewed academic journals, the gold standard of sourcing. So any attempt to claim the BNP are no longer fascist because current news article don't use the term (which not actually saying the BNP are not fascist) won't wash. If academics didn't change their view of the BNP when they voluntarily changed their immigration stance from "mandatory repatriation" to "voluntary repatriation", it's highly unlikely they've changed their mind because of some other minor policy changes or the BNP being forced to change their constitution. If you want to assert otherwise, provide a peer reviewed academic journal. Until then, stop ignoring what people say and repeating your points that other people have countered again and again, it isn't helpful, it's a waste of time and it isn't going to result in a consensus. 2 lines of K303 15:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Section for citations that assert that this is a fascist political party
Please add your citations here....
- Nothing, there are no citations that support this claim, I had hoped that editors that support the claim would have presented or added something that I could say, yes I agree with the claim in the infobox the BNP are a fascist organization but they have not done this at all. I will tell you why the editors that claim the BNP are a fascist party have not presented any citations is because there aren't any, none of the major publications claim the party is fascist and I challenge you to present here and authoritative recent essay that asserts or claims the party as a fascist organization. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Section for citations that assert the BNP is no longer a fascist party
None. How much more of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE are needed here? 2 lines of K303 15:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have it on the wrong foot, it is not that I have to find citations that say what the BNP is not, editors that claim the BNP is today a fascist organization need to either provide recent citations that support that or it should be removed. If and when support is provided here on this talkpage for the claim or the fascist tag is removed then I will drop it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is an example of a party that transformed itself from fascist to non-fascist: the Italian Social Movement. There are sources that document this change just as there would be sources if the BNP made this transformation. The onus of proof is on those who claim the BNP is no longer fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Claims from over a decade ago that to me appear very weak also are not everlasting name calling and derogatory tagging. Please, someone, anyone..make a case here now with supporting citations that assert this claim, show me here with citations, who it is today that claims the British National Party are a fascist organization. They are regularly refereed to in the mass media as far right, I can find multiple recent citations for this but no one reliable independent source is referring to them as fascists? Why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- How about "Fascism: The Ideology of the British National Party" by Nigel Copsey (2007)?[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK, at least this is an offering, thanks. Nigel Copsey .. The Ideology of the British National Party 2007. what does Nigel say in there about the BNP being facist. The provided link is blank for me? Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- How about "Fascism: The Ideology of the British National Party" by Nigel Copsey (2007)?[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Claims from over a decade ago that to me appear very weak also are not everlasting name calling and derogatory tagging. Please, someone, anyone..make a case here now with supporting citations that assert this claim, show me here with citations, who it is today that claims the British National Party are a fascist organization. They are regularly refereed to in the mass media as far right, I can find multiple recent citations for this but no one reliable independent source is referring to them as fascists? Why is that? Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is an example of a party that transformed itself from fascist to non-fascist: the Italian Social Movement. There are sources that document this change just as there would be sources if the BNP made this transformation. The onus of proof is on those who claim the BNP is no longer fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be an article in a magazine, I was looking for a book..In 2007, Nigel published an article in Patterns of Prejudice exploring the ideological modernisation of the BNP, as well as an essay on labour and right-wing extremism in the United States and Britain in the inter-war period, in J. Hofmann and M. Schneider (eds), ArbeiterInnenbewegung und Rechtsextremismus. .. has anyone got a link? Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is not an article in a magazine, it is in an academic journal published by the Political Studies Association. Copsey has written books too, and here is a review of his recent book Contemporary British fascism (2007).[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
James Turley review Nigel Copsey’s book is not a reliable citation, is it? This is a interesting report from 2010 a pdf , Ford and goodwin, they never call the BNP fascist once. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It does not call the British Union of Fascists fascist either. (1st footnote.) Anyway, you are the one who wants a recent citation. They are there if you want to go to a library. In the meantime the older sources used are acceptable unless you can find something more recent that contradicts them. I mean if a source says that Elizabeth II is the Queen no one asks us to find a more recent source because she may have abdicated since the original source was published. The fact that an article mentioning her does not refer to her office is no evidence that she has abdicated and the person challenging the source must present their own. And why do you continue to redlight names to prove that the BNP is no longer fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This constant circular discussion around a logical fallacy is pointless. Objectively, if A is not described as having property 'x', it is no proof that it lacks property 'x'. If it is *specifically* asserted that property 'x' is not present, then that is a different matter. If it has been described by some reputable observers as having property 'x', that logically carries more weight than any number of reputable and non-reputable observers who did not describe A as having property 'x'. To argue otherwise is to fall foul of the 'polka-dot goat fallacy', (which I have just invented, as it elegantly illustrates the point).
To give a *subjective* and reverse, parallel, a prominent poster on this talk page has noticeably poor grammar and spelling. The fact that no other person on the talk page has mentioned this, does not affect the fact that if asked, most other editors fluent in the English language would state that this particular editor's posts indeed possess those qualities. In addition, it is pointless to ask the poster him/herself his/her opinion of the situation. Regarding such an admission as disadvantageous, the poster may well deny it, even in the teeth of evidence.
