Jump to content

Talk:British National Party/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

POV pushing

I thought you all might all be interested in this sugestion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy/Noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

National Front

A brief description ot the the National Front, the predecessor to the BNP, is relevant and therefore I will reverse this edit. TFD (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph reads poorly and the street tactics of the NF are superfluous. Romper —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Incase people aren't aware, the British National Party has released a new logo, will it be easy to find the new appropriate logo for the article? Lexiyh (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's bloody hilarious, but yeah, let's get it changed lol! Alexandre8 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I followed the link and found that it isn't in use yet- we can't use it until it is, and I couldn't find a downloadable version. Rodhullandemu 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't you just steal it from their website? They haven;t got the money to file a lawcase against wikipedia lol!Alexandre8 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
That heart shape is the new BNP logo? They can't be serious, maybe there are other BNP logos on that website?74.216.53.8 (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeh it is. They've "officially" unveiled it recently. From now on all official publications will use this logo. They wanted to give the party a softer and more homely image. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Its quite funny really. This might be interesting. http://bnp.org.uk/news/british-national-party-unveils-new-party-logo Lexiyh (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, that's were I got the last info from. I keep laughing at the Logo now. It's like, I dunno, Genghis Khan having a soft furry rabbit as his all world conquering banner. Nevermind, not my business, not my party. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Softly homely image? More like something you expect from a care-bear series.74.216.43.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Length of Article

It seems to me this article is excessively long. It actually contains more words than that of the Tories and the Labour party. Does anyone think this is an impediment on the article, and if so, should be start looking into creating stubs or removing unnecessary content. It also seems like some of the information is more or less rephraseals of previous info. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that there may be an argument to move some material to seperate artciels.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It may or may not be signifcant. Pesonally, I don't think it matters. The reason it is longer than the Tories/Labour is because so much that could be included in the latter articles is naturally sufficently large to make substantial articles in their own right. I don't think that's the case with the BNP. Hiving parts of will result in a number of articles that will be stubs or little more. I have suggested in the past that some sections could be seriously pruned, most notably the section on Employment which, in my view, is there simply because BNP members/apologists have in the past attempted to portray the BNP as victims. The result is that the section has ballooned, with a new bit added even today! Speaking as a political scientist who some years ago studied the membership of and support for minor parties, I'd like to see something on that - we have it for major parties. (For example, breakdown of membership/support by social class, age, sex, geography, previous affiliations.) It could be that some of the Employment stuff, as well as some detail from the Guardian Infiltration and Membership List, would fit safely and more logically in such a section. Unfortunately, the BNP being such a minor party, there is very little academic research to refer to. I's offer to start it off, but the BNP page never stays still long enough to see it through. Emeraude (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the junk in my opinion, and as you have identified comes from the last 1/4 of the article. There are unnecessary long parts on "employement exclusion" and "Individual cases of violence". I don't think it's necessary to note every single case of someone being unfairly dismissed, nor every account of a bnp member being given a prison sentance or anti social order. The party just isn't big enough for anyone to, excuse my language, give a sh*t. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Infact, everything below "Legal issues" needs to be pruned. There's too much clutter. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the article is overlong, but removal of content should be done by consensus. A lot could be done just by copyediting without removing significant info. I've done this copyedit of the first section to illustrate the point: [1]. --FormerIP (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cracking job in the first half of the article. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


It seems that a lot of the BNP reposnses to allegations are being removed, this is too POV.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to be specific about what your concern is, Steven. Not much has been removed, but some info was sourced to dead links to the BNP website. Where these could not be found on Wayback, I've removed the material. --FormerIP (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If we are shortaning the artiel should we not be removing any text that is not directly realted to the section it appearsd in?Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. We shouldn't be pushing to delete material unfavourable to the BNP on those grounds, I think. If you think there is material that could be better placed somewhere else in the article, then either be bold or bring to talk. But please don't remove material just because it is negative. The opinion of the party's former leader about Mein Kampf, for example, whilst not strictly a policy, clearly is relevant to the section on the party's race policies. --FormerIP (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
But a rather vague comment about many of them have been arrested is not. I would also argue that it has no relation to their policies (after all he is not the party just its leader, his views are no more party policy then David Cameron’s would be Torrie policy), their political leaning maybe (but we already have extensive information about that). I would also ask you to AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think a great deal has been removed in all fairness, then again I haven't gone through with a fine comb. I think Former is an experienced enough editor that he's not going to act egocentricaly when making edits. These things always have an adverse effect in the end. I'm very pleased with the progress so far. Clutter is such an aweful thing. (Looks around bedroom). I'm going to fine tune a few paragraphs in the latter half of the article, and I certainly wont remove any controversial matieral. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Infact, having read through the "Association to Violence" section, I feel that I'm not going to touch it without consensus, it's fragile and I think people will only revert changes. Does people think this section needs to be trimmed as well. Also, lastly, is the Robert Cottage case really that important or not? He actually wasn't convicted for the said crime in the end anyway. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If he was not convicted of violence then he cannot be used to show the BNP are violent. I agree the sectio needs trimming but I don't know how. Perhaps just one line on each case.
"George Spigot, Former BNP member and Satan, convicted on a number of counts of causing bad things".Slatersteven (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That's just tosh lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed quite a lot of content (about 37.5K). Please feel free to review this but, given the overall issue of article length, it would be good not to just restore content without discussion. I've tried to be "non-egotistical" as Alex suggests above, by not changing the nature of the article to suit my (or anyone else's) POV. Please feel free to review the edits, though.

Most of the changes are just expressing things in shorter ways, but there are some other changes. For example, the fact that the person who leaked the BNP member list got an arguably lenient sentence is worth mentioning, but I felt that it didn't need paragraph after paragraph. In a couple of instances, I've removed references to be people accused of crimes but not convicted (per BLP). I've also removed some material that was not properly sourced and some commentary-type statements which had no sourcing. I think that, generally, rather than saying "the BNP had been controversial because of X" and then giving examples, we can just cut to the chase and give the examples.

I would definitely not say that these edits cure the article. It still has problems, particularly with regard to perspective and recentism. But I think that is likely to take a while to cure.

