Talk:British National Party/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Possible Combination of Opposition and claims of repression of free speech

After the brilliant clean up of the elections page (sorry i am unaware of who performed that), the rest of the article is still in a mess in certain places, namely the claims of repression of free speech section is placed in the legal section. Claims of repression of free speech is not a legal matter and is more connection to opposition of the BNP, which includes university and anti Bnp Groups as well as the media. I propose the two should be merged and have drawn up a possible solution here: (no material has been added or deleted this is just a combination of already existing material similar to that performed on electoral performance)

Moving election results

This article could be drastically shortened if a significant proportion of the election results section was moved to British National Party election results. Some sentences are identical, suggesting that one has stemmed at some point from the other. An extensive history of electoral performances has bloated this article to a size best described as monumental, vastly larger than Labour or the Tories who have actually been in government. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the reference checker tool so it can be found quickly [2]]. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreign policy & Israel/Zionism

I'm not sure why there isn't a section on the main page about foreign policy. It seems the BNP are non-interventionist (or possibly isolationist), opposing the military interventions in Iraq, Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan, future military action against Syria or Iran as well as foreign aid. However, the European right wing has been shifting in a more hawkish direction as of late, with the Danish People's Party, Dutch Freedom Party, Polish Law and Justice, Italian Lega Nord and the EDL backing the War on Terror. It is likely there are factions within the BNP that support this, but the party's platform, manifesto and leader seem to suggest that the majority within the party favor a more isolationist foreign policy.

Sources: - http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/foreign-affairs - http://www.bnp.org.uk/category/social-tags/iraq-war - http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/establishment-fears-bnp%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Csupport-our-troop-bring-our-boys-home%E2%80%9D-campaign - http://www.bnp.org.uk/category/social-tags/afghanistan - https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/327712220190498816 - https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/316544716441272320 - https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/309373816189120512

Also, Nick Griffin and the BNP are not as ardently Zionist as this article seeks to portray them - they are far more moderate on this issue than the Conservatives or UKIP. In this study, which explains the BNP's differences with the EDL and with ultra anti-semitic groups, Griffin distances himself from Zionists and Israel (and also makes references to his own non-interventionism), while also distancing himself from the extreme anti-semites: http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/what_lies_behind_the_english_defence_league_0.pdf

While affirming Israel's right to exist, Griffin seems to regularly criticize other "Zionists".

Sources: - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/01/the-bnp-accuse-ukip-of-being-zionists_n_2991744.html - https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/296257605796507648 - http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/520/bnp-blame-zionists-for-edl

Unfortunately, most of these sources are primary. However, it seems that the BNP themselves are pretty much the only people who ever talk about the BNP's foreign policy and position on Israel.

This source is also of interest: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/israel-%E2%80%98protect-its-jewish-nature%E2%80%99-building-concentration-camp-10000-african-%E2%80%9Cinfiltrators%E2%80%9D It says: "The BNP supports the right of Israel to be Jewish. This ethno-nationalist concept is at the heart of the party’s desire to keep Britain British. The BNP also supports the rights of the Palestinians to their own state, and argues that a two-state solution is the only obvious, fair and reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Hopefully someone can provide other sources that go into more detail about the BNP's policies on intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, Libya, Syria and Iran as well as their position on Israel, Zionism and Zionist influence in Britain. --Jay942942 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are all primary sources, there needs to be something from a third party to create a meaningful entry as we can't just take BNP claims ----Snowded ^TALK 11:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Snowded is right, we need secondary sources in order to include this information. Readers of course can click on the link to the BNP website if they want to know more about what the party says. TFD (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article already contains multiple primary sources. See Citation 187 and 289. Should those be removed?--Jay942942 (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A deafening silence in response to your valid points there.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are not in themselves banned, they should be replaced with or backed up by third party sources. They are not to be used for controversial or promotional purposes, any such use can result in the claims and sources being removed. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

So until someone replaces or backs up those sources, they remain indefinitely? That's hardly fair. --Jay942942 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Very convenient for you to raise this, and a look through the extensive talk archives on this talk page reflects when "primary sources" are reliable and, in blunt terms, "are not". You and others can choose to dismiss my observations any which way you so choose, but anyone with a neutral mind can sense the overall motivation behind your selective choice of when they are reliable and when not.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF before continuing with your personal attacks. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologise if my choice of words made my comment sound harsh or personal - I do try and avoid confrontation. It just seems that, through looking through the archives, people are banging their heads against a brick wall with regards to reconstructing this article to read like a Wikipedia article should (the observations made by user UkrainianAmerican in Archive 24 say it all).

The article is informative if a little too in depth in areas, but seems to be written to intentionally portray the party in a negative light and this removes credibility, yet I see so much potential for improvement as most of the information actually needed is already here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If third party sources show the party in an unfavourable light then so do we. Now stop making accusations and either come up with specific sourced proposals for amendment or stop wasting people's time ----Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:AGF yourself. I could and probably would make the proposals, but if the attempts by others in the past are anything to go by, I would undoubtedly have them rebuffed. Goodbye.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not if they are proerly sourvced you wouldn't but believe what you want to believe its your call ----Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

BNP article submitted as a good article nominee

See discussion at User talk:Jamesx12345#BNP article submitted as a good article nominee

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Party/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I'll field this one if you like! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally good, but there are still grammatical problems throughout the entire article. For instance, in the first paragraph following the introduction, there are issues such as "Members of Tyndall's New National Front, wished to modernise and move away from fascist ideology..." This is just one of many examples that I have identified. A thorough copy edit is required.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede section has multiple problems. I'm not confident that it summarizes the entire article sufficiently, and doesn't offer as clear an introduction to the subject as it should; for instance, it doesn't explicitly state that the BNP are a party based in the U.K., it doesn't mention the party's economic stance, and Nick Griffin is linked to twice. It's certainly not bad, but it's not up to GA quality just yet.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are issues with some of the references, e.g. the date is missing from "Eatwell, p. 66". Otherwise generally good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	In a few areas, an anti-BNP bias appears to seep through.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I've failed this article at this juncture, because it still needs quite a bit of work to reach GA status. But don't be disheartened, because the quality has definitely improved over recent months, and there's an awful lot of great work that has gone into the article. If you want any further advice, feel free to message me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Membership number

It's probably talk page tedium, but for the membership figure, the least good one is definitely the Independent (it doesn't feature as part of the article, so I doubt much thought will have gone into where it came from.) The BDP and HnH seem to source from the 2012 accounts, which has a figure close to 5000, that I would be inclined to trust, as it seems in the right ballpark. James^x12345

