Talk:British National Party/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 27

Calm down

This is all getting rather heated, perhpas we shoulod lock the page (and talk page) for a few days to let tempers calm. Also lay of the faintly mracist commetns, it does not win arguemnts (look at the BNP).Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

controversial maybe the views on both side of the argument here, but racist is not a word you can use to describe anyone on this page, except perhaps the people we're discussing. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason we cannot use the term "racist" to directly describe anyone on this page is because to do so would be contrary to Wikipedia rules - but let's face it, we all know who the racists are and it is those who do nothing but defend the BNP. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhap0s you wuld care to namke then rathr then make indirect accusations?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Best to strike that Multiculturalist, it really doesn't help --Snowded ^TALK 13:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Copsey 2011

"On the surface, BNP members appear to be racial populists, a categorization that places them within the acceptable limits of (right-wing, nationalist, authoritarian) democratic British politics. However, as Nick Girffin has himself noted, the BNP has its ideological roots 'in the sub-Mosleyite whackiness of Arnold Leese's Imperial Fascist League' (Source cited in text) (...) the ideological coe of the BNP, as revealed in the political beliefs and commitments of party leaders and activists, still draws strength from Leese's anti-Semitic racial fascism and remains committed to the racial purification of the national space." pg. 39

"Since this post-war rebranding fascist parties intent on building a mass movement have always maintained two faces, a private one and a public one, drawing respectively on an 'esoteric' appeal to 'intellectual' insiders and a grossly simplified 'exoteric' appeal to both mass membership and the electorate." Ibid.

"...the BNP should be viewed as a continuation of previous parties of the British fascist fringe - certainly the National Front and National Party, but also incorporating the ideological commitments of racial fascism and British National Socialism of the 1960s." - pg. 58.

Richardson, John E., Race and racial difference : the surface and depth of BNP ideology in Copsey, Nigel & Macklin, Graham (eds.), British National Party : contemporary perspectives, London : Routledge, 2011. ISBN 9780415483841

"What has emerged from the literature so far is that academics are generally unconvinced by the extent to which the BNP has genuinely 'modernized'" pg. 8

"To parody the lyrics of the 1960s British rock band the Kinks, the BNP remain 'dedicated followers of fascism'" pg. 9

Copsey, Nigel, Introduction : contemporary perspectives on the British National Party in Copsey, Nigel & Macklin, Graham (eds.), British National Party : contemporary perspectives, London : Routledge, 2011. ISBN 9780415483841

"...the BNP appears unable to transcend its roots to become a genuinely 'post-fascist' party, precisely because its ideologues and activists, socialized within earlier extremist groups stretching back, in some cases, to the 1950s, would have to reject the essential 'truth' of the BNP's racial ideology and, with it, a racial Weltungshauung they genuinely believe in and that, ultimately, they thus have no personal or political desire to repudiate" pg. 35.

Macklin, Graham, Modernizing the past for the future in Copsey, Nigel & Macklin, Graham (eds.), British National Party : contemporary perspectives, London : Routledge, 2011. ISBN 9780415483841

Copsey - Teesside University Macklin - Southampton University Richardson - Newcastle Unviersity

Thanks to TFD for alerting us to this book. I hope these quotes help. I suggest others try and get the book. Considering it is a collaborative dedicated examination of the BNP it's an important source. --Red Deathy (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition to FAQ

Right, following on from the most recent discussions, would it be worth adding some questions to the FAQ regarding the need for sources, and the quality of sources covering such things as the question of bias in sources, the value of peer review, etc.?--Red Deathy (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whats the point? nobody really reads that section anyway. Wouldnt it be better to adress the issues raised by User:RobertMfromLI, theyll be in the prvious archive section. U6j65 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we agreed the text, we could stop having the same damn arguments again and again and again, since we'd be able to refer people to the faq, esp. if the discussions all get archived. User:RobertMfromLI didn't, AFAICR raise any issues, but offereed to help resolve the disputes, maybe by everyone working on a section by section basis. However, until *everyone* has a clear idea about what reliable sources means, we'll end up being bogged down in the same old disputes, so i'm suggesting we clear that hurdle, which will then make the rest a lot easier - as Abraham lincoln is reputed to have said, "If I'm given six hours to chop down a tree, i'd spend the first five sharpening the axe."--Red Deathy (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You now what i meant, wouldnt do any harm i suppose, what are you thinking of? U6j65 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

How about : Q: Are the sources biased against the BNP? A: Sources in the article are used within Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Everything said in the article must be traceable back to a reliable source. This article chiefly uses newspapers and peer-reviewed academic sources. The latter are considered to be a very reliable type of source, and peer review means that an article satisfies academic standards of method and thoroughness. This means an individual academics personal views, if stated elsewhere, are secondary to the evidence and methodology displayed in the article. It also means the papers should at least acknowledge the breadth of published academic material available at the time of their production. Maybe a bit wordy, but a complicated subject, but that's towards what I'm talking about.

Looks good, dont see why it would do any harm to include it, although I thought there was going to be a more specific answer the the 'Fascist label' paradox, about the soucres being used to justify that being reliable for reasons A B and C, but i guess the question that already exists partly answers that question.U6j65 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

BNP councillors

BNP have 13 councillors, not 2. The two figure is the councillors they got re-elected in 2011. They already had 11 more. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone please update the box (i don't know how) then delete this section. Thank you. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Im pretty sure your right about this, the BBC source used dosent say they have 2 councillors at all and thus the figure is wrong, do you have any sources that support the fact that they have 13?U6j65 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't say how many - we need a source which says how many. I have tagged for the moment--Snowded ^TALK 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

13 is correct. There are 17 councillors elected for the British National Party and still serving. The following are still members of the British National Party:

• 2 each in Amber Valley [1] [2], Bradford [3] [4] and Pendle [5] [6]
• 1 each in Burnley, Calderdale, Charnwood, Epping Forest, Lancashire, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rotherham.