The "Electoral Performance" section looks potentially dodgy to me. I get the impression that this has been edited at some point with information that is either entirely made up or which has gotten things confused between different elections. If anyone has time for article improvement here, I think that section both needs attention and should be editable without too much controversy if it is done in the right way. --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked through most of the changes and as you've outlined it's all in good nature and helps the article. I hope you didn't take egotistical personally, I just meant that we didn't need to worry about POV because I believe you're experienced enough to make large edits like this without significantly changing it. Thanks for the effort. Alexandre8 (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I understood what you meant. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the article may need shortening, the indidents of violence committed by BNP members should not be cut: they are essential to understanding the nature of the organisation and its members. By all means reduce the amount of space given to the intricacies of the party's electoral successes/failures, but references to the neo-Nazi tendencies of its founding members (e.g. John Tyndall) should be retained. In fact, I am sure I remember an ANL leaflet from the late 1970s which had him pictured in a Nazi SS uniform, although one suspects this may be difficult to trace on the net. By the way, if people are concerned about the length of articles, check out that relating to Enoch Powell: it is far too long (and most of it is derived from favourable references contained in the "authorised" biography written by pro-Powell journalist Simon Heffer). By comparison, the article relating to the great statesman and former Prime Minister the late Sir Edward Heath is less than half the length. Rank injustice. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

94.192.142.38 - I wonder who this is. Alexandre8 (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Elections

Think the elections sections need some attention. A lot is unsourced and it is not clear what is accurate and what is not. For example, there was information there about results from the 2007 Welsh Assembly Elections which doesn't seem to tally with the official figures here: [2]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have the official readily available, feel free to change it. I'm sorry I can't help out a bit more, I've got a lot of work on my plate atm. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Two minor notes

In the opening it states that "It is opposed by mainstream political parties in the UK." Isn't this obvious? and true for every other political party. The labour party is opposed to the conservative party and vice-versa. Every part opposes all others, otherwise they would be the same party. The Green Party and UKIP are also opposed by labour, conservative and Liberal democrats but it doesn't state that on the green party article.

Secondly is there a need to keep saying "the BNP/British National Party this, the BNP/British National Party that" not that it is much of an issue, but it would probably read better as "The party this. The party that" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.179.228 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Disingenuous, the meaning of the phrase is clear. While the mainstream political parties disagree with each other on many subjects they are united in opposing the BNP and all it stands for. --Snowded TALK 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think 92.19.179.228's second point has some validity. For brevity, I'd keep "BNP" when it appears but shorten elsewhere to "party" where there is no risk of ambiguity. Emeraude (talk)

Mainstream parties do not stand against everything the BNP stands for, they may have more areas of policy difference with the BNP than between themselves, but to state "it is opposed by mainstream political parties" adds nothing to the article. There is already an overinflated opposition section anyway with some more meaningful, cited content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittaniaCacher (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Snowded's point was that all the other "are united in opposing" BNP - to the extent of saying vote for anyone but the BNP. Edited accordingly. Emeraude (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
firstly how would you define "oppose" here? all other parties 'oppose' the labour party or green party but it would add nothing to state that on their pages so why do it here? Also why have you reinstated the case about the university of bath presentation. I thought we were meant to be consolidating this article down from 140KB. How do you propose we do this if we cannot remove things which are not significant or relevant. BrittaniaCacher (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we are not "meant to be consolidating this article down from 140KB". Someone suggested it, it was not an order. It has been massively reduced since that banner first appeared anyway. The point about the opposition is really quite simple. Labour says "Don't support XXX, it's not Labour." Tories say "Don't support XXX, it's not Tory." LibDems say "Don't support XXX, it's not LibDem." UKIP says "Don't support XXX, it's not UKIP." (where XXX is Labour, Tory, LibDem, UKIP etc). What's absolutely different here is that all of these parties (and SNP, PC etc) say "Don't support BNP, it's fascist. Vote for anyone else, but not BNP." Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)is
I accept that the 3 largest parties have all at times said "vote for anyone BUT the BNP" (it's quite strange that they would rather someone vote for the National Front than for the BNP) and that is mentioned in the article as it should be, under the opposition section. but simply using the word opposed does not elaborate on this, im not sure if it should really be in the Lead but never mind, the point is about using such an ambiguous phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittaniaCacher (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Equality and Human Rights Commission to pay BNP court costs

That is nothing but a re-print of an article from the BNP's own website. 86.153.82.5 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BNP Welling HQ & Welling March

This contains a couple of inaccuracies which I have now rectified. The term "political opponents" is not correct, because many of those who demonstrated against the BNP were not political but were simply friends or relations of black and Asian people who had been murdered by BNP supporters near the party's Welling HQ. There were four such murders in total. That racist incidents took place near by is not conjecture, it is fact: indeed, the source highlights one such example (that relating to the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, whose murderers called him "nigger" before stabbing him). The march to close down the BNP HQ was not a riot, in the view of those who were there it was attacked by the police (notice that more demonstrators were injured than police officers) and contrary to the original text at no stage did it go past the BNP HQ. I know, I was there. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What do the sources say?Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

multiculturalist i am no friend of the bnp but everything u have typed in that section is wrong, and where are your sources? you have none. bnp has not murdered anyone, political parties dont go about murdering people, the black teenager stephen lawrence was murdered by a black gang, this has nothing to do with bnp. i suggest this little section gets deleted cos it does not involve the article and its a pointless rant filled with inaccurate information. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment relates to claimed inaccuracies i the article and is relevant. Claims or counterclaims (per Slatersteven) need sourcing and that applies to you as much as it does to Multiculturalist. Please sign in by the way, you don't want to end up being accused of running an IP sock puppet. --Snowded TALK 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That Stephen Lawrence was killed by a "black gang" is new evidence. Might that be Damilola Taylor ?--Streona (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The BNP and animal welfare

The article had contained the following inaccurate propaganda statement, which I have now amended: "The party supports animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming)." This now reads: "The party favours the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming", which I would contend is much fairer.

The original words "The party supports animal welfare" is pure POV and a blatant lie. If the party really supports this then why does it support fox hunting, and why did Nick Griffin go on the Countryside Alliance march? To equate the supporting of animal welfare with the banning of halal and kosher is to make a value judgement about these methods of slaughter. Scientific research (involving the placing of electrodes on cattle during the slaughter process) has found that the animal suffers less pain and for a shorter duration than other methods of slaughter. To simply equate the BNP's stance on this with the supporting of animal welfare is outrageous POV. Sensible editors will surely agree that my amendment gives readers the facts without drawing conclusions for them. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd becasue this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2977086.stm seems to say it is cruel. I also note that they also oppose factory farming (somethig which I bleive has no religious or racial conotations). Whilst it may need a citation to sat that they support animal welfare many of the reason you give for its removal seem POV pushing themselves. As such I sdhal reinstate it but place a CN tag.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well these two passages from the Wikpedia article on Halal suggest it is the least cruel method:

Firstly, "In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.[13][17] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering.[18]" Secondly, "The French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing has published ASIDCOM’s Bibliographical Report on Religious Slaughter and the Welfare of Animals, as a contribution within the framework of a meeting on animals and society organized in the first half of the year 2008.[20] This report quotes scientific papers and French veterinary PhD which support the equality or even possible superiority of religious slaughter to other methods of slaughter.[13] This report quotes in particular the Ph.D work of Dr Pouillaude which concludes by: "religious slaughter would thus be a less stressing mode of slaughter. Conclusions of all the scientific experiments converge towards a firmly supported certainty: properly carried out, religious slaughter is the most humane way because it leads to less trauma to animals to be killed to be consumed for its meat".[13][21]"

I would further more contend that your decision to place back into the text the claim that the BNP supports animal welfare, even with a citation tag, is not acceptable as it is so obviously a POV value judgement. They support fox hunting - and I will now amend the offending passage to reflect that fact, but I will however retain the citation tag. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The articel also makes it clear that this is not a universal view. that is cherry picking toi support ma POV. Do you have a source that says that the BNP support fox hunting?Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says the BNP support animal welfare?Multiculturalist (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie and claim the BNP are for animal cruelty when in fact they are against halal and kosher barbaric killing methods and have donated to green peace's save the whale campaigns.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you're getting so hysterical - your favoured pro-BNP POV version has once again prevailed anyway. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You still need a source for the BNP position on animal welfare. Also, you need to avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have just been called a liar - isn't that a personal attack? Further more, surely those whose preferred wording has prevailed need to provide the source.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The BNP supports animal welfare. This is in there manifesto, and they have donated to save the whale campaigns. Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views. Do you have a conscience? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is "biasness"? I've never heard of that word. May I venture to suggest that your grasp of the English language is about as good as that of the average BNP member? Multiculturalist (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Pyramidologist, the issue is not whether the BNP has this policy but whether there are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This link shows that Nick Griffin and his stormtroopers attended the 'Liberty & Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance. People were specifically told not to attend this rally unless they supported fox hunting: http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=43 Meanwhile, the following link reveals that Nick Griffin has committed his party to referenda on the issue of fox hunting and capital punishment. People who promote referenda on particular issues generally only do so if they are looking to change the status quo (i.e. bring back fox hunting and reinstate the death penalty): http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nick_griffin.html The RSPCA has declared fox hunting to be cruel, yet the BNP supports it. So much for the BNP's claim to "support animal welfare". Multiculturalist (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