I've found the statement of accounts for the year ending 31 December 2012, and it give 4872 paid members, with a 2011 figure of 7651. I'll upload it somewhere easier to find (it's in the depths of the EC website.) James^x12345 18:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's here. James^x12345 18:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British National Party/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I'll take this one on if you're happy with that ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are issues with the prose throughout the text. For instance, in the "National Front" section, you refer to "the split within the NNF"; do you actually mean "the split within the NF" ? A thorough copyedit is required.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could definitely do with expansion to summarise the entire contents of the page; I am more than happy to help with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are still sections where it is unreferenced.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Many sections go into to much detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid to say that I am inclined to fail this once again; not enough has been changed since the article's last GAR, and I really think that this is a situation where the article should be split off into smaller articles (i.e. History of the British National Party) first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't fail it yet - give me something immediate to do, and I'll get to work on it. James^x12345 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, there is now a History of the British National Party. I'll get to work with the shears and add a few {{main}}s. James^x12345 19:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that the 2010 manifesto dedicates a very solemn page (46) to "Saving Britain’s Pubs" made me very merry. James^x12345 20:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work thus far; your edits are certainly appreciated and are improving the article! Nevertheless, I've decided to call for a second opinion on this one, given the controversial nature of the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If any more referencing is needed, just tag bomb it with {{cn}} and I'll get to work. The BBC News archives almost make the license fee worthwhile... James^x12345 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

I think this is a great article, and very nearly at GA-level. The biggest issues are overuse of embedded lists (particularly the unbulleted list-like frgamented Breakaway parties section. One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible. I haven't read through the article in detail, but sentences like "In 2009, Nick Griffin appeared on the BBC's Question Time, amid significant public controversy." are given without explanation and can be a bit confusing. I know there's a link to a more detailed article, but some sort of context would be really helpful. Entire policy sections have no inline citations. Every statistic and electoral result should be referenced somewhere (including tables). I don't think the article is too detailed; the size is about right. Adabow (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I especially like the Breakaway parties section, but can't think how to improve it. It's possibly out of date, but still pretty relevant, as the BNP does seem to be fragmenting into smaller groups. The policies are sourced from ref 15, which is used a lot, but more instances of it could easily be added. I've added a bit to the Question Time appearance, but might add more again. Many thanks for reviewing this difficult article. James^x12345 09:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Diderot's dreams

I think the reviewer is on the right track. This article is too long and detailed, and a Good Article must have a summary style. As a rule of thumb, 100KB is the maximum article size, and this one is 30% larger. This point is key. The article is going to have to change a lot to become short enough, and that task plus whatever else needs to be done is beyond a 7 day hold. So the article should just be failed right away. Now, the other reviewer comments and nominator improvements that have been made are useful, but might get lost, become unnecessary, or need to be redone in the shuffle of shortening the article. So it's also a matter of doing first things first. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

100kb as a maximum article size isn't something I've heard of before. A great number of GAs and FAs, for example Sea and General relativity are quite a bit longer again. This has been trimmed from 180kb, which was too long, but I can't see 30kb of redundant material that can be chopped out. A full {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} takes several lines, and almost all of the 250+ cites are of that kind, and there is a full bibliography as well. The bibliography could be trimmed to not include books not used for cites, and that might well take it down by a few kb, but why? I believe the software can cope with pages of up to 2048kb or something, although it would get quite slow, but 130kb is not unheard of. If there is anything you feel does not belong in the article, do say, but articles about political parties are always quite long, and the BNP is an unusual and quite bizarre party. (If you're unfamiliar with them, have a look through the articles on their website - the comments at the bottom are the best bit.) In short, I don't think reducing the size of the article would make it any better or more useful to the reader, but am open to persuasion. James^x12345 20:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Diderot's dreams is correct in the ~100K max (see WP:SPLITSIZE), however this is based on readable prose size. This article has 49K of readable prose. Adabow (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The 100K is indeed a total size limit, and is an old rule of thumb from a few years ago-- but is the average point at which at article should be split-- sometimes a little sooner, sometimes the article can be a little bigger. The new recommended limit, from WP:SPLITSIZE, is 40K to 100K of readable text. Not 100K-- that is the absolute no matter what limit. This article has 62KB of readable text (not 48KB) by my estimate (as calculated from a cut and paste to Open Office of a selection of the article from the title to the beginning of the reference section). At this size, the guideline recommends "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".

Midnightblueowl, I suggest you read the new guideline yourself and apply it. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

My figure comes from using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js. Adabow (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I just tried using the javascript tool you used, and I get your number. Apparently, the javascript tool doesn't count several parts of the text that are copied in a simple cut and paste and are therefore counted using the method I used. These parts are: section headings, tables, bulleted text, photo captions, infobox text, and the table of contents. Most of these would be read by someone reading the whole article, and would contribute to "reader fatigue" per word as much as the body text. Certainly, headings and photo captions would be. And in this article's case, the bulleted text also. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jamesx12345

Going through the article again, I can't see where it doesn't meet the criteria. It has changed a huge amount since the review began, so the table at the top does not (in my opnion) represent the article in its current state. I have tried to address the concerns expressed, but the comments made may still be valid in places where they haven't been addressed properly by me. I will be able to do a bit of work over the next few days if some direct criticisms are forthcoming. James^x12345 16:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Truenature12

Firstly I would agree with the view noted about 'Breakaway Groups' I think this section needs to be bulleted and kept to parties/groups that are currently live, some groups listed are now defunct. The same could also be said for 'officially linked organisations' section too that includes groups that ceased to exist years ago.

I would say there is still some bias in the article for example the section on 'alleged front organisations' is based on Hope note Hate and Searchlight references. The definition of 'alleged' means unproven or the claims being made are from unreliable sources. The alleged Civil Liberty and BNP link is clearly no longer applicable. The section on 'association with violence' would benefit from focusing on the BNP as a party and it's leader more. Cottage was a card carrying member, but not an official. Many of the people listed haven't been BNP members for several years.

I believe some areas would benefit from being reduced and merged. For example as an idea much of the 'political tendency' section focusses on John Tyndall, this section could be merged with the 'race' section and become a section about 'political ideology'. I also think the British army immigrant issue could be reduced into 'immigration policy'. Finally some areas need a bit more added such as the BNPs stance on the EU, as this is a large part of BNP policy. The 'international politics contacts' section needs a bit more and certainly needs more referencing. Truenature12 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the EDL bit relevant? A section called "Alleged front organisations" is always going to be a bit iffy. I'll take that out. James^x12345 18:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Some People are trying to make the article read like a HnH write-up rather than a Wiki page - full of speculation and outdated information. An organisation is either linked or not. Is the EDL a front of the BNP, no doubt some BNP members have been on EDL matches but I don't believe they are tied officially both distance themselves from each other. Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party. Truenature12 10:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talk • contribs)