In addition Deirdre Gates in Hertfordshire and Seamus Dunne in Three Rivers are now English Democrats, while Graham Partner in Leicestershire and John Gamble in Rotherham are Independents. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: today Paul and Lynda Cromie from Bradford left the BNP to sit as Independents, and apparently Cliff Roper (Amber Valley) did the same thing a few years ago. I'm yet to see official confirmation though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that, due to resignations, the BNP currently has 10 councillors. They are: Lancashire (1), Calderdale (1), Rotheram (1), Amber Valley (2), Burnley (1), Charnwood (1), Epping Forrest (1), Pendle (2). Reference 13 [Keith Edkins (1 August 2010). "Local Council Political Compositions"] has been recently updated to reflect these changes and the website contains links to every local authority website. Anybody wishing to check can follow these links and verify it with the official information provided by each local authority. I'll amend this article accordingly 46.64.46.203 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox version

Lo All - I've put a version of the article in my userspace at User:Red_Deathy/Sand3 - I've found this a good way in the past to break logjams and build consensus. I've already made substantial cuts which I think useful - but anyone else is free to go there and we can maybe work on improving the text whilst leaving the substantive aricle stable until we can agree a wholesale change.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas, I sent out a passable combination of the claims of repression of free speech section into opposition as it is not a legal issue per say and has no legal content, it should be in the previous archive section. Apart from that, the structure section is an obvious one, deleting people and positions that are no longer applicable. Updating the history and the policy section is more of a long term project as their is no sources from the 2010 manifesto and finally the elections results section could be semi combined with the British National Party election results, but that last one is only a suggestion as I know its the most up to date section on here, any ideas yourself? U6j65 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It will take a few days before I have a chance to do a comparison between the two. It would be helpful if we didn't see many changes to it until several editors have had a chance to have a look and determine if a parallel version is the best way to go --Snowded ^TALK 21:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this sandbox still open for debate?U6j65 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the content in the sandbox is unchanged. I tend to think it would be better to handle things section by section but overall I am OK with the changes but with the following comments

1. The fact that all major parties condemn this is relevant and is properly referenced in the body of the article so it should remain in the lede. The increase in media profile statement is no longer relevant.
2. The content of the Guardian infiltration has been reduced too much
3. "2009 - present" is a good enough title, the European Election is in the body of that sections

--Snowded ^TALK 16:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello All, ive replaced the page with a new edited version from the User:Red_Deathy/Sand3 page, main changes are:

1)Deletion of the main body of the electoral performance section and its replacement of a summary and combination of the more relevant information to the history section 2)editing of the History section, combination of the early history to provide a more navigational read and the creation of a new 200-present section that has relevant history up to the 2010 general election 3)editing and reorganisation of opposition section 4)deletion of old information that has had tags for well over a year.

Areas of possible improvement: 1)The policy section has not been touched and needs to be updated to the 2010 election manifesto, volunteers please contact me I cant do it on my own 2)The page probably needs semi protection at some stage in the future to prevent ISP sock puppet vandalism.

Thanks, U6j65 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

White Nationalism - Ethnic Nationalism needs to be changed/updated

BNP are no longer white nationalists (in fact they haven't been for over 10 years since Nick Griffin modernised the party from 1999)

Please see the main Ethnic nationalism page.

Source which confirm the BNP are no longer white nationalists -

Searchlight UAF articles Mainstream newspapers (e.g. Guardian) Politics books The BNP website itself BNP offical manifestos etc BBC interviews Nick Griffin's 2009 book

- from the ethnic nationalism page

British National Party (under Nick Griffin has modernised from white nationalism to a more moderate "ethno-nationalism" supporting British indigenism).Under Nick Griffin the British National Party espouses "ethno-nationalism" based on "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom" (see Indigenism). The BNP Language & Concepts Discipline Manual (BNP Policy Research, updated April 2009) states that the British National Party is "ethno-nationalist" and not a racial white nationalist party. The main BNP website also proclaims that their ideology is ethnic nationalism, as do many articles posted on their website. [7] This distinction between racial and ethnic nationalism is also clarified in Folk and Nation: Underpinning the Ethnostate a 26 page booklet by Nick Griffin and Arthur Kemp (Ostara Publications; 2nd ed., 2009). The work contains the following chapters which concern the ethnic nationalist (as opposed to racial) stance of the party: "Ethnic Nationalism - A Definition; Central Tenets of Ethno-Nationalism; Underlying Concepts of Ethno-Nationalism; The Implications of Ethno-Nationalism; The Practical Application of Ethno-Nationalism; Attacks on Ethno-Nationalism; and How to Argue the Case for Ethno-Nationalism". However before Nick Griffin modernised the party to ethnic nationalism, the BNP were explicitly racial white nationalists Goodbye, racial nationalism, hello, ethno-nationalism. Mainstream newspapers such as The Guardian in Britain have also noted of the BNP's change under Griffin from racial nationalism to ethnic nationalism.The Guardian, Friday 22 December 2006 The modern British National Party under Nick Griffin however reject racial nationalism, and strongly oppose immigration from whites (such as Eastern Europeans) to Britain (Global encyclopaedia of political geography, M. A. Chaudhary, Gautam Chaudhary, Global Vision Publishing, 2009, p. 243 for example notes: "Conversely, "white nationalism" in Europe normally indicates a racial variant of an existing ethnic nationalism. For example, the British National Party opposes large-scale immigration of Russians and Poles, even though they are white"). Thulist88 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Please see following searchlight article Goodbye, racial nationalism, hello, ethno-nationalism.

It is simply absurd to call the modern BNP white nationalists when they oppose white immigrants (e.g. poles, slovaks) entering UK.

Global encyclopaedia of political geography, M. A. Chaudhary, Gautam Chaudhary, Global Vision Publishing, 2009, p. 243 for example notes: "Conversely, "white nationalism" in Europe normally indicates a racial variant of an existing ethnic nationalism. For example, the British National Party opposes large-scale immigration of Russians and Poles, even though they are white

So yes, the poltical ideology box needs to be updated to ethnic nationalism. Thulist88 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The BNP may be opposed to all immigrants - including white ones - but they are also opposed to black Britons, including those who were born here.Multiculturalist (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The BNP is not a source for this - see countless previous discussions. The Searchlight article points to general trends in society not to the BNP specifically. You need a reliable source to assert this --Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is no more a source than the BNP page itself. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to BNP racial theorist Arthur Kemp (March of the Titans, ch. 31), Russians and Poles are predominantly non-white. TFD (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that says something doesn't it. They're certainly more ethinic nationalists than white nationalists. However, black or white, they'll pick white. We have to pick the more relevant description, as both may well be true. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, nice to see Anglo P hasnt given up, im sure there has to be a source somwhwere that says their ethno not racial nationalists, has anybody read, The Radical Right in Britain by alan sykes? dose he say anything different?U6j65 (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, why not just say that theirv ideology is far right? TFD (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does Arthur Kemp claim things about russians or poles ?! Genetical studies reveal that Russians or poles are the most white people in the whole world , and is Arthur Kemp white himself ?Kids4Fun/TALK 14:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst sympathising with Kids4Fun's general sentiments, the term 'lying gypsy' is surely inappropriate for a Wikipedia discussion page.Multiculturalist (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"The party also wants to establish a dictatorship in britain"

I'm reverting this as none of the sources actually say this. The first is for Tony Martin supporting the party and stating his personal view that Britain needs a dictator, but there is no suggestion that it is BNP policy. The other two sources don't say anything of the sort. Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it, it's yet another slur. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We can only say what RS say, and the personal view of one person cannot be taken to represent the partys view. It would need to be shown that his views represetn party ppolicy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The fascism article on wikipedia explains that fascists want a dictatorship and one party state , and wikipedia says that the british national party is fascist, fascism without dictatorship isnt really fascismKids4Fun/TALK 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Bottom line: if you can produce reliable sources which say that it's BNP policy to establish a dictatorship in Britain it goes in, if you can't, it doesn't. Valenciano (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the BNP does want to establish a dictatorship, and at the very least the source provided by Kids4Fun proves that some BNP members advocate this, but somehow I doubt you'll get anything even mildly critical of the BNP past Alexandre8. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I take itm you have sources for this and its not just soapboxing?