All the most evidence Multiculturalist is a troll, he is now pointing out other posters spelling errors - just to wind them up or attack them. This is despite his OWN posts are filled with poor spelling and punctuation, for example he spelt nearby as 'near by', above, there should be no space between the two. Also going to his talk page, reveals he has mispelled 'terminology' as 'teminology' (23:30, 14 July 2010), in fact i counted more than 10 spelling errors on his page in total. So not only is 'Multiculturalist a troll, he is also a hypocrit and can't spell English perfectly himself. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Making a minor spelling mistake is one thing, but using an entire word that doesn't exist (i.e. "biasness") suggests that the author is, to put it politely, a dimwit. I have lots of Indian friends and they all have a better command of the English language than you do, despite the fact that their mother tongue is Punjabi.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Also look at Multiculturalists sources on the animal welfare nonsense hes posting - Seachlight, a well known anti-fascist magazine written by communists. How is that a neutral source on the BNP? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is highly acclaimed. The only people who oppose it are Nazis.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The BNP's stance on fox hunting is entirely neutral. While they support animal welfare and stand against animal cruelty, they also support British traditions (which fox hunting is as it goes back hundreds of years) therefore they have never been pro or against fox hunting. I wonder why multiculturalist fails to acknowlwedge BNP's donations to save the whale campaigns? Also why are his only sources from cranky communists like searchlight? Kind of ironic Multiculturalist above tries to smear the BNP by linking them to murder, when he quotes from communists. The communists under stalin killed millions of innocents. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You say the BNP's stance on fox hunting is "neutral" yet you then say they support "British traditions" and you assert that fox hunting falls into this category. In that case, their stance on fox hunting is not neutral, is it? Further more, you really need to get away from this daft notion that because I don't like Nazis that makes me a communist: to be one of those a person needs to believe in a command economy, whereas I believe that strong market forces are needed in order to sustain a system of social justice.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a supporter of fox hunting does not mean you are against animal welfare. I have hunted all manner of animals, yet I still care about domestic animal welfare. If the BLP say in their manifesto that they support animal welfare it ought to be mentioned, using searchlight for statements of fact are not permissible here, any content sourced to them ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it just so happens that the RSPCA regard hunting as cruel.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Searchlight has been brought to RSN many times and is RS, while the BNP manifesto is not. But the point is that no one has introduced sources that the BNP supports animal welfare. The closest I can find is that right-wing nationalist parties, including the BNP, support family farms.[3] TFD (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
?It may be a RS for their opinions, but given their obvious bias when used in an article lile this it ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Just trying to find an edit of his that doesn't have the words "blatant" and "POV" in the same sentence. Everything in your opinion is outrageous, or darn right factual. Find some middle ground for once Mutliculturalist? Very hard indeed. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's quite amusing to be lectured to about funding a "middle ground" by someone whose contributions have consistently shown him to be sympathetic to the BNP and EDL.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Multiculturalist, one view of animal cruelty is that traditional farming and hunting are not cruel, and diminish the amount of cruelty caused by agribusiness. (A factory farmed chicken suffers more than a pheasant.) Whether the BNP opposes agribusiness because it opposes animal cruelty is however debatable. The source I provided indicates that their policies are based on romantic notions of the family farm and healthy food for the people. Whether or not they care about animal welfare however needs to be supported. Tentontunic, we have heard these arguments before. Searchlight is rs for the far right. TFD (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I took a look in the archives [4] consensus there would be it ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I see no consensus for your view. In any case we need sources to support the view of BNP as supporting animal welfare. TFD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
When the majority of uninvolved editors say attribution ought be used then that is a consensus, get over it. The BNP`s own manifesto can be used to source it, with attribution to them of course. Tentontunic (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
TFD, thanks for your comments. Just as some might consider hunting not to be cruel, others would claim that ritual slaughter (e.g. Kosher) in less cruel than other methods of slaughter (and, indeed, I have provided two scientific references to support this theory). However, whatever the truth is about these matters, one thing which we surely cannot do is allow sweeping value judgement statements like "The BNP supports animal welfare" to remain in the article. This is supposed to be an impartial encylopedia, therefore it should simply present the properly sourced verifiable facts (i.e. that the BNP are against ritual slaughter and that they supported the 'Liberty and Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance). Readers should then be left to make up their own minds. As things currently stand, we have a number of pro-BNP editors trying to push their own POV with outrageously biased passages such as "The BNP supports animal welfare". Multiculturalist (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, someone has now made an amendment to this which largely takes out the pro-BNP POV bias. Instead of reading "The party supports animal welfare", the text now states "The party says it supports animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming).[98]" I have added a further passage, together with a proper source, which states that: "Nick Griffin and other BNP members attended the 'Liberty & Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance in 2002.[99]" I am now happy that this is a balanced paragraph and if others agree we can put a close to this particular edit war. Readers can now make up their own minds at to whether the BNP really supports animal welfare when its members think there is something funny about the site of a beautiful deer being torn to shreds by a pack of hounds.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Will a Mod please actually read and take action against Multiculturalist. Look at his comments: Searchlight is highly acclaimed. The only people who oppose it are Nazis - Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) - so anyone who opposes his views and sources are now smeared or labeled as 'Nazi'. Is that neutral enough for you? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that question the reliability of Searchlight? TFD (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
One is not required, per my response to you above at 14:54. Any content sourced to searchlight needs to be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is academic since Searchlight is not being used as a source for the BNP supporting animal welfare. However, articles would look pretty awful if all facts taken from reliable sources had inline citations. E.g., "Ohio is a state in the U.S., according to the National Geographic Atlas". TFD (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking about such and your post is just plain silly. But the consensus seems clear that they ought only be used if attributed, which seems reasonable given their obvious bias. Tentontunic (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
"obvious bias"? We do not make calls based on what is obvious to us, but on what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I think what he is trying to say is that seachlight may be RS but it has an avowed biase (and makes no sectret of its hostility to the BNP) as such anyhitnig it says should be attributed as an opinion not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really. If it says for example that a member of EDL was also a member of the BNP then it is reliable. If it makes a comment that the BNP are a bunch of barbarous thugs then that, if notable, is an opinion. --Snowded TALK 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is of course a more likely explanation for the BNP's objection to kosher and halal slaughter - it has a long history in anti-Semitism. One of Adolph Hitler's first actions against the Jews was to ban kosher slaughter which Nazis considered barbarous.[5] TFD (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The BNP has no history with anti-semitism, it has BNP members of Jewish roots and secondly has elected Jewish councillors. As ususal you from far-left have it all wrong and just continue to lie or smear. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Praising Adolph Hitler, holocaust denial and writing about the international Jewish conspiracy is anti-semitic. BTW, mainstream sources do not refer to the broad range of political views that differ from BNP ideology as "far left". The BNP does not represent the center of the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think its 6 of one half a dozen of the otehr. They appear to have anti-semitic members, but also Jewish ones. As such we would need to make both these situations clear.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
There are very, very few Jewish members of the BNP. So far as they exist at all, they would be the exception that proves the rule. The BNP has a long and obvious history of anti-semitism going back to its founder John Tyndall, who stated that "Mein Kampf is my bible" and who was photographed wearing Nazi uniform. He also set up the National Socialist Movement and claimed that liberal democracy is a "Jewish tool of world domination". The current BNP leadership continue to deny the holocaust, and the seig heil salute is a regular feature at their rallies. Nick Griffin contributed to the book "Did Six Million Really Die?", claimed the holocaust was "the hoax of the 20th century", criticised the RAF for its bombing of Nazi Germany and even stewarded a public holocaust denial meeting hosted by historical revisionist & neo-Nazi David Irving. The truth about the BNP being anti-semitic is so blindingly obvious that I don't know why we're even having this duscussion.Multiculturalist (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Any attempt by us to determine whether or not the BNP is anti-Senitic is original research. We must rely on sources, which indicate that it is anti-Senitic. TFD (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, TDK, and for the record most of the facts I just gave about John Tyndall and Nick Griffin are lifted directly from the properly-sourced Wikipedia articles about those two individuals.Multiculturalist (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree if sources say they are anti-semitic (not that members have engaged in anti-smeitic rethoric) then we can (as long as we say only what the source say) call thyem anti-Semitic. But we also have to point out that they (as long as its sourced) say they have Jewish members. Its called balance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many inaccurate statements being posted here. Far too many, i don't have time to correct all of them. The BNP was modernised by Nick Griffin and has no links to Holocaust denial or Nazism. Digging up 20 or 30 year old quotes is irrelevant. You can do that for all parties as many change their ideology. The modern Labour party are not the traditional Labour party, just how the Conservative party are no longer traditional Conservative Tories. During the heydey of the British Empire the Conservatives were pro-imperialistic and supported the colonisation of other countries, do you think the modern conservatives under Cameron support that? Another example: The Green Party in UK used to strongly oppose drugs, yet now they support drug-use and want to ban the prohibition of drugs and support the possession, trade and cultivation of cannabis. So they went from being anti-drug to pro-drug. The modern BNP has no links to Holocaust denial. Secondly, the comment about Nick Griffin and the RAF bombings is a typical distortion of what he said by anti-BNPer's. What Nick actually said is that the RAF should not have bombed German innocents (children and woman) as many were murdered in the Bombing of Dresden. Likewise he also opposed the bombing of innocent British civilians by the Nazis. Also the last claim modern BNP members sieg heil, i presume was a comical claim. It has no basis in fact. BNP are strongly against Nazism and Fascism. If you want a real fascist organisation that would be the UAF (Unite against Freedom), who attack BNP members with clawhammers and other weapons etc. Is that democratic? You might not like someone elses political views but that doesn't give you a right to go out and attack them violently. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Parties are grouped according to ideological families and while both Labour and Tories have adopted liberal policies over the years, they remain within their ideological families. The BNP is no exception. Incidentally, Labour also supported British imperialism, but abandoned that policy about 20 years before the Conservatives. TFD (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You certainly do not have to go back "20 or 30 years" to find examples of Nick Griffin denying the holocaust. The "sieg heil" is not a comical claim - but the assertion that "the BNP are strongly against Nazism and Fascism" is not only comical but hilarious.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Pyramids points have some vadality. It order to show that the BNP are (currently) ideologicaly Anti-Semitic you would need up to date sources, not sources that are 20 or 30 years old. You could certainly say (assuming that you provide sources) that (at the time the source quotes) they had links to (or were according to the source) anti-Semitic, but not that they are currenty are. Not could you call mit a curretn ideology of the BNP ,with out very strong sources say that (at this time) they are ideologogicaly anti-Semitic.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a better example - the Swedish Democrats have their roots in white nationalist organisations like the Bevara Sverige Svenskt, yet they modernised and softened their image, and now are a electable populaist nationalist conservative party, who won 20 seats in the 2010 Swedish General Election. Parties can modernise and change and they do that to be electable. The BNP are not Nazis or fascists, as i said Nick modernised the party hence nearlly a million people voted for the BNP in the last european election and the BNP won 2 seats. Surely you aren't saying their are a million nazis in Britain? The only people spouting this BNP = Nazi claim are Searchlight and people from the far left, its incorrect. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Has your block not taught you anything? We rely here on what third party sources ay - those establish that the BNP is fascist. We can establish that "Nick" (as you call him) has denied the holocaust, but we can't use that the say the BNP deny the holocaust. Votes for any political party do not mean endorsement of an ideology per se, they may be protest votes and frequently are. In general BNP support has been the odd success, lost the next time round. So would you please focus on what the sources say, stop labeling critics as far left (some are, most aren't) and generally address content issues rather than delivering pro-BNP posts on the talk page which should only be used for discussing how to improve the article. --Snowded TALK 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually i was having a perfectly polite discussion. Stop the personal attacks. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You would need a source that says the BNP has migrated successfully from the far right to right wing populism (which by the way is not "conservative"). TFD (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been soapboxing from both sides, and no Pryamid you have not been polite. Its not polite to acuse someone of being a sock without evidance for a start. You need to find sources to back up your claims, not your opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No where did i claim the BNP changed to right wing populism. They may have some populist ideology, but they are an ethnic-nationalist party (see ethnic nationalism. This was my point from the start, the BNP are no white nationalists but are ethnic nationalists. Therefore the bar on the right should be changed/updated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