Well,that is being rather economical with the facts. What is meant by "outdated information"? Is it what the rest of us call recent history? Wikipedia's article on Civil Liberty details the close links between that organisation and the BNP - indeed, its founder and director, Kevin Scott, was a senior BNP official. That it now supports the BDP is because Scott himself has switched allegiance, in 2012, and is indicative of the falling apart of the BNP in the last two years, but for most of its existence Civil Liberty was exclusive in supporting BNP and BNP members. The sources are Searchlight, The Guardian, the BBC and the Daily Mirror, not Hope not Hate, but why that should matter is debatable anyway. If HnH presents reliable evidence, then the evidence is reliable! But there is a further piece of factual economy above: In wanting to remove the clear link between Civil Liberty and the BNP, Trunature12 claims that "Civil Liberty promotes the British Democratic Party". There is no evidence offered for this assertion. It's not on the CL website (which has numerous references to the BNP). Personally, I suspect it's true - why should Scott not shift his organisation's allegiance alng with his own? - but, as far as I know, there is no evidence for this. Certainly, Truenature presents none, he just says it's so and that is not acceptable. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that CL was associated with BNP until the split. Emeraude (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If something is outdated then it makes no sense being listed in officially linked groups or front organisations, this information needs to be updated and current. If there are outdated links they need to be under 'history'. The sources are interesting at the time Searchlight and Hope Not Hate, were part of the same group, the later being set up to oppose the BNP both supported by the Mirror. For many years Hope Not Hate was the campaigning wing of Searchlight. The Link between Civil Liberty and the BNP is not current. There are articles on the site promoting the British Democratic Party, Scott is Chairman of both. However, Civil Liberty was never a 'front' group of the BNP as it represented others on the right too. Much like the EDL is not a 'front' of the BNP. These organisations were not set up by the BNP with the influence of BNP funds, which is likely to be the case with Solidarity and the Christian Council of Britain. If there is a link and it is current and valid then it should be listed under 'officially linked groups'. Therefore, why is there a need for a section called 'alleged front organisations'?

Here is one link Civil Liberty promoting the BDP http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1640 Truenature12 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Winding down?

Are there any outstanding concerns that this article doesn't meet the GA criteria? Specific examples would be helpful. If there are no objections in the next few days I'll list the article. Adabow (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer of this page, I will state that I am still not entirely happy with the page. It continues to need a lot of work. But thanks to some fantastic work on behalf of James, I think that it does meet the necessary GA criteria. In this case I am comfortable with it being appointed to GA, although I should still stress that it is a very long way from warranting FA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, I'll give the article a look over in the next couple of days and give my view. This is a high profile article on a significant and contentious topic, so I do understand Midnightblueowl's hesitation. I'd always rather a reviewer was slow and careful than slipshod and hasty. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do tell me what still needs to be done and I will endeavour to fix it. James^x12345 20:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Review by SilkTork

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. It's not perfect ("...by John Tyndall in 1982, since 1999..." is awkward for example), but in general it meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Coverage. From my background reading I'm not seeing any significant aspects not covered by the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Cites. It is richly (at times heavily) cited. Sources checked are reliable, and support the statements made in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing Original Research. Statements that I've checked are supported by sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Query

• Minor edit warring occurring. Article should be free of reverts of non-vandalistic edits for a reasonable period before listing as a GA. Given the topic of this article, I would say two weeks would be a reasonable period. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Images. There is a problem with File:British National Party.svg. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably OK, but I'm a little unclear on the relevance of a National Front march. I understand that the caption says that the BNP emerged from the NF in 1982, but why is the image showing a march from the 1970s? Was that march somehow relevant to the split? If so, it would be useful to explain that in the text. As it stands, it appears to be an image linking BNP with the controversial NF marches of the 1970s. Is that appropriate? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have tidied up the Nick Griffin talking to voters in Romford Market image. In doing so I noticed that the figure that appears to be the subject of the image is not Nick Griffin. Griffin appears to one one of the people in the background with his back to the camera. I don't see the usefulness of this image - at least not with the current caption. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral. There appears to be a tendency to assert the fascist associations of the party. I'm not getting a clear idea of what the party's own ideologies are - more about what other people think they are. Now, it may well be the case that what other people think they are is more notable than what they themselves say they are, however, I do think that in a section on the ideology of the party, their own statements about how they view themselves should be included - at present they only appear in that section to say they not fascist, or to have a soundbite from the founder, which may or may not be related to the party's current ideology. The rest of the section is outside opinions saying they are fascist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Statements such as "The BNP will abolish political correctness from the police service in favour of real crime fighting" are taken word for word from the BNP manifesto. Please either make this clear by using quote or speech marks, or rephrase. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fail

• Mos. Does not match the guidelines: WP:Lead, WP:Layout, and WP:EMBED. The lead needs to be built up so it is an appropriate summary of all the main sections. The sub-sections need to be looked at as many of them are very short creating a choppy, disjointed appearance, and making it difficult to read the article with any degree of flow. There are a number of embedded lists. Do we need so many? It makes it difficult to read with ease. I think much of this could be cleared up with a half-hour edit. Perhaps a bit longer for building up the lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Focus. The article goes into considerable detail over minor issues in the Legal issues section, and Veterans and Second World War section. And there also seems to be a lot of attention paid to the policies in the Policies section. A question needs to be asked if some material can be split into a standalone sub-article, leaving a summary in this article; or if the material can be simply trimmed and disposed of. Either way, the article goes into too much detail for an article in a general encyclopedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

Initially I thought the article could be tidied up with a few hours work, but the more I looked into it, the more I saw that there needs to be some serious work down on trimming down the material. That tends to be time-consuming. Given that this GAN has been open for two months my recommendation is that it is now closed now as a fail, and that the work recommended is done before resubmitting for review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I do feel conflicted on this issue, as it does meet most of the criteria, but I think that SilkTork has made a good case for failing this GAR at the current time. But keep up the good work ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It still doesn't feel quite right in a number of ways, but pinning them down is hard. There are a number of very good and clear points to work on that have been made in this review, so I will try hard to fix them over the coming weeks. James^x12345 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help out when I can. I've just picked up a bunch of GA reviews, but when I've done them I'll lend a hand on getting this article ready for another GAN. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've formally closed the GAN. If there's still work to do and I haven't yet helped out, give me a nudge in January. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Right wing?

Ok, I'm taking it to the talk page as requested. This should be corrected because it's simply not true, they are centrist authoritarians. Wikipedia aims to be accurate, not politically biased.