The sources say a BNP supporter wants a dictatorship. One of them does not even say any members want a dictatorship, but says that Mr griffin’s style of leadership is dictatorial. You did read the sources I take it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturlist, who gives you the right to be so damn insolent and disrespectful? Just who the hell do you think you are. Ignore this topic about dictatorship, it's a time waster. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

summary of policies

It seems that in the leading paragraph of the article we have a summary of the BNP's policies. We have dealt with their stance on immigration and citizenship, but since the 2010 election the party has seemingly decided to focus on the "legality" of the iraqi and afganistan wars. I added neutral statement with source from manifesto, it appears these isn't sufficient evidence, shall search for third party source now. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

-" http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/bnp-policies-defence-%E2%80%93-no-more-cuts.html" - This is more or less a summary of the manifesto.

-"http://www.politic.co.uk/14934-media-report-nick-griffins-anti-war-protest.html" - BNP anti-war protest

-"http://www.nothingbritish.com/09/bnp-to-set-up-afghanistan-campaign/" - Anti BNP group confirming the party's stance

-" http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23767321-home-the-five-shot-by-policeman.do -" Griffin in wootan basset to pay respects. Admits "strong feelings for afgan war, but refuses to comment, as day for reflection, not politics"

"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-how-bnp-is-exploiting-war-for-political-gain-592730.html" - Independent explaining itsview on BNP anti war policy

"http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5455458/the-bnp-responds-with-hate-mail.thtml" - Spectator reflects on BNP policy.

"http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/stop-the-war-blasts-bnp-for-hijacking-troops-out-campaign-1.1056049" - Herlandscotland adds opinion

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227995/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-stand-minister-Margaret-Hodge-Barking-General-Election.html" - Daily mail highlights campaigning points.

This is the addition I propose to make "Other major policies include the strong opposition to the engagement of British forces in conflicts contrary to what they see as the interests of Britain."

Will look further is needed.

It requires a good third party source that explains this as something significant about the party. Also, it must be clear that the description "contrary to the interests of Britain" is a viewpoint. TFD (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote changed. They are campaigning hard on anti war at the moment.Alexandre8 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to support their campaigns. If they are emphasizing it at the moment all the more reason to require a third party source not BNP material --Snowded ^TALK 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Very depressing how I'm dismissed like that. I bother to do the research add a point which is undeniably relivent, and I'm just pushed aside just because people hate change on this page. Upsetting. I have found sources from all those sites above which outline BNP change from immigration to anti-war. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

being added with mainstream newspaper references is hardly 'supporting' their campaigns.

I disagree with snowded's opinion here, the additions are relevant. 91.125.197.157 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To our new IP; I put a welcome notice on you page which I suggest you read as I had to correct the other two edits you have made since joining here.

Alexandre, you are not being dismissed but we are being cautious about this page being used to support a BNP campaign, especially at the time when there are battles between Brons and Griffin, the internal accusations of corruption against Griffin etc. etc. (all of which is souced but is too recent to include). At some stage That means we really need some third party sources to say that this campaign is significant in some way, not just an attempt at distraction --Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes the internal disputes are very noticeable, I believe that both brons and griffin are anti war. The problem with finding a third party source is that 1) The BNP, despite having a lot of negative media attention, are still a small and arguably irrelevant party, much like english democrats or respect party ect (Without the media attention), so the Newspapers simply don't bother to talk about their policies. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The internal disputes are reported in Searchlight and are properly referenced however they are still current news so its not appropriate to add that material to the article. While the BNP may not get much attention they do get some. The fact that the press has not picked up on the anti-war stance is probably because they are used to griffin seeking to distract from both internal strife and racist policies. If its not reported in considered pieces its not notable --Snowded ^TALK 14:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want my opinion on the war, I think the BNP ARE anti-war, only because almost everyone is anti war, but are probably trying to win votes with this method. I can't hope to list the amount of times labour or tori's have said in a manifesto an empty promise. Yes the conflict is current news. We'll write a section on it after they've sorted it out. As for the war, I feel it's worth a mention at least somewhere in the article since I've amassed quite a few sources on it, and it has been a leading policy since 2010. Perhaps you'd like to suggest where in the article? Alexandre8 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source other than a simple report on interviews with Griffin. --Snowded ^TALK 18:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. It's meant to be a round up of the policies of a party. Surely the best place to find a policy is on the manifesto, that's why they publish them. This isn't an opinion. What is a third source meant to say? "yes, they are against the war"? I'm being serious, I genuinely don't see the issue here. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well we could just reproduce the whole manifesto, in fact we can use it in part but the question of what gets included here is a matter for discussion. Why choose that section over others? Given that the press have not chosen to comment on it, its not especially notable (other than to people taking the BNP line). We need third party sources to say that something is particularily notable, we are not here to support the current PR campaigns of a fractured BNP leadership. Also you have been reverted on this by more than one editor. WP:BRD means be bold, if reverted DISCUSS. You know this only too well, or you should by now. The source for your quote is a particularly nasty (Do not bring your mixed race grand children to our meetings as we white folk like to hang out together) so if you really want it there fine. --Snowded ^TALK 05:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk about our differences

There is a general theme that this page tens to stay static and new material is shot down and changes not allowed, whatever they maybe. Instead of edit warring over small wording here and there and fighting over the inclusion of a sentence or two lets first try and discuss the main problems with the article that currently exists. There are a about four or five editors that have consistently been active on this page over the last few months and in some cases years, its up to those editors to take the lead and set a good example. Il be totally honest i think the page is a mess and is too long, badly set out and certain sections need editing, i also think the article is unbalanced and due to this the ethos of certain parts is more akin to that of an attack page rather than an encyclopaedia, but that doesn’t mean that we have to war and argue and lose each others trust.