In other words, 'silence means consent' is not an applicable principle in cases of political attributes. Nor is reference to the attitudes of the French National Front, the Italian Social Movement, and similar. The measure WKP goes by isn't whether the BNP, its supporters, or even the media think it is, was or is no longer fascist, but what is the academic consensus. If anyone has a comparable authority to Copsey and Thurlow then it must be considered, the assertions made (not statements unmade) agrees with Copsey et al or not. Put up or shut up... Centrepull (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. I would just add that there are many more academic sources than just the two you mentioned. Emeraude (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Christ, are we playing this old record again? I guess we must be getting near an election, that's generally when we get these pushes to remove the tag (gosh, almost like it's organised!) Unless you have solid academic sources that dispute Copsey, Thurlow et al., there is nothing to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Well said Cameron Scott. There really ought to be a finite limit placed on the discussion of one subject in an article. This particular one has been done to death. It has been settled time and time again. And yet, time and time again, it rears it's head as new BNP apologists appear to argue the toss. Wembwandt (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Defining news organisations
Hi, as a result of looking at the debates on this page, I am trying to start a debate about defining what news organisations, as a reliable source, are good for and/or not good for. It is not as clearly defined as other similar reliable sources policies and I think it could be. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_Organisations_section ~ R.T.G 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Headquarters
According to the infobox, the BNP is headquartered in Waltham Cross, Herts. According to the BNP's website, its address is Nuneaton. Anyone have a definitive answer? (Of course,it's possible that the address for correspondence is not the same as the HQ.) Emeraude (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Surley for this the bnp can be considerd rs?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, unless the Nuneaton address is just a mail drop? It doesn't specifically say "headquarters". Emeraude (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to assume its not thier headquaters?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- When the BNP owned a book shop in Welling they provided their contact address as box number there. Later, they used a box office in Waltham Cross then Nuneaton. The address reported by the "Register of political parties" is a box office in Welshpool.[5] None of this provides any evidence that they have headquarters. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then we should remove what is an unsubstatiated claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Emeraude (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Far Right?
After reading the section on their economic policies, I find it hard to view the BNP as a far-right political party. Their economic policies are far left. Dunnsworth (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- We report the opinions of reliable secondary sources, which classify the party as far right. Review the talk page for the evidence.UBER (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- How you find it is largely irrelevant. If sources describe them as far-right, Wikipedia calls them far-right. Wembwandt (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Webwandt, if sources report their policies as far left, then shouldn't wikipedia? There seems to be a bit of irrational behavior in regards to this, neither the left, nor right, wants to have the BNP be placed on their side of the spectrum. Maybe their position should be broken down to economic and social, with the economic policies being far left and social policies being far right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.160.253 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- How you find it is largely irrelevant. If sources describe them as far-right, Wikipedia calls them far-right. Wembwandt (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
semi-protect
We are getting a lot of IP vandalism at the moment - so people think it would be a good idea to request semi-protection? --Snowded TALK 09:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Requested --Snowded TALK 10:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was semi-protected indefinitely, that got removed when it was unprotected after the recent kerfuffle. Semi-protecting it for a week only solves the immediate problem for a week, as soon as the semi-protection expires the racists will be back to remove "Fascism".... 2 lines of K303 13:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that most of those that have been doing it recently have no other agenda, so surely it would be better and easier to just WP:RBI them? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Political tendency
this content ... what is the message..content seems a bit like name calling and insulting, more low level tabloid than encyclopedic?
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred".[1] An editorial in The Guardian characterises the BNP as "a racist organisation with a fascist pedigree that rightfully belongs under a stone".[2] Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg has described the BNP as "a party of thugs, fascists".[3] Conservative Party leader David Cameron said of the BNP "If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists... They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs."[4] Home Secretary Alan Johnson, speaking on BBC's Question Time (15 October 2009) said, "These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the second world war, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party and however they change their constitution they will remain foul and despicable."[5][6] Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda".[7]
- Aside from pointing out that all leaders of mainstream political parties think they are fascist what point are you trying to make? --Snowded TALK 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is good that this section stays in the article. In that way most people are able to see first hand how inherently biased and politically motivated these "fascist"-claims are (including that of the infobox). -TheG (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any actual editing suggestion? This is not a talk forum. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear from looking at this content what the issue is, what is correct about this comment for example and also as a political party, on the Brown article having the most horrible insulting comment that can be found from Cameron would be not very NPOV would it, no it would not, Cameron has said that Brown is a sad old bully or such like easily cited would get laughed away if it was to be included on Browns article but that is exactly what we have here. Playground name calling and insults of no value at all to the reader and with no basic in intellectuality reality. For example, what value do you think this content has? Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred".
- Are you getting so worked up about this that you are failing to sign your comments? The fact that all the leaders of main stream parties (despite name calling in respect of each other) agree with the reliable third party sources that the BNP is fascist makes the position very clear. Until you can bring a third party source, reliable and addressing weight issues which says that they are no fascist then it stands. All of the above is just wasting other editors time. --Snowded TALK 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question, do you support such valuable educational content as this...The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred". Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given that I am not relying on that citation I don't see the relevance of the question. I can imagine that a BNP PR person might find it unfortunate. --Snowded TALK 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question, do you support such valuable educational content as this...The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred". Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you getting so worked up about this that you are failing to sign your comments? The fact that all the leaders of main stream parties (despite name calling in respect of each other) agree with the reliable third party sources that the BNP is fascist makes the position very clear. Until you can bring a third party source, reliable and addressing weight issues which says that they are no fascist then it stands. All of the above is just wasting other editors time. --Snowded TALK 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think if people joined the BNP (assuming it was legal to do so) on the basis of them not being far-right, racist and Nazi on account of a wikipedia article then we would have done them a grave disservice and they would be in afor a rusde awakening. People have joined under such misapprehensions, though fortunately not on our say-so.--Streona (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a kind of education informative neutral article, not a reflection of how vile and evil they might be in some peoples eyes, with a collection of such worthless insult ... The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred". ..I have removed it, it is a worthless name calling insult, I look forward to the reason for reinsertion Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that all the political parties, and all the national press describe the BNP in that way is significant. --Snowded TALK 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