"The extreme left identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies. It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear. It's easy to see how the term national socialism came into being. The uncomfortable reality is that much of their support comes from former Labour voters." Atotalstranger (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect what reliable sources say about a subject. You've removed Right-wing populism with no justification, and added something sourced to a website. And ignored the hidden comment which asks you to discuss first. I've raised this at WP:RSN where I suggest you contribute to it. In the meantime I'm reverting you again and asking that you respect the hidden comment request "There are numerous sources attesting to their various political ideologies, so if you disagree with any, please discuss it first on the talk page if you have a reliable source (see WP:RS) for additional views. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANY IDEOLOGIES AS THEY ARE ALL SOURCED ". Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are political opinions not reliable sources, party offiliation is based on algorithms. The reason those people think the BNP for example is right-wing is because they think facsism is the opposite of communism and is on the right of the political spectrum, when in reality that's not true. Look at this graph for reference, neo-liberalism is the far right; the opposite of communism on the far left, and fascism is at the top; the opposite of libertarianism at the bottom. Atotalstranger (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the highest quality books say that the BNP is far-right, including the following publishers: Routledge, Verso, SAGE, Polity, Oxford and Cambridge. Nothing you find online in a circle diagram is going to alter these excellent sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Doug, now please stop edit warring ----Snowded ^TALK 17:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. There are multiple reliable sources which describe the BNP as far right - including much directly-relevant academic material. The opinion of a single website with no established credibility cannot possibly be used in such a manner to contradict them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors' opinions are irrelevant, we follow reliable sources. TFD (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And the two sources that are given don't even agree, which is not surprising given that that they each attempted their own versions of the so-called political compass which is not widely accepted as a valid tool. Emeraude (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick Griffin just achnowledged he is a Socialist; That would be LEFT (not right-wing) . The page requires an amendment in my view. 81.157.136.63 (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

This article vilifies the BNP, referring to it as "fascist" and cites several politicians with dubious credentials as the source of this claim without offering actual statements or other proof. No mention is made of the fact that the BNP, whatever it's beginnings were, is a patriotic pro-Britain party. What it is very definitely NOT is politically correct. The original leadership probably was fascistic, but the leadership has changed well away from that.

The BNP is not mainstream and certainly not Liberal. The description of Far Right is reasonable, but "fascist" absolutely is not.

Sunarupu (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think any of the cites for "fascist" are politicians. High quality sourcing saying clearly that the BNP is not fascist would be the way to get the article changed, I think. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion as stated cannot influence the article unless you find reliable sources that support you. At the moment they support the use of fascist ----Snowded ^TALK 23:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Leader quote when in NF

Given that the BNP comes from the NF, and that is also linked with its leader I can't see any reason to remove a properly sourced quote. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with it is that while the BNP indeed evolved from the NF, they are still two different parties. Any policies that Griffin supported while being a member of the NF don't necessarily exist in the BNP. I think this quote should certainly be included in his article, but I think it's fairly irrelevant to this article. — Richard BB 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The background of the leadership is relevant. It is not saying that the BNP is violent, but it developed out of the NF, even if it abandoned some of the NF's aspects that were not conducive to electoral success. TFD (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not as if Griffin was just a member of the NF - he was a leading light in the party. The BNP developed from the NF when that organisation imploded and one has only to look at the people who set up the BNP, Tyndall included, to see the direct relevance of what they said then to what exists now, however much they may have (attempted) to tone down or whitewash their past actions and words. It's impossible to understand the BNP without knowing what went before. Emeraude (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The BNP did not come directly out of then NF as the article and sources highlight. The founding of the party is more complex than 'developed from the NF'. Griffin was a leading light in the NF in 1986. However, there were two different National Fronts and the British National Party all were in COMPETITION - ie RIVALS at that point in time. As such Griffin made those comments when in competition with the BNP and not representing the BNP. Griffin was never a founding member of the BNP and joined in 1995 and didn't become a senior BNP figure until more than a decade after those comments. There is already history of the BNP under Tyndall's leadership. I agree with what has been stated, what Griffin did in the NF belongs in the NF page and his own personal page and not in the BNP one. If this information is to be included then the article will gradually become an NF one. Truenature (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truenature12 (talk • contribs)

I do not see how your comments are relevant to what we are discussing. TFD (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you are not referring to my comments? As they directly relevant as they add important context! This is a British National Party Wiki page not a National Front one, which also has a Wiki page. When Griffin made those comments he was in a leadership role of a party that was and still is in direct competition to the BNP. What Griffin did and said in politics before he was a senior member of the BNP belongs on his own page and that of the party he was leading at the time, as it is part of his and the NFs history. If those comments in question were made in 2009 when Griffin was leader of the BNP then in my opinion they would hold valid inclusion. Truenature (talk) 21.54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The BNP is seen as one of a number of organizations of the far right in the UK. Hence how it relates to the far right is important. That includes showing the far right credentials of the leadership, including their earlier membership in other far right groups and what they did there. TFD (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit close to WP:SYNTH to connect what Griffin said in 1986 with the BNP. As it happens, there are two broadly similar quotes already in that paragraph. In the first sentence in that paragraph, "to further the party's aims" is actually slightly misleading because it is of course referring to the NF. I think that quote belongs in the NF or Griffin articles, if it is to be included at all. James^x12345 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy is to prevent editors making connections not found in sources. However, sources do make the connection between the background of leaders of the BNP in other far right organizations. and there is substantial literature about the far right in the UK. TFD (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think it says anything concrete about the BNP and violence. An unscientific googling of that quote doesn't find any mentions that aren't copied from Wikipedia, except for this, which probably isn't an RS by any means. The bullet points are, in my opinion, a better indicator of where some members of the BNP stand, although I've removed one that is less connected to the politics of the party. James^x12345 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The history of the people who make up the organisation and its background are relevant. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Books about the English far right connect the BNP and earlier versions, one of the latest being Bloody Nasty People.[3] No doubt the BNP would like to see itself as a new party, but it was founded by the same people and rs find that significant. TFD (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Since fascism is notoriously difficult to define and the BNP denies such a label, I do not believe fascism should be used to describe them and would recommend the label be changed to "British Nationalism". When it comes to the key characteristics of fascism, the BNP does not advocate the centralised corporatism of fascist states (source: http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf pages 68-84) and is more fond of localism. Secondly, when it comes to totalitarianism and the opposition to freedom of speech, they are openly in support both of democracy and of freedom of speech (source: http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf page 43). Regardless of whether you believe that when in power they would stick to this or not, they certainly don't advocate it and proving they wouldn't stick to it is not possible. Finally, on the subject of foreign policy, Mussolini,Rosenberg and the main other fascist thinkers clearly insisted upon the need for greater territory and on acquiring it via imperialism. In terms of defense, the BNP is isolationist and opposed both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as military intervention in Syria and Libya (http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf page 13). Overall, I would say that the BNP cannot adequately be described as fascist since very few of its principles, other than nationalism, coincide with fascism and I would therefore request a change of this term. Britishpower (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We work from secondary sources not interpretatIon of primary sources by individual editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

I hate to break it to the chief editor, but secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources. These ones you list look biased and outdated, I would recommend actually using primary sources to confirm or deny claims that the party is "fascist" rather than the claims of some author. Britishpower (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please could you read the Wikipedia policy on this. Before you dismiss the policy as wrong, try working within in.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change policy, then you should discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascism

I know this is very boring... but the reference

"Wood, C; Finlay, W. M. L. (December 2008). "British National Party representations of Muslims in the month after the London bombings: Homogeneity, threat, and the conspiracy tradition". British Journal of Social Psychology 47 (4): 707–26. doi:10.1348/014466607X264103. PMID 18070375.(subscription required)"

would seem to be discussing the attribution of the term "Fascist" by the BNP. Of course it is behind a paywall, so I was only able to see the opening paragraphs.