The first logical step is to sort out the length of the article and its structure, then move onto specific sections and wording bit by bit. Red Deathy set up a sand box page that was supposed to sort these problems out but alas nobody was interested. Can those most active editors please start again to sort out differences, Thanks. U6j65 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at it and suggested and expressed some concerns along with the proposal that specific changes be discussed here first. --Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you in agreeance that the article needs editing/ structure then? Regardless of what that may be? U6j65 (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All articles need editing/structuring especially those which are not rated as good. What I can't see are major differences between the draft. There is nothing there that couldn't be proposed section by section here. --Snowded ^TALK 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I have no problem with that, were do you want to start? The draft was mainly edited to reduce/structure and to get rid of dead wood. Hopefully others will frollow once we take the lead. U6j65 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Given this articels topic I think that any large changes should be discused oon a case by case basis to ensure proper balance is maintained.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The main issue with the article, AFAICS, is it is too long, and too detailed. there may be a *slight* balance problem, as a lot of bits were generated piecemeal during particular press storms/controversies/crises regarding the party. It's a touch like having the T Dan Smith affair on the Labour Party article. I favour trimming back to some bare essentials, excising fairly large chunks of text - going through on a piece by piece basis will just get us bogged down in why 'Scandal X' does deserve a section to itself.--Red Deathy (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Piecemeal won't work. Section by section finishing with the lede will. Question one is: Are the current section headings the right ones? --Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, here goes, my dishonest opinion:

History	An essential section, and definitely the first. May be too many sub sections.
Structure	I'm not sure this is needed, most political party pages don't contain this, do they? Is there anything notable about BNP structure?
Policies	Essential - maybe promote political tendency to its own own top-level section?
Electoral performance	I'm not sure if we need this section. Possibly should be renamed if kept?
Legal issues	Merge into a 'controversies section?' Should be reduced, I don't think every legal case needs listing in loving detail.
Opposition	All political parties have opponents, maybe move some bits into a truncated controversies section?
Online presence	Is this necessary, all political parties have an online presence?
Affiliated organisations	A keeper.

--Red Deathy (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that History & Politics are essential, in reverse order. Structure and Electoral Performance can go. I like the idea of a single controversies section to include legal issues. However that may need sub-sections and we need make sure that its properly linked to the history section. Opposition I think can go into Politics (their pariah status with all main line parties, public sector bodies etc.) and/or the lede in summary. No need for online --Snowded ^TALK 09:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As we already have British National Party election results there's really no need for such a detailed section in the article. 2 or 3 lines outlining the parties breakthroughs and subsequent decline should be enough. Valenciano (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take it one issue at a time, I agree that we do not need Electoral Performance.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Electoral Performance has been poor. All we need to mention is the two MEP's somewhere. Everyone says the policies are essential, but looking at the current article, policies and opposition and legal issues all overlap into that. How are we going to structure the policies section without repeating all the scandals associated with their race policy? That's the biggest issue that we're facing atm Alexandre8 (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good to See everyone working together. Mostly agree with what has been said, History of course is a keeper but needs restructuring, policies is probably going to be the most difficult to sort out and could probably be left to last, electoral performance could be cut down to a overview table of results in major electrons with the link to the more detailed page. U6j65 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag review

I'm just patrolling Category:Articles needing sections. This article has a lot of cleanup templates ("tags"). I think we need a bit of a review.

• Sections I don't see a problem here. I can't see any section that is excessively long or problematic.
• Very long Yes, the article is quite long. I can't see immediate ways to fix it, so I'll leave this here.
• Recentism in "Griffin leadership, identity nationalism": not a major concern. It has a slight leaning towards more recent events, but not excessively so. It doesn't need a specific warning.
• Undue weight in 2007 split: haven't got time to review the truth of this tag. Will leave it there, but I encourage other editors to try and come to some conclusion as to whether it should continue being there.

If you disagree with my removal of tags, feel free to revert them and discuss them here. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is far too long and much longer than it needs to be. One of the main reasons for this, seems to be that it's "padded out" with clearly anti-BNP material that is not relevant to a page which should be limited to key facts about the BNP as a political party, it's history, policies and key events. There's far too much opinion of a biased nature, stories and quotes from tabloids. As well as critical quotes and smears from political opponents and the like. This article definitely needs breaking up and the main article reducing in size and limiting to facts. Truthprovails (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Race and immigration policies

Hey folks. I've updated some policies. I noticed this hadn't been done since 2005, or even 2003. However the main problem with the article is with the Race and immigration policies section. Note that this section doesn't mention the BNP's immgiration policies whatsoever. Not a single mention. All it contains is allegations of racism.

Therefore i propose to create different sections for this?

We can have the immigrantion policy section layed out like the other BNP policies.

The allegations or criticisms of racism should be put in another section.

I would also point out these are only allegations. As it is currently written it is very biased against the BNP. Saxonshield (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I will split the sections (add their immigration policies) but leave everything on the race untouched until it can be improved or debated about. Saxonshield (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to update the race section, but i won't remove really what is up. It just needs general updating. Saxonshield (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

all updates added --- feel free to leave feedback here. I've tried to write it as neutral as possible and used the best sources i could find. Saxonshield (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Knock off the apologism, it's so blatant it's embarrassing. If you seriously think you can slip in propaganda (neutral? ha! "best sources you can find", i.e. BNP or allied sources) in the guise of an edit, I sincerely hope someone with more Wiki clout than I stomps on it. And please don't start whining about how the poor widdle BNP is being traduced. If all their policies are so mainstream, why do they exist at all? EnquireWithin (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Then disuse what he has added. Which section of the edits do you think do not reflect the BNP's current policiesSlatersteven (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote under "Criticism of Islam" taken from the the 2006 BNPtv video of a speech made by Nick Griffin in Burnley has been selectively muted and worded in a way that is misleading to the casual reader. Clearly, if you watch the video and see what was said, and compare to the quote worded on Wikipedia it can give a very different impression of the intent behind that part of the speech. In particular as to the reason why the BNP is openly critical of Islam. Either the quote should be quoted properly in it's entirety, shortened (accurately), or removed completely. I believe this would make the article more accurate and impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprovails (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well pointed out. I never got time the time to updating that section or the section on homosexuality. I'm sure there is a lot more unsources or inappropiate stuff there. Basically it was only the race/immigration section i updated. Anytime you see this: ... it means a quote has been distorted. This has happened in the race section, where the BNP are described as a ...nazi party. I could not track the original source. BBC claimed it was from the European Union comittee on racism, however no fact genuine source exists with the quotation online - it only exists on the BBC website. Saxonshield (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the changes to the quote, it's now accurate and no longer misleading readers. Truthprovails (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Equality and Human Rights Commission

This section, although relevant, because of significant changes to the party constitution and membership rules, is rather one-sided and bias. It needs to be re-written to indicate the timing and possible political motivation behind this action by the EHRC. It also seem fair to explain that the party was always intended to represent the indigenous people of the Britain. The party membership eligibility clause then, was never intended to actively discriminate against non-white people. It's just a fact that the indigenous people are white and the purpose of the party is to represent them politically.