When/If you come back from your second block either find a reliable third party sources that supports that claim or stop wasting everyone's time. Learning to indent your comments would also help. --Snowded TALK 19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Was it Hitler or Mussolini who was an ethnic nationalist ?--Streona (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Multiculturalist

Multiculturalist is removing local election details, and secondly adding biased info from Searchlight (a communist organisation) about the BNP. Why will mods not take action against this user who is just stirring up trouble here? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You have already stated that your policy is to revert my edits whatever they say. That is tantamount to vandalism. There is a tag on this article which says that it may already be too long: what you have done is add a lengthy new paragraph trumpeting the BNP's alleged success in local elections which were not even contested, and as usual you did so without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. By the way, well done for spelling 'Multiculturalist' correctly.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said to revert your edits which used COMMUNIST (biased) sources, hence your biased posts were removed by others, including mods or admins here - not even me. You are quoting from Searchlight, a communist organisation on the BNP. This is not neutral, its like writing an article on capitalism from a biased socialist perspective. You clearly have an agenda here to misrepresent the BNP (as your name implies). The BNP oppose multiculturalism, so how neutral exactly is someone going to be with the name 'multiculturalist'? And now you continue the personal attacks etc about spelling. Will the mods please take action? Viewing Multiculturalist's talk page and history reveals he has a long history of vandalising political parties and has several warnings about that on his page.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is considered a reliable source in respect of fascist organisations. This has been debated many times. You also need to read WP:BRD and be a little less inclined to make accusations against other editors. --Snowded TALK 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW the website you provided at ANI to discredit Searchlight is run by Arthur Kemp, a BNP official. TFD (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to you, or the other user on that page, Searchlight was founded by 2 members of the Labour party. Therefore this proves it isn't an acceptable sources doesn't it? The Labour party are a rival party to the BNP, so of course whatever they say on the BNP is going to be smear or biased. Searchlight is still communist, all its magazine founders or editors are open members or have a history with the communist party of Britain i.e Gerry Gable. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The political background of the founders of a magazine is irrelevant to the magazine's reliability. It is an argument ad hominem. TFD (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Learn the definitions of words because you incorrectly use them. Pointing out that Searchlight was founded by Labour members or communists is not argumentum ad hominem. Would you accept someone going to the Labour party political page and accepting sources from UKIP or another political party or ideology? Common-sense please, and stop attacking me or accusing me of doing wrong. Debate the problem, all your posts do is attack me, nothing constructive, which is now why i am ignoring you. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an ad hominem argument and you really need to put some time into learning how to edit around here. At this rate you are heading for a block or two --Snowded TALK 21:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't an ad hominem argument. I pointed out Searchlight was founded by labour members and communists, therefore it is not a neutral source to use on the BNP page. I suggest you look up wikipedia basic guidelines on neutrality. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it is agreed that Searchlight is a reliable source in respect of far right and fascist parties. If you want to change that you will have to raise it with the community (the members of which did read the policy when making that determination). --Snowded TALK 21:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What members? People like you? Going to your page reveals you are far-left (anti-tradition, anti-monarchist) socialist and you have anti-nazi icons on your page. This is the problem - you and multucilturalist are biased and have far-left wing political views, therefore i have no idea why you are near the BNP's page in the first place. This section should only have people who are neutral and not biased against the BNP. I'm sure the members who all agreed searchlight was a trustworthy source were far-left socialists like yourself. There is clearly a huge problem with neutrality here, and the admin should be better informed. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again you erroneously smear me with the "far-left" tag, despite my stated support for the market economy. The fact I was a conference delegate for the SDP - a party which was in part founded on the principle that Britain should maintain an effective nuclear deterrent against the perceived soviet threat - proves your allegation to be both ridiculous and wholly baseless. Being against the BNP does not make me far left: any normal person would be against the BNP, an organisation that is widely recognised as being dominated by Nazi sympathisers, many of them extremely violent and most of them psychologically disturbed. You have repeatedly shown by your edits that you support them, therefore you have no more right to be editing this page than I do.Multiculturalist (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So the truth is out... the user multiculturalist is a sockpuppet account of Snowded. You really have exposed yourself now. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NO he's not. Snowed is a darn sight more intelligent. Have to say it. He doesn't use rediculous rhetoric like "Physchologically disturbed and extremely violent" when it's fairly obvious that nazi's are those things anyway, and that right wing doesn't equal nazi. Anyway, don't waste time with that guy, he's everything he ever writes about himself. Alexandre8 (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Snowded is no more a sock-master, then J. Edgar Hoover was a commie. Honestly, such an accusation borders on paranoia. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo P, looks like you are going to have to learn the hard way. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Much more of this nonsense and you will end up at ANI (Oh and thanks Alexandre8) --Snowded TALK 06:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I would welcome a compliment from Alexandre8, but that aside it is quite clear that nothing Anglo says can be taken seriously. The bottom line is that the offending POV passage (that "The BNP supports animal welfare") has been amended and no further attempt has been made to reinstate it, so let's just move on.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See above, he logged on multiculturalist instead of snowded to reply to my post. Both users are also linked to the Social Democrat Party, an obscure miniscule party which has no support, small world for two wiki members to be apart of this party on the BNP page of all places isn't it??? Of course not, multiculturalist is just a sock of snowded. If you look above as i said he gave this away, when he logged on the wrong account to reply. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowded identifies himself as a "democratic socialist" on his user page. That has nothing whatever to do with being a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a party made of of right-wing members of the Labour party (ie politically centrist), which later merged with the Liberals to create the modern Liberal Democratic Party, currently part of the Coalition Government of the UK. That's the party that Multiculturalist says he was a member of, presumably back in the '80s. If you don't know this stuff you should keep your fingers off your keyboard or stick to writing about how the Brits are descended from Israelites. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
There is already an open discussion thread at WP:ANI#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page. TFD (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If you think you have case launch an SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Not aware of who this Social Democrat Party is to be honest. Anglo, you either file an SPI case or you withdraw the comment - its very foolish, but if you think its true (which it isn't) have it checked out. I will happily support the check if you agree to a public apology when you are proved wrong. --Snowded TALK 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My comments are being left up to warn others, i have no idea what an SPI is nor wish to waste any more time with you. Its clear your only purpose here is to smear the BNP since you are politically from the far left (as your own page admits). I suggest you think long and hard why you post here - as this place should only be for those are neutral on politics. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly multiculturalist no longer replies? Obviously because i exposed your sock. Furthermore don't delete others comments. My question still stands - why are you here when your userpage states you are far-left wing? You are not neutral and are breaking wikipedia policiy on neutrality by posting here. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Errr... I no longer reply because I had an evening out with friends. Does that really make me a sock??Multiculturalist (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You either back up your nonsensical sock accusation by making an SPI report or you should delete the accusation. Equally if you can find a single edit which breaks wikipedia policy (its the edits that count not personal opinions) feel free to list it. Otherwise stop making personal attacks and generally acting in a disruptive way. I have raised your continued intransigence at the existing ANI report on your behaviour--Snowded TALK 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Either make an SPI report 'or' cease with the sock accusations, AP. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Still avoiding the question... - why are you here? What is your obsession with the BNP (a nationalist party) when your own political views are the polar opposite (far left anti-monarchist socialist)? You are only here to smear or make the BNP look bad, hence your removal of local election results on the BNP when they had 2 recent councillors elected. Upsets you the BNP is doing well and winning seats does it? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Winning two parish seats was clearly not notable, but you could have made a case on the talk page if you disagreed. Otherwise you need to show evidence of any edit I have made in violation of wikipedia policy and make an SPI report. If you can't then you should withdraw the accusations. So far you have broken WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Maybe you need to reflect a little on your contributions here. --Snowded TALK 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Many parish council seats are uncontested so these are not really "won". Justnobody else wants them. Commentators have been using words such as "meltdown" & "wipeout" in relation the latest crop of BNP results.