Can we not find some political scientists who say that the BNP is fascist, and are published in a more accessible form?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

Can I also suggest that "Hope not Hate" is probably not a RS - if they were we could classify BNP as "swivel eyed racists"! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC).

It's not behind a pay wall as such (any more than a book at Amazon is); that term would be more appropriate for The Times and some other newspapers. The journal is cited because Wikipedia depends on verifiability from reliable sources, such as the British Journal of Social Psychology. The fact that YOU cannot get beyond the abstract without a sub does not invalidate this. Firstly, there is nothing to stop you subscribing. Secondly, if you do not want to subscribe, there is nothing to stop you going to good library and either consulting the journal or asking them to get it for you if they do not stock it normally. Thirdly, as an alternative, if you know a higher education student they could almost certainly do this for you, online. Fourly, rest assured that Wikipedia editors DO check journals when for cited and this will have been done in this case.

In any case, if you want some political scientists who say that the BNP is fascist (and there are a lot), try any of those cited in the infobox via a Google search, or Google Scholar search. I'm fairly sure that some of those exact articles are easily available. You will often find that academics post their journal articles on their own blogs or on the websites of the institutions they work in. Emeraude (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know that just because a source (nominally) costs money it does not become unreliable. We prefer open sources, all else being equal. I did see the first paragraph of this particular source, though I can't seem to invoke that particular piece of magic again, and it was as I describe. I looked briefly for the author's own preprint without any luck.

The point of {{Subscription required}} is not to call a citation into question, but to save readers from wasting time following the link, if they are not willing to pay the subscription.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

There's a couple of open-access articles that may be useful in general, one in French, though this seems to claim that Nick Griffin has been imprisoned three times for holocaust denial and racial hatred, déjà condamné à trois reprises à des peines de prison pour négationnisme et incitation à la haine raciale which (if my translation is correct) is very inaccurate, and throws doubt on the whole paper.

The second is an interesting document in its own right, and has some relevance as it documents part of Simon Darby's election in Dudley. Pdf here.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Removal of subscription required templates

It's true that most academic journals require a subscription, but not all do. I think this template is useful to readers when there's an actual link to the paywalled version of the article because it helps readers decide whether they want to click on it or not. For instance, if I'm reading on a phone rather than a desktop I may think twice about committing a bunch of bandwidth just to end up at an article I can't read right then. Is there really a substantive objection to leaving them in?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, but then there's no substantive reason to include them either really. The point I was trying to make is that, "paywalled" or not, you do not expect to see full books or journals on the Internet. Amazon links are frequently given, and there may even be a short extract that can be consulted, but Amazon is a sales point, as are the journal websites, and the extracts are to make you buy. We don't template Amazon book links purchase required - perhaps we should. In fact, journals are better than Amazon in this respect, since that article abstract is always given in full, free, and that's generally sufficient for readers to know if they want to read the full article. But, regardless of what I said about links to Amazon book pages, when we cite books we do not expect to be able to read the book online, despite Google's playing fast-and-loose with copyright laws. It's an indication of where to find the information, not the information itself. This has only really become an issue since newspapers started charging for online content; it was always assumed that a link to a Times article would get you the article.

Another solution is simply to remove the link, leave the journal citation and leave readers to find their way to the library. Having said all that, I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other. Emeraude (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hadn't thought of the journal websites as sales points, since mostly I use them on my desktop at work or through my work proxy, which sends me transparently through to the content in many cases and provides a click-through to interlibrary loan when it doesn't. I have no strong opinion about including links, and often don't include them when the paywalled content provider doesn't allow for stable links (Newsbank and ProQuest are especially bad about this), but do when the links are very stable, e.g. JSTOR. I'm also extremely opposed to linking through to Amazon, and also don't care that much one way or the other. I suppose it's best to just leave it alone for now. Thanks for answering.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazon links are almost never given, and indeed should be extremely rare. We should link in the first instance to somewhere the full text can be read, in the second instance to an abstract, referencing or library service. Any modern book link should be through its ISBN to Special:Booksources where one can go to OCLC (or indeed a number of libraries, databases or booksellers), though Googlebooks can be used it is not without its problems (there's a useful document about these in user-space somewhere). All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Actually, links to Amazon are frequently given in Wikipedia as references. It may depend on the type of articles one looks at. They are usually totally useless and only show that a book exists, not that it provides a decent source for what is claimed to be their content. Emeraude (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A solution might be to cite the journal and then give a link to the abstract, specified as such, e.g.

John Smith, "Apples in fruit salad: a comparative study" in Journal of Fruitology, vol 6, May 1967, p 234 (Abstract online at http://asdfgh)

But I fear that this is a Wikipedia wide problem. Emeraude (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We removed almost all the ASIN numbers a few years ago, I suppose they have crept back in. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Breakaway parties

Truenature12 has changed the Breakaway parties section to Parties founded by former members. The rationale was "Most of these are not breakaway parties as many were formed 2-3 years after members had left the BNP." I reverted this change, on the grounds that it was "Simply untrue. NNP and BF almost immediate; BFP and BDP clearly breakaways." Truneture12 has changed it back, saying "NNP was the rest were not. BFP was led by a former UKIP member now leader of LibertyGB, BDP was set up 3 years after the leadership election, name was registered by a non former BNP member."

Let's examine the claims that these parties were set up years after their members had left BNP, and the rest of Truenature12's claims.

NNP was the rest were not:

New Nationalist Party - founded by former members of the BNP in 2006, notably Sharon Ebanks, expelled from BNP in September 2006. So not years later, as is admitted.

BFP was led by a former UKIP member now leader of LibertyGB:

British Freedom Party - registered on 18 October 2010 by Peter Mullins, Peter Stafford and Simon Bennett. BFP was set up by "by disgruntled BNP members" (The Guardian, 1 October 2012)

BDP was set up 3 years after the leadership election, name was registered by a non former BNP member:

British Democratic Party - founded by Andrew Brons (BNP MEP) after failed campaign to take over from Griffin, with other disillusioned BNP members including Kevin Scott. Brons resigned the BNP whip on 16 October 2012; BDP founded in November 2012. So days, not years later.

And what about the others? Were they formed "years later"?

Britain First - launched in May 2011 under chairman Paul Golding, formerly BNP's Communications Officer and editor of BNP magazine. Created by Jim Dowson, a former fundraiser for the BNP. Dowson's links with the BNP had ended acrimoniously in October 2010. So not years later.