Some of the legal details of these cases also look a bit murky to me and maybe factually incorrect. Needs going over in greater detail. I have the court papers somewhere and will get around to it.

I have made a start towards making this section less biased by including the fact legal costs were awarded to the BNP and have provided a reference and link to a FOI letter from EHRC revealing this. Truthprovails (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Section on election fraud accusations?

Do we need a mention of this accusation of election fraud --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we just stick to your biased anti-BNP agenda and love of distorting the truth and hiding the facts for now? You have lost your credibility. Truthprovails (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Truthprovails, I have placed a warning on your talk page for this comment. Continue with this sort of attitude, and you will be blocked from editing.

I was about to say, Cameron, it should go under the "legal issues" section, but it seems you beat me to it! – Richard BB 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that the article talks about "alleged fraud and breaches of electoral law" rather than "election fraud", which would be a slightly different accusation. --FormerIP (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Opps - needs fixing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual content

Hi there, I'm a little concerned about the seemliness in the article that equates homosexuality with a slur. The fact that certain homosexual content has been pushed with seemingly little relevance as to the BNP seems to suggest it has a different agenda. I'm gay and trying to prove that prominent members of the BNP are verging on homosexual has me a little baffled. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Verging on which homosexual? --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what's the content you are talking about? What is the sourcing like. The BNP does appear to be anti-gay, so the charge of hypocrisy might be relevant here. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

firstly richard barnbrookes art and griffin's apparent relationship with someone. Not sure i understood your question. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok well you added another sentence now. Erm, well I'm sure they are pretty anti gay, but none of the comments seem to have much relevance, since they're just opinions and speculations. If One of them actually was proved to be in the closet, then it would ofc be necessary to mention it.Alexandre8 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I guess I was suggesting that if Nick Griffin has verged on a homosexual, it might be an event that's worth including in the article.

In terms of the content though, I'd say it's about how good/clear the sourcing is. If it has been a matter of public discussion that one person's art or another person's relationship are inconsistent with their public positions, that might be valid content. --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the BNP have been outspoken in their opposition to homosexuality, Barnbrook's film is wholly relevant to their principles. As for Griffin: for a man to claim that homosexuality is "creepy" and yet to have have been called homosexual himself deserves a mention. – Richard BB 01:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BNP not Fascist

The BNP's goals are democratic, and follow a democratic mandate, they are not based on race, they are based on immigration, immigrants are not a race. The Fascism label should be removed because it is anachronistic and POV. The majority of the members of BNP do not have fascist views or views based on race. Here is a BBC article about the changing public perception of the BNP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15083475 clearly the BNP is not seriously viewed as fascist, nor do the BNP advocate any fascist policies. Ben200 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines mean that we are "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The fascist ideology is supported by not one, but four reliable sources. Even if some people disagree with the fascist label, there are clearly enough citations to keep it there. – Richard BB 15:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The BNP's policies do not meet the definition of fascism, the label is anachronistic and based on prejudice. Those sources are from articles written years agoBen200 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Although BNP leaders may claim they are no longer fascist, we would need sources that the mainstream opinion agrees with them. We cannot make the judgment ourselves. TFD (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Before proceeding, it might be useful for Ben200 (talk) to look back through the archives of this talk page where he will find that the issue has been debated ad nauseam and always with the same result: the BNP is described by so many reliable independent sources as fascist that there really is no future in this debate. Incidentally, there may be four references given, but there have been many more - they were culled to save space - and despite repeated requests, no one has yet provided a single reliable source to say the BNP is not fascist. (Again, go through the archive.) Emeraude (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What because you searched google, 'BNP fascist'? I can type in google 'Labour fascist' and it comes up with 6,770,000 resultsBen200 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope because we have amble reliable sources that say they are. We have done this 100s of times and the outcomes is always the same - unless you can indicate all of those reliable sources are wrong (and we then remove them), nothing in this article is going to change. You argue on this talkpage all you like but that's the start, middle and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ben, please see WP:RS for an explanation as to why the sources that have been used are not simple hits from Google. – Richard BB 21:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

BNP policies are also largely based on race- "immigrant" may not be a race, but "Black" and "Asian" both are, and these are just some of the people the BNP would like to incentivise to leave the country, and just some of the races which make up the group defined by the label "immigrants" according to the BNP's definition of this latter label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.202.31 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Have no idea who made this comment because it's not properly signed, but it's scientifically invalid. "Black" and "Asian" are not races, they are broad geographical ethnicities. Scientifically speaking, there are no separate human "races", there is only ONE human race. This issue was decided by a worldwide scientific consensus as far back as 1950 by UNESCO. Human beings are just too genetically similar for there to be separate races. The terms "race" and "racism" have become politicised and legal terms, that has no use in a scientific or academic sense. Indeed, UNESCO made a recommendation that "races" is no longer used in any scientific academic sense. The subtle differences between human beings are what give us different ethnicities, and the key term here is ethnicities, not races.