User Snowed has replaced the Dail Mirror insult with the comment "reliable source making a valid political point." about this content .... The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style of racial hatred"....You can not be serious, a valid political point, vile prophets? Nazi style? Hilarious. The reinsertion of this worthless content is a reflection of poor quality the whole article. What could be the valid political point of such an opinionated insult? Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well as a compromise to your obvious sensitivities on this subject we could say: The Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as preaching "A Nazi-style of racial hatred". Vile prophets may be a pit colourful and is a bit of an insult to prophets in general. Personally I think the content is worthwhile (as explained above). OK supporters of the BNO might not like it, or the fact that they have such universal condemnation, but not liking something does not make it poor quality --Snowded TALK 15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that this assertion is referenced under "political tendency" is proper and makes it encyclopedic in nature, there is no reason I find this alone makes the article poor in quality. After all, my opinion is quality of an article like 'BNP' as a whole gets meaning assinged by its virtue, and the quality is seldom improved by removing attributes or links. If Off2riorob thinks someother way to improve the quality, he should be ready to prove it by example :-). Peace. --SilverAudi (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you expect from Snowded - he's not exactly impartial (no one is truly impartial anyway). He self identifies as a Socialist. Jstriker (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure that most editors involved in political pages have political positions, hence the need to work with reliable sources. Temperate language also helps, so hopefully you will not reinstate this--Snowded TALK 10:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- My page. You know "my", the pronoun which implies personal property. Ah yes, you're a socialist. Perhaps that concept is slightly alien. Your idea of a reliable source is just something written by someone with the same inherent bias as yours. I have my bias, as do all people, but I am honest enough to admit it. x Jstriker (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well its "my page" which declares my political views and I sincerely hope I never put anything that crude on it. Otherwise if you think the reliable sources are biased then there are various remedies available to you. I just realised that you have not had a welcome template so I put one on your talk page. That will help you navigate around wikipedia. I also formatted this stream using colons to structure the comments. I also recommend you start addressing content issues rather than making accusations against other editors, such behaviour is generally deprecated in WIkipedia. --Snowded TALK 10:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- "I sincerely hope I never put anything that crude on it". What does this even mean? Do what you want, I don't care. I nor anybody else needs to hear about your fears for your future potential behaviour. If you see me making it clear here that you're a socialist as an "accusation" then perhaps you need to reassess things yourself. Best thing to put it to bed would be to say, "yes I'm a socialist, yes I'm biased against views coming from the right but as long as I fight with the views of other more notable people from the left it's ok." x Jstriker (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (sigh) "there's always a bitter commie somewhere in the world jerking off to CP with one hand and edit warring you with the other" would fall in most people's definition of crude (to handle your question). Otherwise the above advise stands. --Snowded TALK 10:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're not a very subtle fella. Wasn't exactly the nub of my question though was it. Perhaps you're not so good at comprehension. Why are you fearful over your own future potential behaviour? You either would do so or you wouldn't and no one here needs to hear about which one it is. Well, I think we've established you're a leftist and at least people coming to this page will be able to realise which side of the fence you;re coming from immediately. Best. x Jstriker (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Impartial, unregistered user here. Jstriker, you are coming across as full of the bias that you, apparently, have such disdain for. Also, the repeated personal attacks on Snowded are making you look increasingly foolish. Please focus on content questions, thanks.
- You're not a very subtle fella. Wasn't exactly the nub of my question though was it. Perhaps you're not so good at comprehension. Why are you fearful over your own future potential behaviour? You either would do so or you wouldn't and no one here needs to hear about which one it is. Well, I think we've established you're a leftist and at least people coming to this page will be able to realise which side of the fence you;re coming from immediately. Best. x Jstriker (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (sigh) "there's always a bitter commie somewhere in the world jerking off to CP with one hand and edit warring you with the other" would fall in most people's definition of crude (to handle your question). Otherwise the above advise stands. --Snowded TALK 10:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- "I sincerely hope I never put anything that crude on it". What does this even mean? Do what you want, I don't care. I nor anybody else needs to hear about your fears for your future potential behaviour. If you see me making it clear here that you're a socialist as an "accusation" then perhaps you need to reassess things yourself. Best thing to put it to bed would be to say, "yes I'm a socialist, yes I'm biased against views coming from the right but as long as I fight with the views of other more notable people from the left it's ok." x Jstriker (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well its "my page" which declares my political views and I sincerely hope I never put anything that crude on it. Otherwise if you think the reliable sources are biased then there are various remedies available to you. I just realised that you have not had a welcome template so I put one on your talk page. That will help you navigate around wikipedia. I also formatted this stream using colons to structure the comments. I also recommend you start addressing content issues rather than making accusations against other editors, such behaviour is generally deprecated in WIkipedia. --Snowded TALK 10:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- My page. You know "my", the pronoun which implies personal property. Ah yes, you're a socialist. Perhaps that concept is slightly alien. Your idea of a reliable source is just something written by someone with the same inherent bias as yours. I have my bias, as do all people, but I am honest enough to admit it. x Jstriker (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am sure that most editors involved in political pages have political positions, hence the need to work with reliable sources. Temperate language also helps, so hopefully you will not reinstate this--Snowded TALK 10:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- What do you expect from Snowded - he's not exactly impartial (no one is truly impartial anyway). He self identifies as a Socialist. Jstriker (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that this assertion is referenced under "political tendency" is proper and makes it encyclopedic in nature, there is no reason I find this alone makes the article poor in quality. After all, my opinion is quality of an article like 'BNP' as a whole gets meaning assinged by its virtue, and the quality is seldom improved by removing attributes or links. If Off2riorob thinks someother way to improve the quality, he should be ready to prove it by example :-). Peace. --SilverAudi (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