Patria - founded by ex-BNP members Ian Johnson, Andrew Emerson (contested May 2010 general election), Dennis Whiting (also contested May 2010 general election, resigned later in 2010). Patria was launched December 2012 (and almost certainly organised before then), so barely "years later".

Truenature12's claims do not hold water and there is no justifiable reason to change the subhead. Besides, there is no earthly reason why a breakaway party from any party has to be formed immediately. Neither is it relevant who actually registers the party name (in fact, the Electoral Commission requires three nominated persons, not one). On this basis, I have reverted to the original. Emeraude (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree they are breakaway parties. In fact the history of the far right is basically a series of breakaway parties. TFD (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What matters is that it is verifiable that they can be described as "breakaway parties" - original research in the manner above, and personal opinions of editors, does not count I am afraid. To be described as "breakaway parties" there needs to be reliable third-party citations describing them as that, otherwise they cannot verifiably be described as that. A quick look at the decent sources only describes them as parties founded by former BNP members. Atshal (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not "original research" to prove they are breakwaway parties and you know it, and neither is any of it opinion. It is a direct response to the mistruth given by Truneture12 that "many were formed 2-3 years after members had left the BNP". Are you denying that? Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If these groups are classified as breakaway parties on the page then there should be sources for verification. I know literally nothing about these groups so have no comment on them, but Wiki policy states that three needs to be sources to verify the classification of 'breakaway' Atshal (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some definition of "breakaway" that would help us? Or, is the normal use of the word by the reasonably intelligent observer sufficient. (Note: The full Oxford English Dictionary does not define "breakaway".) Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Over 12,000 vs 11,820

The lede says over 12,000, but the infobox says 11,820. Can't be both (obviously the infobox note is supposed to be the 'peak') 92.15.61.7 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Memebership of groups like BNP is notoriously difficult to give accurately so it must be assumed that the figures given are the best avaiable from reliable sources. The lead may be a typo, or it may be intended but unsourced. Either way, it seems right to amend to "over 11,000", which I have done. Emeraude (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Policies

I think the "Policies" section needs to be edited, condensed or at least updated. Modeled say on something like the Jobbik entry, "Platform and ideology". If you look at any other far-right entry it is structured very different and much less.

Loads needs to be cut out of the article which is far too long, irrelevant or outdated. So here is my suggestion (rewrite):

Policies

The British National Party has gone through various ideological shifts within the radical or far right. The party has been described as neo-fascist by political scholars, but the BNP denies this label.

Economy and Crime

The party defends protectionism and economic nationalism and advocates capital punishment for "drug dealers, child murderers, multiple murderers, murderers of policemen on duty and terrorists where guilt is proven beyond all doubt".

Immigration and Race

The British National Party opposes any further immigration into UK, only excluding exceptional (i.e. on an individual basis) circumstances.

Voluntary repatriation for ethnic minorities is offered as a policy which offers financial "incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home".

Formerly the party through Tyndall identified as white nationalist, but since 1999 under the leadership Nick Griffin, it has been observed that "ideologically, Griffin’s BNP has modified its exoteric appeals, moderating its discourse on race" to attract more votes, despite racial and ethnic themes still featuring in the parties discourse. According to Nigel Copsey, Griffin has modernized the BNP's focus from race to culture in the parties magazine Identity, but he notes of the "occasional article" still espousing scientific racism.

The BNP controversially supported University of Leeds lecturer Dr Frank Ellis, who was suspended after stating that the Bell Curve "has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt there is a persistent gap in average black and white average intelligence".

Griffin wrote in the party's newspaper The Voice of Freedom in 2001 that: "The BNP is no longer a genuine white racial nationalist party" calling the party's new ideology ethno-nationalism based on "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom" and that "unlike racial nationalist purists, we would be opposed to the arrival at Dover of several million German or Swedish immigrants". A hardline faction left the party in 2002 criticizing Griffin's modernization.

In 2010, following legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the party changed its constitution which had restricted membership to "indigenous British" people. The party now claims to have members from ethnic minority backgrounds, but states:

"...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."

Islam

The party is opposed to new mosques being built in UK, as well as halal slaughter. Nick Griffin has worked with extremists from Sikh and Hindu communities in Britain on anti-Muslim campaigns.

Europe Union

The British National Party wish to move towards a greater national self-sufficiency.

According to the BNP 2010 Manifesto: "The BNP demands an immediate withdrawal from the European Union, which is an organisation dedicated to usurping British sovereignty and to destroying our nationhood and national identity".

Family and Sexuality

The BNP is opposed to civil partnerships and proposes that homosexuality should be returned "to the closet". The British National Party promotes supports the nuclear family of Western tradition, as well as favouring traditional gender roles for women and men.

In 2009 Nick Griffin said that: "a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel."

References

Akkadish (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points, but pleae allow time for others to digest this - there is a lot to take in. Also, given the revelatons in The Guardian today (see "Nick Griffin's vision for BNP-led Britain shown in 1990s police interviews")(and possibly other papers) about records concerning Nick Griffin obtained from the Crown Prosecution Service, it might be that considerably more needs to be addressed, since it seems that the policies presented in public are not the policies kept private. Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's one inaccuracy above, it says that the White Nationalist Party split from the BNP in 2002, however that was largely a split from the Yorkshire branch of the National Front. Valenciano (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the replies. The source for the White Nationalist Party split is Copsey, 2007, however its only a minor detail and could be disputed. The current article is much too long and needs to be cut in ideology section at least. Compare to other pages like Jobbik and so forth, which are much easier to read. Akkadish (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

History

The history section is also far too long. The links to the more detailed page can be cut from each sub-heading etc. If someone wants to work on this with me, discuss this here. Akkadish (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree it's too long. BNP history is complicated (as is that of the extreme right in Britain generally, with constant breaks, mergers and realignments) and takes time toget across. Better would be to delete the more detailed page and bring its info back here. Go back in time and see why that page was set up - it came about becaue BNP supporters were desparately trying to whitewash the whole article. I would offer to help out, but I'm soon off for a few weeks away from my reference books. Emeraude (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All the criticisms or accusations (racism, nazism, violence etc) from the detailed history seperate page should be relocated to a "criticism" section on the main page e.g. "allegations of racism", like the Golden Dawn, Jobbik etc pages. There should be none of this in the history section. Instead the history section should just give an overview of the elections results and major activities. Yes, I agree none of the accusations of racism should be removed, however they should be restructured like the other far-right pages. Akkadish (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

Request to add to article in regards to a recent banning of the BNP political broadcast by OFCOM, in regards to it being a work of 'vile racism'

http://liveraf.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/bnp-election-broadcast-featuring-muslim-gangs-fails-to-go-ahead-on-bbc/ Factuous (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You can add a new section in the "controversies" section perhaps called "Banned 2014 election broadcast", or add it under the "racism" section. I restructured the page so all controversies can added to that single section for easier reading. Akkadish (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin is not the chairman of BNP anymore

according to their website

"Recently Appointed Deputy Chairman, Adam Walker, has accepted the role of Acting Chairman of the British National Party after Nick Griffin stepped aside at a meeting of the BNP National Executive held on 19th July, 2014."

this needs to be updated on the wiki page.. and maybe nick griffin's page too 2.120.173.192 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox misrepresents the BNP

BNP is primarily Anti-immigration, Eurosceptic (I believe Euroscepticism as in the article is not the correct form) so those two should be first and most prominent. British nationalism is true, but why would it not be just plain nationalism? Is there a non British nationalist group in Britain?