Since there is only ONE human race, the BNP and it's policies cannot be guilty of pursuing a "racist" agenda. Because derivatives of "race" are meaningless. Enoch Powell stated this on camera, a highly educated man, a professor. The BNP promotes policies for all the people in Britain, regardless of ethnicity. However it's primary purpose is to protect the indigenous ethnic groups of the British Isles, of which they are several and it has nothing to do with skin colour. Truthprovails (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't come here to post about a party you clearly don't understand. The BNP does not want Blacks or Asians to leave the country, they merely propose a voluntary repatriation programme (which already exists under Lab/Con) for any immigrant who wants to return home. Saxonshield (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read what you just wrote. They want Blacks and Asians to leave the country, that's WHY they want to put pressure on them (more than allowing, pressure is clearly intended] to go, whether 'voluntarily' or otherwise- any other interpretation flies in the face of a basic understanding of the *English language*. They are quite open and clear on that matter. Whether other parties allow voluntary repatriation is a side-issue, "Saxonshield" [bit of a giveaway there] - here's betting you are in reality no more a pure-bred Anglo Saxon (immigrants, in any case) than I am (and I've got pre-Conquest ancestry, baby). We're all at least in part the descendants of immigrants. The BNP, judging by pretty much everything they have published, said and done doesn't like coloured people and Eastern Europeans and Jews and indeed anyone whose face or lifestyle ( they don't like gays either) is different to theirs and would be quite happy to assist them out of the country or off the face of the earth. We understand them just fine, thanks. EnquireWithin (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lets cut back on the soapboxing all.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This bickering is pointless. The issue of whether or not they are fascist is not up for debate: our duty is simply to present reliable sources that say what their ideologies are. We have done so, and so they shall remain there. – Richard BB 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actualy it is always up for debate, consensus can change. But untill some RS are presented that challenge the claim its pointless to rasie it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, though, no substantial RSs have been presented by the people who are contesting the page's ideologies. – Richard BB 13:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys arguing the case that we need RS to argue that the BNP is not a fascist organisation is illogical. It's a nonsense. For a start, you, or your "reliable sources" are assuming the BNP is. However, as I have demonstrated below, there is no clear evidence to argue or defend that point of view in any rational and logical sense by applying the standard criteria of fascism. You don't start by assuming something IS something. That's not how it works. You have to prove it. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? The process starts with examining any evidence to support the accusation. So where do we start? First we examine the credibility of your RS's and their impartiality. I've already dismissed two of them as being not impartial and have shown from their backgrounds there is every likelihood they are biased when it comes to anything to do with the BNP and nationalism. You mentioned you have four RS's? I'd like to hear the names of the other two. If you think you have an credible RS that has no political bias to the left or dislike of nationalism, that would certainly save us some time! However if anyone has read these RS's and has some logical argument and evidence to put forward to prove the BNP is a fascist organisation, then let's hear it. Truthprovails (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Will someone please get a mod here to delete EnquireWithin's posts. He is only here to lie about the BNP. Everything he has posted above is not BNP policy. EnquireWithin clearly has some sort of agenda against the BNP and is not neutral. This is not a place to come to attack the BNP and misrepresent their policies. Saxonshield (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind all members of this discussion to please assume good faith and not to make personal attacks on other users. The accusations that are being made between several users can only get worse and end badly, so please all keep cool. – Richard BB 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of whether the BNP is a fascist party, it's very simple to determine. What is the actual basis for the accusations of the BNP being fascist? Merely the say so of others? It seems that is the case from comments made here by individuals clearly with an anti-BNP agenda. You can establish whether or not the BNP are fascist by simply looking at the BNP party, it's policies, and comparing to the established definition of what fascism entails. And I quote from Wikipedia:

"Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.It advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy (such as eugenics). A fascist state's government is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government, and other institutions of the state."

None of that would seem to apply to the BNP. The BNP does not promote a single collective identity, it recognises the individual indigenous ethnic makeup of the British Isles and the immigrant population. That is outlined clearly in the BNP Manifesto and has been iterated many times by the party Chairman. The BNP is committed to non-violence, peaceful politics and is anti-war unless Britain or British interests are threatened. Furthermore, the BNP is a democratic party and believes in a democratic multi-party state. There is nothing in the manifesto of the party, and neither have there ever been any speeches to suggest the BNP would seek a single-party state, or would make any changes to the political system. Neither does the party have a structure anything like a fascist party with a dictator. It's fully democratic and anyone can stand as leader, just like any other democratic party.

The policies and structure of the BNP do not meet the essential criteria in the definition of what constitutes a fascist movement or political party. Therefore the claim that the BNP are fascist does not seem to stand up to scrutiny. Truthprovails (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, it's not up to us to debate whether or not they are fascist: it is up to us to provide the reliable sources that comment on their ideologies. So far, such reliable sources say they are fascist. – Richard BB 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, unless I'm mistaken, your first "reliable source" who claims that the present day British National Party is fascist is none other than David Renton. A left-wing writer and historian, who comes from a communist and Jewish background. I'd hardly call that an unbiased opinion or place any weight on it as a credible source. (reference [2] author of ‘A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party).

Another "reliable source" used to claim that the BNP is fascist is Nigel Copsey and his book "Changing course or changing clothes? Reflections on the ideological evolution of the British National Party 1999-2006" which I note is co-authored with surprise surprise, David Renton. Copsey looking at his biography page and background, has an obsession with the BNP it seems and an obsession with far-right movements which goes right back to his childhood. How can you claim these are reliable sources, when the sources are so clearly politically biased and in no way impartial on the subject?

There is also a quote by David Cameron clearly designed to add-weight to the fascist label quoting him as saying the BNP "are nazi thugs in suits". That is a blatant smear attack by a rival political opposition party with a long-standing agenda against the BNP. There are similar quotes by left-wing gutter press like the Daily Mirror. Truthprovails (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a discussion or opinion, these are the facts. Unless you think Wikipedia's definition of what constitutes a fascist movement or party is incorrect? There is no credible basis for stating the BNP is a fascist organisation and you can't credibly rely on the say so of one or two historians or unnamed "political scientists". Surely any such assertion has to be based on the facts and has to stand up to open public scrutiny. And clearly the assertion does not. Truthprovails (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Those sources say the BNP under Tyndall was fascist and white nationalist. In 2001, Griffin radically changed the ideology of the party into ethnic-nationalism or ethnopluralism (the forced repatriation was also changed to voluntary). The BNP is no longer a white nationalist party and hasn't been for over 10 years now.

Sources which describe the change of BNP from fascism/white nationalism to ethnopluralism:

• "Britain made - Inside the Radical Right: The Development of Anti-Immigrant Parties in Western Europe", David Art, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 101*
• "Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical", Christina Schori Liang, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p. 250

• David Art is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, his book covering the BNP was published earlier this year.

Some time ago the ideology box was updated to ethnonationalism while retaining the white nationalism but in brackets it was labelled as 'old' (e.g. under Tyndall). The problem however is that anti-BNPer's kept removing it. Anti-BNPer's cannot except the BNP is a moderate non-racist political party - so they will never want to white nationalist or fascist tag updated or removed because it would mean the party would gain more support. If you look at the history on this page you will see regulars here from anti-BNP and left-wing groups such as UAF etc come here, or Labour voters. There has been a problem with NPOV for a long time. Saxonshield (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What do these sourse say? do they actualy say the BNP in no longer facist?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Saxonshield, I urge you to assume good faith. Not everyone is out to get you. We're not doing this with an anti-BNP agenda in mind, we're doing this to try to be objective and neutral. Please stop assuming that those who disagree with your edits are politically motivated. – Richard BB 00:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard, clearly there IS an anti-BNP agenda provailing over this article, it's clearly biased in several places with questionable quotes and sources. And as Saxonshield has pointed out already, attempts by himself to correct misinformation (notably on old/new BNP nationalism) have been met with opposition and people editing back the article to make the modern day BNP look unchanged.