FPO and the BNP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria
If the BNP is considered Fascist enough by wikipedians to put the moniker in its infobox should we not do the same for, say, the FPO? Having lived in both countries I can vouch for the similarity of their policies as I perceived them (anti-immigration, nationalism, social conservatism, anti-islamism etc). Can any of the learned minds here answer my question perhaps? Or do we just regurgitate the POVs of contributing editors and whatever mediocre sauces get the most votes? Jstriker (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you'd have to argue that there rather than here, not least because sources may differ. And although I've eaten in some poor restaurants, so have experienced "mediocre sauces", it's the meat that matters. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You must discuss that in the other article. TFD (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article's "meat" depends on the source. Any other approach is unencyclopedic? To be honest just did a comparison check between the various articles for Christian Democratic parties in Europe. The amount of inconsistency in the "ideology" section of the infoboxes is simply staggering and indicative of how sloppy wiki is on political issues. Ah well - Anglosphere bias & the wiki problem of no central authority. What ya gunna do. Jstriker (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's strange to me to assume that most editors who edit an article about a UK political party would also edit an article about an Austrian political party; you'd have to be some sort of academic political scientist to be capable of doing both, and by extension, there would also have to be some connection with similar French, German, Italian etc, parties. Therefore, it's unsurprising that in an English language encyclopedia, sources in the English language tend to be used, since they are accessible to those editors interested enough to contribute. In one way, this is a strength of Wikipedia, since anyone can contribute, based upon the sources to which they've perhaps been exposed, but on the other hand, it's perhaps a weakness because those same editors lack the experience to analyse the wider context. But that's the whole point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in that each article stands or falls upon its own merits, but there is as yet no mechanism for achieving intellectual consistency across a wide range of articles. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just think calling the BNP fascist is a tad disingenuous and pointed out that none of the other nationalist parties in europe seem to have this tag on their infobox. Not going to even attempt to try and change anything or harmonise it as I know I'll be shouted down by majority liberal British online opinion and really cba. Best thing to do on contentious issues - pay for a Britannica online subscription with back issue access and you can see how views have changed over time through the vagaries of fashion rather than any discovery of "new" knowledge. Jstriker (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who has just moved from the UK to Austria, I agree that there doesn't seem to be much difference between the BNP and the FPÖ except that the FPÖ has a lot more voters. That's an argument for looking for sources of a comparabl qualitye to those used in this article that discuss the FPÖ and express its extreme nature clearly, and then add to the FPÖ article whatever those sources use – possibly something like "openly crypto-nazi" instead of "fascist", because that would be a better description. But it makes no sense to discuss these things at the present article. Hans Adler 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Openly Crypto-Nazi". A meaningless oxymoronic term - some kind of amateurish babble. See this is the kind of individual I'm talking about. As if the FPO or BNP secretly harbour ambitions to create a Greater Austrian/British Reich based on Volksgemeinschaft theory. This kind of lazy slander abounds on wikipedia which is why there's almost no point in bothering with political articles on here. It's just laziness by amateurs. I also like the way you assure us we must find sources which "express its extreme nature clearly" instead of just looking at the sources and seeing what they say. Everyone loves to presuppose and fit the evidence to the theory round here don't they - keep that positivistic spirit going strong! Jstriker (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The FPÖ has nothing to do with the UK. "Openly crypto-nazi" was my attempt to describe what they are doing. E.g. FPÖ presidential candidate Barbara Rosenkranz asked for a repeal of the Verbotsgesetz 1947. After the resulting uproar her posters got a new text: "Ohne Mut keine Werte" ("No values without courage"). Heinz-Christian Strache regularly refers in a positive way to "ordering three beers", i.e. an obvious pretext for the nazi salute. These are just two out of many examples. If they were any more open than that they would get prison sentences of about 10 years. So they can't be more than crypto-nazis, but they are crypto-nazis as openly as possible. But this is not the right article for this discussion. Hans Adler 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS: It was you who asked for both parties to be treated in the same way, remember? Hans Adler 09:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article's "meat" depends on the source. Any other approach is unencyclopedic? To be honest just did a comparison check between the various articles for Christian Democratic parties in Europe. The amount of inconsistency in the "ideology" section of the infoboxes is simply staggering and indicative of how sloppy wiki is on political issues. Ah well - Anglosphere bias & the wiki problem of no central authority. What ya gunna do. Jstriker (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yah, but only because I believer neither party to be neo-nazi or fascist. But it's ok - you can continue to delude yourself if you want. The FPO has been a partner in government before. I didn't see the KZs reopening. x Jstriker (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- PS - Keep your attempts at inventing words to yourself please. The English language is large enough for you to express yourself. I know German speakers love creating new compound nouns but your phrase is meaningless. Any attempt to remove typically european restrictions on free speech is a good thing. Become more like your anglo-saxon friends and you will realise what liberty means perhaps. x Jstriker (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Well if you can find similar academic articles as are you used here, you have a good case to add it - however I know nothing about the FPO so can't help in any way... Anyway, that's something for you to argue over there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the BNP today a fascist organization
The reason it is being repeatedly removed is because it is so weakly claimed and is unsupported in political reporting today. I opened a discussion recently about this claim and nothing that was shown to me in the way of citations convinced me at all that the BNP is today a fascist organization and it will be removed as people dispute it.
Main parties accused of failing to confront the BNP
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/main-parties-accused-of-failing-to-confront-the-bnp-1936714.html
Immigration concerns must be addressed to stymie extremists, campaigners say
By Andrew Grice
Nothing British is sending the opposition candidates in the 300 seats where the BNP are fielding candidates (a record number for the BNP) a guide to help them deal with the party, screaming "fascists" at the party is as likely to annoy the public as persuade them, says the guide.
Mr James Bethell, a Conservative who was managing director of the Ministry of Sound nightclub, said: "The mainstream parties must have the guts to confront toxic issues – immigration, national identity, Islamism and the divided nature of our society."
He argued that traditional attacks on the BNP would not work because they did not accord with people's experience of the party. Its members now wore suits and fluorescent jackets and took part in social action projects such as building a scout hut, clearing snow and even removing racist graffiti.