I am not clear they are anti globalist. The appear to endorse international trade and other things. But globalist is so poorly defined it is hard to argue one way or another.

Fascist should not be first on the list. I don't think it should be on the list at all. Fascist in this case is being used as an epithet. BNP does not advocate for a military government, mixing religion (Anglicanism?) and politics, or government control of industry. As far as I know no prominent military or religious people are members of BNP. So Fascist is really being in a slang or colloquial rather than literal usage.

Right wing is also a problem. I am an American and by the standards of the US BNP backing all sorts of social programs would put them in the left wing category. So I think Right wing is being used as an epithet more than a description of someone who wants low taxes and government burden, and few government services.

As near as I can tell they were opposed to the various recent wars Britain was involved in, so could they be called anti-interventionist or isolationist? Geo8rge (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think ideology should just say "far right", which is general term used for the ideology or group of ideologies that include such groups as the BNP, EDL, Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party. That way we do not have to determine which of the various strands of ideology are most significant, as they all roll up to far right. Also, there is no need for "position in the political spectrum." While clearly the BNP is far right, the field causes endless arguments about whether liberals are center or center-left, whether socialists are center-left or left, and whether Left parties are left or far-left. TFD (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Americans do have a problem understanding politics in other countries, Geo8rge, but that it not a reason for rewriting articles on UK politics. The fact is, to take just one issue - the National Health Service - that is neither left nor right wing in the UK; not one party is opposed to it. In the US, it is generally regarded as a left wing idea and has been described there as one of the evils of socialism!. Here, it's not an issue. (Though I should say there is considerable left-right politics on how the NHS is run.) We depend on reliable sources for our work in Wikipedia. The sources are agreed that the BNP, like its predecessors, is fascist. The sources are agreed that the BNP is right wing. That's what we go with. No one ever claimed that the left-right spectrum was 100% accurate, universal and immutable for all time. It is a tool, a useful tool, and needs to be used with an acceptance that sometimes lines are blurred. And that applies not just when comparing parties, but within parties. Emeraude (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

wrong link for John Tyndall

the one under the Racism heading, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Racism it should go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall_%28politician%29 (Posted 10:22, 23 August 2014‎, by 109.255.197.229)‎

Well spotted. I've corrected that. Emeraude (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2014

Membership:4097 (2013) 90.193.190.127 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a case of original research by the source, whose reliability is very dubious anyway. It claims to be from the BNP's return to the Electoral Commission, which is used in this article's infobox. However, the return says 4,872. What the source has done is take that figure and subtracted all life members (775) to give 4,097. Correct arithmetic, but there's no evidence that those 775 life members are no longer in the BNP. Some may be, some may not, but there is no way to tell from the Electoral Commission return. Emeraude (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We should not use primary sources, in this case what a party reports, but should use secondary sources. They may decide what number of life members are still members. One needs familiarity with the party and its history to make that judgment, which is original research and should be done in reliable sources.

References

Ungrammatical sentence

Please fix this sentence: It offers however voluntary repatriation where "generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently". 31.50.70.172 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also, corrected the quotes to what actually appears in the manifesto. Plus, referenced manifesto was a dead link - amended to archive version. Emeraude (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BNP is not white nationalist

White nationalism is still in the ideology description when the party abandoned this a long time ago:

"Woodbridge, Steven (2011). "Ambivalent admiration? The response of other extreme-right groups to the rise of the BNP". In: Copsey, Nigel and Macklin, Graham, (eds.) British National Party: Contemporary Perspectives. Abingdon, U.K. : Routledge. p. 116: "Defense of 'race and nation' can still act as a major litmus test of a leader's credibility for many far-right activists, and, since 1999, BNP leader Griffin has been increasingly viewed as having failed this test by the 'white nationalist' and openly neo-Nazi factions on the British extreme right. The BNP's adoption of 'ethno-nationalism' in 2006, with a new emphasis on cultural identity rather than racial hierarchy, was received with particular dismay by racial nationalists, and this consternation was reinforced by the BNP's change to its membership criteria in 2009 to allow members from the ethnic minorities to join the party."

Indeed, its pretty nonsensical to describe the BNP as 'white nationalist' when it is multiracial (the BNP has ethnic minority members) and it has distanced itself from white nationalism and has been criticized by the National Front and other far-right groups for this.

From Woodbridge p. 103 quoting the National Front: "The BNP is no longer a genuine White racial nationalist party and the National Front entirely disassociates itself from it."

The sources stating BNP is white nationalist are before 2006 and do not now apply. GarrettTemplar (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that other white nationalist groups no longer consider the BNP white nationalist does not mean that they are not. TFD (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no modern source stating they are white nationalist, and the more recent academic sources state they aren't e.g. Copsey, 2007. The stuff cited is outdated from 1998 or 2003. And the fact they changed their membership in 2009 demonstrates they are not white nationalist. You cannot be "white nationalist" with non-white members. The only reason white nationalism was left up in the ideology box for so long was its well known the Wikipedia entry here has been dominated by biased editor leftie types for several years. I honestly get why these editors were wanting the white nationalism left up, since the BNP was polling well from around 2006-2010 and they posed a threat to their personal politics. The BNP though has since collapsed. It has according to Hope Not Hate now only 400 members (they reported 500 in their own accounts) and they cannot even find candidates to contest a few as 10 general election seats. So isn't it about time the biased editors backed off and the page is just cleaned up and neutrally presented? GarrettTemplar (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I just said, Copsey does not say the BNP is not white nationalist just that other white nationalist groups no longer consider it so. If you think that the changes removed the BNP from the category, then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot be "white nationalist" with non-white members. The fact the BNP changed its membership criteria in 2009 means it is no longer a white nationalist party. Woodbridge makes this point clear (as above): "this consternation was reinforced by the BNP's change to its membership criteria in 2009 to allow members from the ethnic minorities to join the party". These sources state the shift in ideology occurred. In another study Copsey, 2012 talks about how the BNP put out a leaflet in Barking targeting black voters, and had a black member involved in Nick Griffin's 2010 election campaign.