Criticism and facts are one thing. However this article is so blatantly bias and anti-BNP in places it's a joke and an insult to the credibility and impartially of Wikipedia. I intend to systematically dissect it, paragraph by paragraph until it represents a more factual, impartial and unbiased view. Truthprovails (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 sources are available - but this point has been extensively discussed. Now, the question I have is would people here discount the views of a crimonologist because they are opposed to crime? The point of academic peer review is that it produces a quality of process and work that has to be satisfied, if Renton or Copsey were off beam then either an WP:RSsource would have called them, or they just wouldn't have been published. They have been published, by a reputable and reliable route, and they need to be taken into account.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

But we may now have sources that dispute this. I susgest that untill tjhey are checked we should remove the facist label as it is resonably in dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree (that's why I dug out the quotes from the most recent Copsey so they can be re-evaluated). I should be able to get access to the David Art book, I'll see if I can get it tonight...--Red Deathy (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Both books, including the relevant pages, are available for preview on Google Books. Neither contains the claim that the BNP are not fascist, in particular "Europe for the Europeans: the foreign and security policy of the populist radical" does not even mention the BNP on page 50. In the absence of specific quotes with correct page numbers, there is current no dispute. I am restoring the material. 86.181.21.105 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've skimmed them and can't find this either - let's have some actual quotes please. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out its on google books, I am also having trouble finding such a quote, I did find this See page 241 “…BNP, a variant of fascism”. I will ask useers to waite a whuloe (24 hourw) before re-insytating the label, but I begin to suspect that the sources may not supprt exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

scrap structure of party section

It was previously mentioned on here that this should be scrapped. Its not relevant, and Nick is listed as the leader already in the box. So i believe this should be gotten rid of. If there is enough approval it should be deleted? Getting rid of it can make the article better readable and less long. Saxonshield (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the reference and link for "The chairman of the BNP has final say in all policy matters." statement. It was a broken link to an old out-dated constitution from 2004. Although the statement is still true, it's misleading to direct visitors to an out-dated constitution and it also raises legal issues. If anyone wants to wade through the current constitution which is available on the BNP website to re-reference the appropriate section, be my guest. Truthprovails (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the length of the artciel removing this section may be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Race

This section states:

"In 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards (real name Stuart Russell[134]), with a tape of a telephone conversation in which he said that "the black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, low achievers that drain our welfare benefits and the prison system and probably go and mug you."[135] He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there."[136]

Couple of issues with this. Firstly Stuart Russell is no longer press officer, or even a staff member to my knowledge. So this information is out of date. Secondly, he was expressing a personal opinion in what he believed to be a private conversation and not in any official capacity. It shouldn't be presented as in some way associated with BNP policy. It's misleading to do so. It looks like an attempt to taint the party and it's politics.

And this part:

"The BNP supported University of Leeds lecturer Dr. Frank Ellis, who was suspended after stating that the Bell Curve theory "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".[131][132] Ellis called the BNP "a bit too socialist" for his liking and described himself as "an unrepentant Powellite" who would support "humane" repatriation.[133]"

Just has no place at all in this article. It's not even relevant to the BNP. Clearly anti-BNP smearing by association.

Truthprovails (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whereas of course you are completely impartial. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Online presence

There is a remark in this section suggesting the BNP are hypocritical for their "British Jobs for British Workers" stance when clothing merchandise was made overseas. I have included the BNP side of this story to give a more balanced and unbiased view as to why the clothing was sourced from overseas. I have done this by including a BNP Spokesman quote from the original source used explaining the reason, which was conveniently omitted. Truthprovails (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Griffin leadership, identity nationalism

Where to start here! There's a whole loads of issues that need to be dealt with in this section. As far as I can tell, it's mainly biased anti-BNP media "padding" which is not relevant to the article (unless the purpose is to the smear the BNP rather than provide factual information about a political party). Much of it is certainly not relevant to the section title.

Perfect example here.. The Guardian story with ex-BNP councilor Maureen Stowe, in which she claims she was lied to by the BNP. The way this is used on the section makes it sounds sinister with words like "vile racists". The Guardian is well known for it's left-wing views and readership, and also for it's obsession with smearing and attacking the BNP. It sells newspapers and the BNP is an easy target. It's hardly then an unbiased piece of journalism by Tash Shifrin. Having read the story just now, I can see nothing in it at all to substantiate or warrant the "vile racists" comment made in the leading sentence for this story in the section. In fact, Ms Stowe admits in the interview she was not a member of the BNP, knew nothing about BNP policies or politics, and only attended one Red White and Blue meeting and "didn't stay long". Strange then how she should come to the conclusion the entire party are "vile racists". Reading the Guardian interview, she admits she was called a racist by BNP opponents. It looks then, more likely she couldn't stand the pressure she was under as a BNP Councilor and didn't like being called a "racist". In view of all this, I have therefore toned down that comment so it is kept factual without being biased.

Now onto this:

"In February 2005, the party provoked controversy in denouncing a charity appeal following the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, calling it a "devious way to flood Britain with immigrants" and comparing the catastrophe to flooding in Cumbria at the beginning of 2005,[66] which claimed three lives.[67]"

Firstly this is a blatant fabrication and twisting of comments made by two BNP employees. If you read the story on the link it does not say the earthquake appeal was a "devious way to flood Britain with immigrants" at all. That's pure spin. It says the devious Labour regime could use incidents like this to bring eco-asylum seekers into the country. That's quite different. And there was no direct comparison to the flooding in Cumbria, there was merely a comment made suggesting disasters happen everywhere all the time, including in Britain and several places were mentioned.

Furthermore, the source of these alleged remarks is the fiercely anti-BNP website, Searchlight. Hardly unbiased? There is also no link on their article to the original source or reference to it even, so no way to verify its accuracy. The persons they allege said it, Lee Barnes and Steve Blake, are no longer employed by, or involved with the BNP. Once again, old out of date, second hand information is being used on this article.

In view of this, and the misleading nature of this sentence, I have re-worded it so it's more factually accurate and unbiased:

In February 2005, Searchlight an "anti-fascist" website claimed former BNP employees Lee Barnes and Steve Blake made negative comments concerning the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in an article, suggesting that the Labour government could use such incidents to bring millions of "eco-refugees" into Britain. Searchlight was also critical of the seemingly dismissive comments made by Blake concerning the earthquake appeal, suggesting that natural disasters happen all the time, including here in Britain and that people should care more about homeless people in Britain. . Barnes and Blake are no longer employees or members of the BNP.