This article again doesn't call the party fascist but does say that Mr Clegg (the liberal democrat leader) once said that the party (the BNP)was "made up of fascist thugs" which is of course a political slur as I imagine the party has some members that are not "fascist thugs" . I really do think the article should honestly reflect the general political opinion and national press coverage that the party is not fascist and the citation presented actual opines that calling them such actually is beneficial to their support, even Political experts who make their money from writing about their chosen subject right wing politics and fascism today have to comment that the party has modernized. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no excuse for edit waring by single purpose IPs and I hope you are not trying to justify that. I also hope that you are not saying that you will remove it without first achieving consensus here. As to the above reference, I fail to see how suggesting that it is bad tactics to call the BNP fascist, means that they are not. You find to find a reliable third party source which states that they are no longer fascist, and it has to pass the WP:WEIGHT test. --Snowded TALK 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
How many times do you need the same thing explaining to you? Your constant IDIDNTHEARTHAT is starting to become disruptive in nature. It has been explained to you again and again that you need to bring reliable 3rd party sources to the table *before* a discussion can get started. If you persist in this 'deafness' maybe a topic ban is in order? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can bring up and discuss ongoing issues in a decent way as I have done here whenever I want. Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- But you are bringing the same point up time and time again and not responding to the basic request for you to find a proper source, I do think you might want to consider taking a voluntary break as you seem very emotionally tied up in this particular issue. --Snowded TALK 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will continue to bring whatever I feel is beneficial to the article, I dispute the claims and I have brought multiple citations and dispute the recent value of the citations that are currently supporting the the party is a fascist organization and I will continue to bring them for discussion as they arise as I have done today. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have not brought a single citation to say that they are not fascist. Until you do you are simply wasting other people's time --Snowded TALK 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I have presented, the BNP is not reported in the reliable press to be a fascist political party , neither do they refer to the organization as being fascist, the general reliable citations do not support or report that the party is fascist at all, is the suggestion that the general reporting of the party not calling them fascist is meaningless? They are to be labeled fascist until citations start actually saying that the political party is not fascist , imo that is not correct, if the party is no longer in reliable citations called fascist then wikipedia should not be continuing to assert that they are fascist either.Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the myriad prior responses to your position in this respect. --Snowded TALK 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Totally agree with Snowded. @Off2riorob, appreciate your point, but proving BNP to be non-fascist is equally challenging as proving all apples are not red in colour. As you would probably know, they still teach kids at school that apples are red. Of course, you find green, pink and sometimes even yellow apples. Off2riorob could be referring to make BNP to one of those 'non-red colours'. My opinion is that, it is better to go with the commonly accepted definition and consensus for the sake of wider audience logging in to Wikipedia to learn more about 'apples' :-).--SilverAudi (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read the myriad prior responses to your position in this respect. --Snowded TALK 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- As I have presented, the BNP is not reported in the reliable press to be a fascist political party , neither do they refer to the organization as being fascist, the general reliable citations do not support or report that the party is fascist at all, is the suggestion that the general reporting of the party not calling them fascist is meaningless? They are to be labeled fascist until citations start actually saying that the political party is not fascist , imo that is not correct, if the party is no longer in reliable citations called fascist then wikipedia should not be continuing to assert that they are fascist either.Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have not brought a single citation to say that they are not fascist. Until you do you are simply wasting other people's time --Snowded TALK 19:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will continue to bring whatever I feel is beneficial to the article, I dispute the claims and I have brought multiple citations and dispute the recent value of the citations that are currently supporting the the party is a fascist organization and I will continue to bring them for discussion as they arise as I have done today. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- But you are bringing the same point up time and time again and not responding to the basic request for you to find a proper source, I do think you might want to consider taking a voluntary break as you seem very emotionally tied up in this particular issue. --Snowded TALK 19:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the BNP a NAZI or TERRORIST organization
I don't agree with the BNP but shouldn't Wikipedia treat them under the same parameters as other groups? The existing articles on the FARC and Al-Qaeda, both of whom are condemned by most authorities in the world more widely than the BNP, have their ideology in their info-bar defined based upon what they identify themselves as. With this precedent, stating in the infobar that the BNP is fascist makes as much sense as refusing to use the BNP logo in the depiction of it, and using a swastike or fasces instead, just because this is what people choose to equate the organisation with. The media's use of "Fascist" to refer to the BNP is used under the same direction as "Terrorist" to refer to groups such as Al Qaeda and FARC, but Al Qaeda and FARC do not have their ideology listed as "Terrorist", since they have never referred to themselves as Terrorist, though this is what they may be. In fact, the BNP is in most ways a NAZI organisation, but by virtue of them never using this word to describe themselves, it is not in the infobar. Furthermore, the sources that refer to the BNP as FASCIST also inextricably state that the BNP is NAZI in the same material, yet NAZISM is not listed as BNP ideology. This is because it would simply look so warped and out of place. In my belief, using Fascist to describe the BNP also looks like it is an attempt to make sure that people cannot see what the organisation is saying, and so that what people are saying ABOUT it is the only thing visible. If the BNP is NAZI or FASCIST, you have nothing to hide and might as well cite BNP sources to support this rather than sources that were presently attacking the organisation.