oh dear...--Streona (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

deputy Mayor

I think we should include this in the artciel, but not too sure where.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Its only a parish and its only a possibility. If it happens in a years time then it might be newsworthy but given the role has no status and comes with service I doubt it --Snowded TALK 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Update local elections after May 5th, and then perhaps put about the elected deputy-Mayor (also note the BNP have won 10+ parish seats and 3 town council seats within the last 2 weeks). BNP are contesting about 250 seats in the local elections, and should win quite a few seats. About 17 of their currently held seats are up for re-election on May 5th, so their councillor number and local election results will have to be updated then anyway. Also the Welsh assembly, Scottish parliament and Northern Ireland assembly results for the BNP all need to be updated after May 5th. Looking at polls and estimates reveals BNP are probably going to pick up Welsh assembly seats, alongside UKIP for the first time. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now 6 May 2011. And how did they do? The only report I could find was the Jewish Chronicle. Sadly it appears they were utterly done up like a kipper. When the dust has settled we must get this up. (lol)--Streona (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Source 13 (http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm) has been updated to reflect the 2011 local election results. It puts the number of BNP local councillors at 15 so I've amended the article accordingly. The BBC states that the BNP won 2 seats in the local elections, a loss of 11 seats from the last time these seats were up for election in 2007. Tristanasclark (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that was the final score although the website said it was befire all were declared. It seems that the BNP has begun to sink below the media radar.--Streona (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Source 13 looks accurate, BNP now have 15 councillors. The two seats the BNP won, they were defending, so they were re-elected for another 4 years, these were Bradford BNP councillor Lynda Cromie and Charnwood BNP councillor Cathy Duffy. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Update, there have been a couple of resignations and apparently 13 is how many seats they now hold - the list is as follows:

Elected June 2008 Pat Richardson - Epping Forest Council, Loughton Broadway ward (Eastern Region) Lewis Allsebrook – Amber Valley Council, Heanor West (East Midlands) Cliff Roper – Amber Valley Council. Heanor East (East Midlands) Adam Grant – Pendle Council, Marsden ward (North West) Sharon Wilkinson – Burnley Council, Hapton with Park ward (North West) Martyn Findlay – Nuneaton and Bedworth Council, Barpool ward (West Midlands) Will Blair – Rotherham Council, Maltby ward (Yorkshire and the Humber) Tom Bates – Calderdale Council, Illingworth and Mixenden ward (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Elected May 2009 Sharon Wilkinson – Lancashire County Council, Padiham and Burnley West Division (North West)

Elected May 2010 Brian Parker – Pendle Council, Marsden ward (North West) Paul Cromie – Bradford Council, Queensbury ward (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Elected May 2011 Catherine Duffy – Charnwood Council, East Goscote ward (East Midlands) Lynda Cromie – Bradford Council, Queensbury ward (Yorkshire and the Humber) Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethno-nationalism

This needs to be better clarified. There is a small paragraph on how Griffin has changed the parties ideology to 'ethno-nationalism' (see ethnic nationalism), but more should be added to the article about it. In the current ideology bar, the BNP is labelled as 'fascism' and 'white nationalism' both of these are wrong/or terribly outdated. In fact the only people who still call BNP as fascist are minority far-left groups like the UAF (not taken serious), even the BBC and mainstream media no longer refer to the BNP as fascist. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Barking and dagenham

Why does the BNP have so much interest in the town of Barking and Dagenham? It seems to be their most valuable council, but i fail to understand their strong interests. There are hundreds of bcouncils in and around London. There are several countries all over Britain. Why Barking and Dagenham? Telegraph: BNP in Barking and Dagenham Pass a Method talk 08:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is for discussing the article itself. If you have a general question you should take it to forum --Snowded TALK 08:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

They were expecting to gain control with Griffin as an MP in 2010. In fact they lost every seat. I understand the agent actually left the country as a result.--Streona (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This improve the artciel how?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this section was posted but to answer why the interest, you only have to look at the demographics: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. The area has been colonised by immigrants, and now the white British are down to about 60% of the population (72% in the 2001 census). Nick Griffin stood in Barking to stop immigration as many people there are of course far more concerned with immigration than elsewhere in the country which have been less affected. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Southall has been affected by immigration far more than Barking and there is no support at all for the BNP among white people in Southall. I should know - I'm one of them. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposition section