I can't really see the point of even mentioning this in the article myself since the whole story can't even be verified reliably. If can be shortened, at least keep it factually correct and unbiased.

Truthprovails (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the Guardian and Searchlight are reliable sources and therefore facts referenced to them should not use inline citations in-text attribution (e.g., "Searchlight...claimed"). In cases where reliable sources report incorrect facts, we rely on published retractions or alternative narratives in other publications, not our own analysis and knowledge. Also "scarequotes" not attributed to a source should never be used. We could write for example, "Searchlight, which describes itself as "anti-fascist"", but would only do this if there were any doubt that it was anti-fascist. Your comment on The Guardian publishing stories to "sell newspapers" is confusing. They have, next to The Independent, the lowest circulation of any national newspaper. (See List of newspapers in the United Kingdom by circulation.) TFD (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute that they are reliable sources. Both the Guardian and the Searchlight have a long-standing agenda against the BNP. The Guardian is also motivated by making stories up that sell newspapers. They are known for exaggerating and distorting facts with the intention of smearing the BNP's public image. Neither of these two sources are impartial or reliable sources of information on any reporting of the BNP. Circulation is irrelevant. They're a tabloid newspaper in business to sell news and make money. They have in the past planted moles in the BNP and tried to dig up dirt where there wasn't anyway. As have searchlight with their political agenda. Searchlight writes articles about the BNP quoting things they claim the BNP have done or said, which are usually not even referenced and cannot be tracked down to any reliable source.

The reason I quoted anti-fascist for Searchlight, because like the UAF and other so-called "anti-fascist" organisations, the very thing they claim to be against and fighting is the very thing are and do. Namely, denying millions of people the basic human right to freedom of speech and the freedom to choose and support whatever political party they wish. These "organisations" would love to destroy the BNP and put it out of politics completely if they could, that has been their stated aim. That is undemocratic and goes against basic human rights, which is essentially what fascism is all about, suppressing any other political party that you don't happen to agree with or that doesn't support your political ideology.

Truthprovails (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That just is not going to fly - the Guardian is considered a RS by the community, you would have to get a global consensus that it is not. You simply are not going to be able to do that, so will have to abide by that consensus. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm sure that is something I can work on and we can look at the available evidence more closely, given time. They may be a RS in other matters, but they certainly are not when it comes to the BNP and I would argue they should not be used as a RS on this particular page because of their biased and past history with the BNP. Truthprovails (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They are a reliable source and the only way to refute the facts they publish is by finding another reliable source that publishes an alternative set of facts. In the meantime, you may wish to file your information with the Press Complaints Commission. TFD (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're now busy undoing all the corrections and revisions I've made to the article so that it was starting to become something approaching a factually correct and unbiased reference page. Obviously you don't want that and have an agenda where the BNP is concerned which means the truth means nothing.

Just so that other contributors to this page and visitors in general are aware of how biased contributors to this page are:

1. You have replaced a broken link to an outdated manifesto from 7 years ago that is no longer even legal which I removed.

2. You put back the words "repelled by its racist nature" to a sentence attributed to someone concerning the blatantly biased Guardian story by Tash Shifrin even though nowhere does the lady in question use phrase or language. The story doesn't even support that and gives nothing substantial to suggest she uncovered any "racist" activity within the party. Not one mention. So how you can justify those words in that sentence with any shred of integrity is beyond me.

3. You have completely removed the new section I added Violence Against the BNP which was factual and referenced, without any basis or reason for removing it. Other than to paint a one-sided picture of the BNP as "racist thugs" when in fact, the reality is the violence is all one-sided mostly against the BNP.

4. You have removed the fact I added stating that over £16,000 legal costs were awarded from EHRC to the BNP by the court case they lost for contempt of court. This fact was again referenced and linked to a Freedom of Information letter from EHRC itself. No reason at all to remove that except to conceal facts and make out the BNP to the ones in the wrong, when in fact they were the victims.

5. You have removed the quote I added to the allegation that the BNP are hypocrites for promoting British Jobs for British Workers while sourcing merchanise clothing overseas. The actual BNP Spokesperson quote was from your own referenced source, stating that their clothing merchanise was sourced from overseas because Britain couldn't grow cotton.

This site is fast losing it's credibility as an impartial source of information.

As I said in the summary, your changes were so radical and I were not sure about the NPOV nature of a lot of them. 1 seems to be uncontroverisal, so we put that straight back in - what is the replacement URL you suggest? The rest I suggest we get consensus for. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing a link that was broken and references an out of date (and now illegal) document is radical? How so? Care to run that one by me? Truthprovails (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Read it again, point 1 is NOT controverisal - so what link do you suggest we use instead? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's your decision to use a link, not mine. Therefore its your responsibility to use the CORRECT link. I said, (if you read back) no link is needed there, but if you need one for some reason, I suggest you link to the CURRENT constitution document on the BNP website. As you haven't done that and have linked to the old one again which was deemed illegal by the EHRC, one must assume you're trying to promote some agenda. Truthprovails (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a link no longer works is not relevant. The source is still valid, i.e. the BNP's 7 year old manifesto is still available, as a material document, just not on their website. It will be available in libraries and elsewhere; there is nothing in Wikipedia rules or guidelines that says a document has to be online. The illegality of an old constitution is also irrelevant. It was published, it existed, it was referenced. It may embarrass the BNP now to have done something illegal (though I doubt it) but it certainly didn't then. It exists, it is correctly referenced, there is no need to remove mention of it or use it as a source. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how absurd you're starting to sound? If you're going to be anti-BNP and biased, at least stop pretending. What purpose will it serve to link to a document that is no longer on the BNP's website (it's been removed - 404 error) and that has been retracted by the party by order of the Courts on legal grounds? What purpose does it serve, to give visitors to the page the impression that it is the BNP Constitution, when you know it is not? Is it so difficult to update the link to the current constitution? The legality of the old document is VERY relevant in this case because if you KNEW anything about the BNP you would know that the constitution you have linked to did not allow non-indigenous non-white members to join the party. That may give anyone reading it the wrong impression of the party and may make them feel excluded from joining. There is nothing wrong with linking to an archived version of the old document if it's appropriate, but you should in this instance link to the current constitution as that is what anyone clicking the link will be expecting, or thinking they are reading. Truthprovails (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly a BNP supporter with a biased agenda. You shouldn't even be editing this article. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing embarrassing to the party about the old constitution or having to change it. I'm merely making this point in the interests of readers and anyone researching the BNP, to avoid any confusion. Why not link to both constitutions side by side? Truthprovails (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)