--Earthprophet (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Terrorism is not an ideology, its a practice or tactic for achieving ideological goals. As to the rest, see above comments Wikipedia works from source --Snowded TALK 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The definition of terrorism is still the subject of intense ongoing debate and I wouldn't presume to define it in just a few words, so it seems a bit closed minded or badly informed for you to simply try and encompass it all in a few words and try to shut me up. According to sources I have read, terrorism is a label, much as the word Fascism has been in its application to the BNP. But, supposing I accept your point as correct, Nazism is still an ideology which the BNP is also considered to have, but is not in the info bar. Far Right Extremism and White Supremacy are also ideologies which the BNP is considered to have but are not in the info bar. In addition, the terms neo-Fascism and neo-Nazism are being invalidated if you aren't even using them to refer to contemporary Fascist or Nazi groups, since neo simply means new. And it is obvious that the BNP does not and nor has its predecessors revered Mussolini, so it cannot be Fascist as defined as a group which supports and upholds all of the totalitarian principles and policies of Mussolini. I would like to say I am not interested in re-evaluating your previous comments for you. I want you to re-evaluate them all carefully --Earthprophet (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- While the definition of what is terrorism may be subject to debate, there is no question that it is not an ideology. Basically any political ideology might choose to use terrorist tactics. Some would claim they were freedom fighters etc. Hence the controversy. Your reference to FARC and Al-Qaeda is therefore invalid. Otherwise the sources that justify the fascist label are clear and have been articulated before. If you want to make a case for more labels then you are free to make them, but you will need third party citations to justify any proposal. I am not aware of any definition of fascism that restricts the word to supports Mussolini. If you have a reference to support that rather exceptional view perhaps you would share it? Also please use colons to indent your comments per wikipedia guidelines. --Snowded TALK 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would also like to make a personal message to you specifically, Snowded. The BNP states that mainstream sources are biased against them, which would include Wikipedia. As far as the soft power struggle goes, an obviously misinformed and biased position against the BNP on this article is a gesture that verifies the BNP's claims and will only increase people's likelihood to investigate the BNP's position for themselves rather than rely on you as a middleman. If you want to prevent people accessing the BNP's manifestos by trying to establish for them what the BNP is about on this page instead, it makes more sense to be less sensational and more moderate, otherwise people will be more likely to look at the BNP's material and you will have failed in your objective. The truth you need to come to face is, most people are aware the BNP is Racist (most voters vote for them because of this very reason), but so far only small circles and elites are discussing the BNP as Fascist (fortunate enough to be pundits or have media positions or positions such as your own) at which the average person's eyes roll and they think you have an obsession with the word and with WW2 imagery --Earthprophet (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BNP offers nothing for Britain because it is fundamentally opposed to a system of globalisation and domineering international interests, i.e. NATO, the EU, the EEC, various corporations and ties that are the sole reasons we keep our standing in the world, that any country choosing to sever itself from will simply fall into economic ruin for a few years and come crawling back begging for forgiveness. The soft power weapon that needs to be used to ensure that readers of this article are against the BNP is to expose its bankrupt vision for Britain, which is in denial of the reality we all know. Calling them a name that they consistently deny is more likely to make people's position against the BNP weak and easy to be melted, rather than being strong, so I advise you rethink your position as a Soft Info warrior. You're the expert. Don't rely on me to give references for this, as I'm sure they're out there and if anyone can find them, it is you --Earthprophet (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has some very simple rules, third party reliable sources, neutral point of view etc. etc. Under those rules it is fascist. As to the rest, a debate about political tactics has little or nothing to do with editing an encyclopedia. --Snowded TALK 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The sources are irrelevant. A discussion about terrorism is irrelevant. The point is, you have blatantly misapplied the sources and for obvious manipulative reasons. If someone else, even almost everyone else, uses a label on an organisation, whether it is "Fascist" or "Terrorist", Wikipedia is out of its league if it uses the label without saying in the same sentence where the label came from and acknowledging that it is indeed a label. It is only impartial if it says "Party X and Party Y say Party Z is evil", or "mainstream opinion says". Wikipedia cannot assume the authority to proscribe organisations, because Wikipedia is not a state, and it is not a security organisation, nor is it supposed to be any kind of active participant in politics, it is supposed to offer a balanced position that anyone from any position can begin to read and get a good idea, rather than scoffing and deciding to leave the web page. In addition, on your own page, Snowded, it shows that you are politically aligned with the "Left" (whatever that is), so because this article is at your mercy, only your view is being presented, only the sources you like are being cited. You have every reason to oppose the BNP and I disagree with them too (although they are simply not Fascists, I think they are more like chavs), but this reflects badly on Wikipedia by all standards and I think you are too complacent in your assumption that everyone shares your view and interests, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary --Earthprophet (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The most cursory inspection of the edit history of this page will show you that lots of editors are involved. If you don't like the way wikipedia works then fine, but don't expect other editors to go along with it. One of the key rules is that all editors should address content issues and not comment on the views or otherwise of other editors. If you have a serious content proposal, supported by reliable sources then please suggest it Otherwise please stop wasting my time. --Snowded TALK 17:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The sources are irrelevant. A discussion about terrorism is irrelevant. The point is, you have blatantly misapplied the sources and for obvious manipulative reasons. If someone else, even almost everyone else, uses a label on an organisation, whether it is "Fascist" or "Terrorist", Wikipedia is out of its league if it uses the label without saying in the same sentence where the label came from and acknowledging that it is indeed a label. It is only impartial if it says "Party X and Party Y say Party Z is evil", or "mainstream opinion says". Wikipedia cannot assume the authority to proscribe organisations, because Wikipedia is not a state, and it is not a security organisation, nor is it supposed to be any kind of active participant in politics, it is supposed to offer a balanced position that anyone from any position can begin to read and get a good idea, rather than scoffing and deciding to leave the web page. In addition, on your own page, Snowded, it shows that you are politically aligned with the "Left" (whatever that is), so because this article is at your mercy, only your view is being presented, only the sources you like are being cited. You have every reason to oppose the BNP and I disagree with them too (although they are simply not Fascists, I think they are more like chavs), but this reflects badly on Wikipedia by all standards and I think you are too complacent in your assumption that everyone shares your view and interests, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary --Earthprophet (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously my content proposal is the removal of the label of the BNP as Fascist in the infobar. This move needs not be backed up by sources and by all means your sources should still be used in the article's content. This move is based on the same standards used in other Wikipedia articles. As for how "Wikipedia works" it is determined by how its editors work. Therefore, where its editors are political activists, they use their edits for political activism and manipulative purposes --Earthprophet (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Given that the use of that label is backed up by citation, you will have to find a reliable source which says they are not fascist. If you read the other discussions on this talk page you will see that has been a consistent position. Your speculations as to the behaviour of other editors really need to cease. --Snowded TALK 22:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously my content proposal is the removal of the label of the BNP as Fascist in the infobar. This move needs not be backed up by sources and by all means your sources should still be used in the article's content. This move is based on the same standards used in other Wikipedia articles. As for how "Wikipedia works" it is determined by how its editors work. Therefore, where its editors are political activists, they use their edits for political activism and manipulative purposes --Earthprophet (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Mark Collett