The first sentence in the Opposition section reads: "The BNP is condemned by many sections of the media, including right-wing newspapers such as the Daily Mail." Now, I'm not sure how many "sections of the media" there are, but I am not aware of any publication or other news media apart from the BNP's own organs that does not condemn the party. Surely this needs rewriting, along the lines of the BNP is universally condemned by British media from across the political spectrum. Any thoughts? Emeraude (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They are only demonised or condemned by the mainstream media, non-mainstream media are less biased because they are not aligned to political parties. If you read local newspapers they far less condemn or attack the BNP. All the main newspapers either support labour, conservative or the liberals and therefore of course attack the BNP and other parties. Most local media sources though don't do this as they don't support political parties, they are only concerned with localism. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that's nonsense. I do read local papers and, if anything, they are even more condemnatory of the BNP, but your opinion on this and my opinion are clearly original research and carry no weight. The point I was making is that there is no media outlet, apart from the BNP's own, that justifies the phrase "many sections of the media". I'm suggesting all sections (and again, whatever sections means). Now if anyone can find a news outlet that does not condemn the BNP, that would be a different matter, but the fact is that the Britsh media, unanimously, condemns the BNP and that is regardless of which political party the outlet nominally supports (in the case of some newspapers) or supporting none (in the case of broadcast media). This is not the same as a Tory paper criticising Labour or a Labour party criticising the Lib Dems; they all condemn the BNP as being beyond the pale, and for the same reasons. Emeraude (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. Whatever your views in this situation there is no doubt that (unlike in other countires far right) the BNP enjoy no media support.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on death of Ivan Cameron

I have previously added on this article the controversial comments made by a leading BNP member over the death of David Cameron's son Ivan, but this has since been deleted and I have reinstated the information on the "opposition" section of the article. Is the "opposition" section the suitable place to add such information or should it be added on a separate or new section? Sir Stanley (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (GMT)

These comments do not reflect the BNP or their policy/views. They were posted on Ivan's personal facebook page over 2 years ago. Comments left on facebook do not reflect the BNP or their policies. To quote Simon Darby: "I think it’s appalling that our political opponents are trying to make capital out of this. The message wasn’t posted on a BNP website." Quite rightly therefore the comments were originally deleted. If wikipedia allow what personal party members post on facebook then we would have all sorts of wild claims for all political parties. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-indigenous British supporters/members

This section/topic needs to be greatly updated or expanded on. I see the last updates on this topic only occurred when the BNP let non-indigeous British join their party - but this was 2 years or so back. Since that time, the BNP has worked with many non-indigenous ethnic groups (i.e Sikh and coptic egyptians) and has non-indigeous members who work for the party. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources lets see em.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

BNP Sikh and Hindu support (2001) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1535348.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/race.politics

Rajinder Singh first Sikh BNP member (2009) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/sikh-man-bnp-member http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-members-sikh-join http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926180.ece

Pastor James Gitau first black (Kenyan) BNP member (2010) - http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000008054&cid=159& However Gitau later defected to the Christian Party.

The BNP also has Jewish members and an elected Jewish councillor (Patricia Richardson - Epping Forest). Mr. Mikal Greenburg (Michael Green) is also a member and leading BNP Welsh activist and is Jewish.

In December 2010, coptic egyptians appealed to Nick Griffin to highlight the violent anti-Christian attacks in Egypt by Islamists, and now the BNP is working with coptic egyptians and several have membership with the party. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Real references Anglo P, newspaper reports about rumours or statements of what might happen don't count. Please read WP:RS and stop presenting original research. Its tiresome and its being explained to you many many times, --Snowded TALK 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of 323 references/sources on the BNP article, over 100 are from BBC, Guardian, The Sun etc. So shouldn't all those be removed since according to you newspaper reports don't count? Odd logic there. Or are you just picking and choosing? Of course people like you accept sources which bash the BNP, but when the same sources prove the BNP is a non-racist party with members of all ethnicites, suddenly they don't count do they? Once again more biased bevaviour from you. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read what Snowded wrote, so let me repeat and highlight the key point: "newspaper reports about rumours or statements of what might happen don't count". Is that clear? Now, where are these BBC, Guardian, Sun sources that you say "prove the BNP is a non-racist party"? Emeraude (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

rumours? There are photos of Rajinder Singh holding up his gold BNP membership card, and another of him shaking the hand of nick griffin. He also did a lengthy video interview on BNPtv. Same said for James Gitau (a black kenyan), who is pictured in Barking with a BNP banner and shaking hands with nick again. The BNP has support and members from non-indigenous British, the only people who refuse to accept this fact are the far-leftists who still go around calling the BNP fascists, but the fact the BNP have multi-ethnic support and members really debunks this incredbily outdated smear. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"the only people who refuse to accept this fact are the far-leftists". I refuse to accept it and I'm not a far-leftist. The truth is 99.9% of Sikhs and Hindus hate and fear the BNP. Rajinder Singh - if he exists - is the exception that proves the rule. By the way, was he paid? Multiculturalist (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hold on do you have any reason to assume he does not exist?Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Rajinder Singh has been interviewed by the Guardian, BBC and has appeared on BNPtv. He also has a gold BNP membership and has a senior position in the party regarding research on Islam. Of course he exists. James Gitau (a black kenyan pastor) was a BNP member who helped in the BNP barking campaign 2010, however he later defected to the Christian Party. There are many more examples of non-indigenous British supporters or members of the BNP. The only people who deny these facts as i said are people who have a personal agenda against the BNP and therefore should not be posting on the BNP page or this talk page. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What total rubbish. You are now suggesting, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, that the only people who can edit the BNP article or even contribute to this discussion are people like yourself who clearly worship the BNP and all it stands for! Emeraude (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