It's probably worth mentioning Mark Collett's suspension as Director of Publicity and his arrest for allegedly threatening to kill Nick Griffin.[6] It can probably be worked into a section on their 2010 general election campaign. Fences&Windows 10:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whats it got to do with thier election campghn? If it belongs anywhere its in a section about rifts in the party (but there is not one) or the general history.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Bringing in-line with SNP page
The membership figure is for April '09 and from here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/19/bnp-membership-list-constituency
Can someone please link the "Youth wing" bit to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_BNP
Aas I can't get it to work. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 87.194.46.41, 6 May 2010
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party formed please change to: The British National Party (BNP) is a Nazi front formed 87.194.46.41 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done You cite no source for this, and such an edit would require a cast-iron source. Rodhullandemu 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
5th most popular party in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.18.126 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Election section
Is it just me or is the election section a bit of a jumble - it has a 'local election' and a 'local govt' section - maybe merge, rewrite and update (for example they were wiped out in many places yesterday). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Anti-Semitic?
I think not, they have Jews in the party as the candidate for Neath, Michael Green, is Jewish; the candidate for Hastings and Rye is Nick Prince who is Jewish and for Epping Forest, Patricia Richardson is Jewish as well. So stop categorising the party as "anti-Semitic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 April 2010
- That is not how it works. We report what is found in reliable sources, and do not conduct original research. TFD (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I do not care what sources you have used, to be anti-Semitic is to hate Jews, is that what the party has done? No, it has thrown no hatred to Jews at all and making references to Griffin makes no difference because he said that before he was chairman.
Much as I loathe the BNP, unless I've missed something it's not exactly well-sourced in the article that the party is anti-Semitic. Indeed, it claims "The party has stated that it does not consider the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions to have a significantly detrimental or threatening effect, having several members with Jewish ancestry". I agree with the Holocaust denial category though; sourced even without the Nick Griffin factor. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, NatDemUK has been adequately warned not to edit-war yet has continued to do so and is now blocked for 31 hours. Rodhullandemu 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh aye, not arguing that; I just wonder if he's possibly got a point about that category. Generally, pejorative categories need a higher bar of sourcing than most; I'm sure that there is a level of anti-Semitism in the BNP but it would still be OR without sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good block as (i) he was edit warring and (ii) arguing from his own personal experience. Holocaust denial is sourced, we need to look at anti-semitism. The BNPs claims here (especially in the build up to an election) are not a reliable enough source. There are plenty of references to say that since 2008 it has been trying to portray itself differently, however there is no third party source I can find which says its leader has actually changed. I haven't been able to check it, but this could be significant: "Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore.... when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on.... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness." Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP, writing in the Patriot, Spring 1999." --Snowded TALK 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can one use a category for an article on a party based only on the views of its leader, though? That sounds very dubious to me - what if the BNP changed it's leader tomorrow to one that we couldn't source as anti-semitic? Just seems to me that we need a little more than Griffin's ramblings to source the category. Tricky one. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its a good (ish) point and I would prefer not to rely on it. However the leader has considerable power in the BNP (see the stuff on the constitution) and in the quote he is talking about what should be taught to the hard core. As you say, tricky!--Snowded TALK 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- "The British National Party (BNP, the political heir to the fascist, racist, anti-Semitic National Front of the 1970s that temporarily gained some noticeable electoral support) today remains virtually the only relevant extreme right party in Britain. With the exception of a few local and regional elections in the 1990s, the BNP, which portrays itself as somewhat more "democratic" than its European counterparts, although it never really surpassed its original proto-Nazi mould, has always performed poorly." ("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. Page Number: 93+. COPYRIGHT 2003 Berghahn Books, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group[7] TFD (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its a good (ish) point and I would prefer not to rely on it. However the leader has considerable power in the BNP (see the stuff on the constitution) and in the quote he is talking about what should be taught to the hard core. As you say, tricky!--Snowded TALK 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can one use a category for an article on a party based only on the views of its leader, though? That sounds very dubious to me - what if the BNP changed it's leader tomorrow to one that we couldn't source as anti-semitic? Just seems to me that we need a little more than Griffin's ramblings to source the category. Tricky one. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good block as (i) he was edit warring and (ii) arguing from his own personal experience. Holocaust denial is sourced, we need to look at anti-semitism. The BNPs claims here (especially in the build up to an election) are not a reliable enough source. There are plenty of references to say that since 2008 it has been trying to portray itself differently, however there is no third party source I can find which says its leader has actually changed. I haven't been able to check it, but this could be significant: "Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore.... when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on.... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness." Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP, writing in the Patriot, Spring 1999." --Snowded TALK 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh aye, not arguing that; I just wonder if he's possibly got a point about that category. Generally, pejorative categories need a higher bar of sourcing than most; I'm sure that there is a level of anti-Semitism in the BNP but it would still be OR without sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Again, that is just Nationalist bashing without any sources, so it is basically all biased really. Plus, the NF had Jewish members Gerry Viner and Albert Elder and the NF had no policy of abolishing democracy, so that paragraph is purely biased.