BNP's stance on non-indigenous British can be found from a recent article published on the main website: "The British National Party...recognises pro-British members of assimilated minorities as British in a civic sense, and welcomes their contribution to our fight for fair play for, and the future survival of, the indigenous peoples of these islands. But we absolutely reject the poisonous, Politically Correct, anti-indigenous fiction that they are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Irish. They may well be very decent people, but if any of us went to Nigeria or Afghanistan, no-one would dream of pretending that we were Nigerians or Afghans." http://www.bnp.org.uk/resource/english-democrats-vs-british-national-party In other words the BNP is open for non-indigenous British to join as long as they accept their ethno-nationalist ideology (which Rajinder Singh and several other indian sikhs have). Therefore the main page should be updated reflecting this issue. The last update as pointed out was in 2009, its very outdated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "indigeneous" to describe the English is ideosyncratic to the BNP. As such it could only appear in the article in quotes. TFD (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do the Australian Aborigines have to be quoted in '"' as well? What also about the indigenous Māori people or native americans? Somehow i doubt you would apply the same to other ethnic-groups. Once again more anti-white biasness.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We go with how scholars describe groups. Irish, Scots, Welsch, Cornish and Manx people are sometimes called indigenous, but English are not. TFD (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See the recent genetic research by Brian Sykes. He has proven via genetics 80% of ethnic-English (the vast majority) descend from Mesolithic indigenous settlers after the ice age. The Anglo-Saxon genetic input was small. In other words the English are as indigenous as the Welsh, Irish and Scots. Also note the Anglo-Saxons were of the same kindred stock as the mesolithic settlers anyway, sharing the same phenotype, blood group, linked language etc. As far as recent scholarship is concerned (Brain Sykes is a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford) the English are indigenous. You can't start picking and choosing who is and who isn't indigenous when every land has a native population and the ethnic white english are native to England.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are interpreting Sykes for your own ends. Can you be ethnic white English and native to France? Of course you can: ethnicity is your genetic makeup and nativity is purely geographical - where you mother happened to be when she went into labour. So your statement that "the ethnic white english (sic) are native to England" is nonsense. And, out of interest and for reference, can you provide a page number for the 80% figure you quote? Emeraude (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the research. The point is that no one except the BNP refers to the English as indigenous. They are trying to draw a comparison between modern immigration into the U. K. with European colonization, that is, to claim that the U. K. is being colonized and that the cultures of the nations of the U. K. are under threat. TFD (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, an englishman is not native to France. Do you think Swedes are native to Japan? Or eskimos native to madagascar? Each ethnicity is indigenous or native to its own land. To argue otherwise is against basic historical fact and commonsense. Good luck going to Australia and calling an aborigine there that they are not native, and claiming anyone can be - including the Europeans who colonised them. By denying people as indigenous you are robbing them from their history and heritage and it equals discrimination. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"nativity is purely geographical", you clearly have no understanding of what native means in context of ethnicity. It means specifically the indigenous or first settled (ancestral) inhabitants. The native people's of Britain are the ethnic-White British - a fact confirmed by history, genetics, anthropology and so on. I'm really not interested in wasting my time debating people who reject historical or scientific facts. You are like flat earthers. The purpose of this section was to adress the fact the BNP section on its membership regarding non-indigenous has no been updated for 2 years - and so needs to be. There are now non-indigenous members and supporters of the party. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Links -

Rajinder Singh first Sikh BNP member (2009) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/sikh-man-bnp-member http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-members-sikh-join http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926180.ece

Pastor James Gitau first black (Kenyan) BNP member (2010) - http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=2000008054&cid=159& —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anglo Pyramidologist (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, complete rubbish. If I was born in France, I'm a native of France, regardless of my ethnicity. Of course, racial fascists like the NF in France or BNP in UK will not accept this, but they are nor renowned for their accurate use of language. You are attempting to allow only your dubious definitions of words to be used. And I ask again, from which page of Sykes' book did you get the 80% figure? Emeraude (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You can only be a native of france, if you belong to the indigenous population there (west germanics/franks/normans etc) the people who have settled there for well over a millenia and built the foundation of France. The same applies to Britain. The native British are the indigenous kindred tribes (picts, scots, anglo-saxons) and so on, but as i said genetics has proven an even early occupation from the mesolithic/neolithic by the ancestors of these peoples. The same applies to America. The native americans are the native Amerindian tribes who were there thousands of years before the vikings and later columbus landed hence they are called native americans...your logic is flawed and debunked by basic history. In your view anyone can be a native american or native british just if they are born in that land. So in your view an immigrant or asylum seeker who moves to Britain and has a child, makes that child an indigenous Briton (despite having no historic or ancestral roots in the country). Pure crackpottery. Stop with the silly posts, i'm sure other readers here are laughing. And the reference to the Brian sykes figure is on his wiki page. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You continue in your personal use of "native" and "indigenous" as synonyms. That would mean there is no reason to use both words in the same sentence - that's redundancy. Oxford English Dicitionary: "A person born in a specified place, region, or country, whether subsequently resident there or not". Can't be clearer than that. But, in any case, this whole discussion is pointless other than allowing you to espose your racist theories, since the BNP article actually says "It restricted membership to "indigenous British" people until 2010". That's a fact. The article was updated to reflect this change that the BNP was forced into. The word "indigenous" appears nowhere else in the article.
I know there are references (and quotes) on Sykes' Wikipedia article page, but I asked you a specific question concerning a number you gave. So for the third time of asking, from which page of Sykes did you get the 80% figure? Emeraude (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This section concerns the update of the article regarding the non-ingidenous members or supporters of the party, not for you to further attack the BNP or their policies or to deny that the white British as an indigenous ethnic-group exist. You are clearly only here to cause trouble and to smear the BNP which is against wikipedia's view on neutrality. In no way are you helping the content of the article, you just come here to attack the BNP which is not productive. As i pointed out the article on the subject of non-indigenous members needs to be updated, the last update was 2009 and the article does not reflect the current BNP's policy on their membership. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So you haven't actually read Sykes then. Emeraude (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we just stop? We have one editor pursuing a agenda not supported by third party sources and obviously (as before the last ban) attempting the edit the article to support the BNP official line on this issue. I don't see any other editors supporting Anglo's position so I suggest people stop responding until s/he brings some sources into play --Snowded TALK 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Valid sources has already been posted - BNP Sikh and Hindu support (2001) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1535348.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/race.politics

Rajinder Singh first Sikh BNP member (2009) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/20/sikh-man-bnp-member http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/11/bnp-nonwhites-members-sikh-join http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6926180.ece

However the user "Multiculturalist" has claimed these articles are fabrications and that the BNP could have paid Rajinder Singh a large sum of money to pretend to be a member. Its hard to take claims like this serious, and looking at "Multiculturalist"'s name implies he is a parody account. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your references have been discussed above, you have only provided BNP sources or OR as a counter. You are now making silly statements about other editors. Given your block history I suggest you proceed with care. I was tempted to simply delete the above comment as a personal attack. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No my references were not discussed. You said they were 'rumours', while "Multiculturalist" and "The Four Deuces" have done nothing here but attack the BNP or their policies (breaking wikipedia policy on neutrality and just wasting my time). Feel free to get a mod or admin here, and they will see how my section about how to improve/update the article concerning the BNP's membership (which has not been updated in nearlly 3 years and is innacurate) has been hijacked by far-leftists/anti-fascists who are just here to disrupt and cause trouble. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasting your time? You seem to have a lot of it to waste. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Rcent photo of some non-indigenous supporters. See second photo down with Nick Griffin. [6]. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party/Archive_21&oldid=1140130860"