The following links go a long ways toward proving the party's anti-semitism:
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article420930.ece
- http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/can+bnp+bury+their+antijewish+past/3202962
- http://books.google.com/books?id=qps14mSlghcC&pg=PA178&dq=BNP+%22anti-semitism%22&cd=4#v=onepage&q=BNP%20%22anti-semitism%22&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=8pqYrNcCj04C&pg=PA181&dq=BNP+%22anti-semitism%22&lr=&cd=26#v=onepage&q=BNP%20%22anti-semitism%22&f=false
---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. They should probably be mentioned in order to source the category, then. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article could do with more detail about the BNP during the 1990s, which was the period when they were overtly anti-Semitic. These days they don't tend to bang on about Jews as much (at least as a party, there's ample evidence of individual members talking too much) probably because there's no votes in it unlike banging on about radical Islam. The fact remains though that during the 1990s they very much were anti-Semitic (and that isn't just an observation made by editors based on their Holocaust denial) so the category is a valid one. 2 lines of K303
- All of those links were from the media which were clearly biased. "Denial" of the Holocaust does not make you a hater of Jews, it just means that you deny a historical fact. End of story. There has been no anti-Semitism at all in the BNP, so whatever the media says, it is pure rubbish.
- So everyone is biased except BNP members? WIkipedia works from sources --Snowded TALK 09:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- All of those links were from the media which were clearly biased. "Denial" of the Holocaust does not make you a hater of Jews, it just means that you deny a historical fact. End of story. There has been no anti-Semitism at all in the BNP, so whatever the media says, it is pure rubbish.
I'm pretty sure that holocaust denial and the meetings with the KKK make decent basis to call Nick Griffin himself Anti-Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Holocaust denial does not mean that you hate Jews, because there were Slavs and Jews as victims of that event so hardly could you define it as anti-Semitic. Denying the Holocaust does not make you a hater of any ethnic group, it just means that you deny a historical fact, and no Griffin has never attended the KKK, that stupid video which is going around YouTube is not the KKK, it was the AFBNP. So yes, I am getting rid of the categories "Anti-Semitism" and "Holocaust denial" because I sense none of them within the party.
- You need (as we have all said) to find a non-BRP source which is reliable that counters the sources already in place. I think you are pushing it a bit to say that Holocaust denial is not linked to anti-semitisim by the way, but as we don't reply on that link here its irrelevant anyway. --Snowded TALK 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Look, why do I need to find myself a source to prove that the BNP is not anti-Semitic when it is clearly obvious that they have Jews in the party? I have already explained how anti-Semitism is not the same as "Holocaust denial" and that "Holocaust denial" is not party line policy either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:07, 10 May 2010 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2010
- Because you cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". See WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would also help if you would sign your comments. Wikipedia policy is very simple, verifiable and authoritative third party sources. If you can't live with that fine, but please stop constantly raising the same argument when you know it does not have validity in this community --Snowded TALK 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Look, why do I need to find myself a source to prove that the BNP is not anti-Semitic when it is clearly obvious that they have Jews in the party? I have already explained how anti-Semitism is not the same as "Holocaust denial" and that "Holocaust denial" is not party line policy either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17:07, 10 May 2010 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2010
- I found this piece revealing. Basically says BNP were anti-Semitic but have started shedding or reversing that image to confront a greater enemy: Islam.
- This article does not prove anything anti-Semitic about the BNP in the past, but just a simple opinion given that it is the left-wing Guardian, so it would obviously say that. Plus, read what Tyndall wrote in the 1992 Menifesto in regards to Jews, it is in the policy section.
- Basically, I think the problem we've got here is the same as you have with any party - their policies and attitudes change with time. Were the BNP anti-semitic? Yes. Are they now? More debatable - certainly they're the sort of party that would attract anti-semites, but that doesn't make the party anti-semitic in outlook or policy.
- Overall, I don't feel comfortable with the anti-semitism category as I think it strays too far into BNP bashing territory without being a particuarly helpful categorisation. It's just too vague a categorisation in what is a fundamentally complex issue better discussed in detail within the article. Isn't there a category about people/groups accused of anti-semitism?
- And BNP bashing is something which the BNP thrive off of. They can then claim that everyone's got it in for them and, "if you agree with us, they've got it in for you too, so you should vote for us" (did that make sense?). NPOV and accuracy is therefore vitally important here in both directions.
- Anyway. That's all I've got to say. This article's too busy for my liking. Good luck! GDallimore (Talk) 23:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I found this piece revealing. Basically says BNP were anti-Semitic but have started shedding or reversing that image to confront a greater enemy: Islam.
- ^ James Lyons and Tom Parry, "The truth about fascist National Front past of Britain's two new BNP members in Europe", Daily Mirror, 9 July 2009
- ^ The BNP on Question Time is the wrong party on the wrong programme, The Guardian, 15 October 2009
- ^ Nick Clegg, speaking on Today, BBC Radio 4, 8 June 2009
- ^ "David Cameron attacks 'fascist' BNP". The Daily Telegraph. 31 May 2009. Retrieved 31 May 2009.
{{cite web}}: Text "24 April 2006" ignored (help) - ^ Alan Travis, "Alan Johnson says BBC should bar 'foul' BNP from Question Time" guardian.co.uk, 16 October 2009
- ^ quoted in James Robinson, "The right to be heard?", The Guardian Media section, 19 October 2009 p1
- ^ Peter Hain, "A clueless BBC is giving the BNP the legitimacy it craves", The Guardian, 12 October 2009, p30