BNP election leaflet distributed to black voters in Barking

• http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/05/bnp-barking-election-leaflet

Its simply bonkers a party with non-white members that has put out specific literature to attract black voters is labelled "white nationalist". Like I said, this has to do with the fact the BNP page is controlled by biased anti-BNP left wing editors who think if the white nationalism is removed it will make the BNP more presentable and appealable (which threatened them when the BNP were polling well). However all this is irrelevant now since the BNP is almost non-existent, its virtually finished as a political party. The BNP page should now be updated free from the biases that previously plagued it. That can start with removing white nationalism. GarrettTemplar (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Nazis recognized honorary Aryans and there are numerous similar examples. TFD (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you name a party other than the BNP that is supposedly "white nationalist" but contains non-whites? Can you also explain how a 1998 source is relevant to 2015? The sources for BNP being white nationalist are all over a decade or more old. They don't take into account the shift in ideology. Even if that was not the case, they're still outdated. You keep quoting Wikipedia rules, but surely there is a policy on this. Let's go over to Labour or Conservatives and see in 1998 sources are there... Why is there a different treatment when it comes to the BNP? I noticed an admin even failed the page repeatedly in their "review" because they see it as biased. GarrettTemplar (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two relevant policies: WP:RS and WP:SYN, which I quoted above. We have a source that says they are white nationalist, you need a source they no longer are. Sure organizations change, and new developments may make past descriptions no longer valid. We changed the information about the leader for example when Nick Griffin left. But we only did that when we had a source that he was no longer leader. The sources for the new leader are from July 2014. For all I know he could no longer be leader. But I would not delete his name because of that, I would expect a source that said that. SYN stops us from examining the evidence and drawing our own conclusions. Instead we report the conclusions found in reliable sources. We could argue for ages about whether the Nazis respect for Japanese meant they were not racists. But policy requires us to report the conclusions of experts, not our own. If you disagree with those policies, then you should take your discussion to the policy pages. In reply to your first question, the Aryan Brotherhood has allowed Native Americans to join. TFD (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Let's be clear about this. The BNP changed its membership rules because and only because it faced court action if it did not. It did not, at the same time, change any of its policies or programmes. That the BNP has some non-white members (how many? no one ever says) just not justify a change. The Nazis had Jewish members, so I suppose, on that logic, that makes them not anti-semitic?????

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

Article says that the BNP has 500 members. Incorrect. Propose correct to say 4220.

The source on the article is unreliable. I will explain later in this request why this is so.

Every year, political parties should be submitting their accounts. The BNP does and the membership figures are in there.

I refer you to page 13 of the pdf document hosted at the electoral commission website:

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/15387

On page 31:

"Paid up membership as at December 31st 2013 was 4220."

I also refer you to this by the House of Commons library, which also cites a similar figure:

www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn05125

On Page 6:

"British National Party Membership of the British National Party peaked at approximately 12,600 members in 2009, the year of elections to the European Parliament in which the party won two seats. Membership fell by approximately 3,000 members per year in 2010-2012. In 2013 the party claimed 4,200 members, just below its membership of a decade earlier of 5,500"

One could argue that figures from December 2013 is over a year out of date. However, as I set out below, the original "researcher" dismisses the membership claims of the BNP, but does not appear to do that for UKIP, even though UKIP doesn't even submit their accounts and presumably their membership figures to the electoral commission - the author takes UKIPs word, but cannot bring himself to phone up BNP HQ for the membership figures. Had he done so, we would have referred him to the electoral commission website.

The "reliable source" [1] quoted is the New Statesman at this url:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/green-party-membership-course-overtake-ukips

However, closer inspection of the story hosted at the above url shows that the The New Statesman is relying on this page for their story.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/another-note-on-party-memberships-in-uk

I draw your attention to these paragraphs where the author admitted that he's treating political parties differently. He also admits that he got his figures for parties like the BNP from the very people who are politically opposed to them.

" Secondly, not every party is transparent about their membership figures. Ring up Plaid, the Greens, UKIP, and they tell you. Both Left Unity and the NHS Action Party got back to my emails almost immediately, with their most up to date numbers. Likewise, when you get hold of them, the Lib Dems willingly share their numbers and the SNP announce them regularly. Labour include their annual UK-wide figures in their financial report. The Conservatives recently announced a new figure, as it had grown slightly. But, before that, they spent a long time refusing to tell anyone how many members they had.

With the far-right parties, I took a different approach. Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't trust a BNP or Britain First spin doctor any further than I could kick them in the Goeballs. So I rang the people who monitor the filthy world of British fascism so the rest of us don't have to look at it so closely. It turned out that HOPE not hate's annual “State of Hate” report is out today, and they let me have an advanced copy. The figures on the BNP, Britain First and the English Democrats come from that. "

As you can see above, the original researcher is politically biased and admits he did not treat all political parties the same.

We could dig deeper back forever deeper into to the opposing Hope Not Hate group, they will never cite a reliable source for their statistics.

It would be like saying "We don't trust the Conservative party, but we've asked their nemesis Class War for the stats!"

To summarize, in fairness, let's use the UK electoral commission as a source for UK political parties membership figures, especially if the relevant political parties have been honest to file their membership figures with the commission. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: On the paper you cited, page 13 is irrelevant and page 31 is non-existent, but if you can find anything else just put {{ping|Kharkiv07}} with your message and I'll see it right away. Also FYI Wikipedia's are generally lazy and shorter requests will get done much faster. Kharkiv07^Talk 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind: the figures published by the Electoral Commission are simply those given by the parties in thie annual reports. The EC does not investigate their veracity and, as far as I know, has no mandate to do so nor facilities for such a check. As such, the figures are the parties' figures and are as suspect as anything else from them, regardless of which party. Emeraude (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources are just as unreliable. For exmaple / devils advocate. I'm in the BNP and I want to investigate Labour's membership figures because I believe they are too high. Short of stealing Labour's membership I have no credible way of disputing their membership figures.

If I, as a senior BNP officer said that we had 33,000 members, you quite rightly would not believe me.

However, when an opposing political group such as "Hope Note Hate" says that we have 500 members, which is 8 times as less than we claim, it appears to be accepted by a wikipedia editor as correct, despite the fact that Hope Not Hate have never provided any supporting evidence for their figure.

As I have asked another editor on his talk page...when the BNP returns around 4000 members for December 2014 with the electoral commission, are you still going to maintain that it's 500 members, or are you going to say we have 250? Or will you cut it down to 62 as that is 1/8th of 500!!!

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

, I still challenge the reliability of "The Independent". If you visit the url in question, when they mention the BNP has 500 members, they are simply quoting another one of their articles as the their source...fine...so if we follow that back...that article claims it's source for the BNP having 500 members...is OpenDemocracy.net - but it's just the landing page of opendemocracy.net.

So..just to be clear to avoid any misunderstandings or doubt. Here is the url trail:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-the-bnp-has-almost-vanished-from-british-politics-10176194.html

"The far-right party's membership has also plummeted, currently standing around an estimated 500, compared to 4,220 paid-up members at the end of 2013." - 'membership has also plummeted' - is linking to this Independent article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-party-membership-will-overtake-ukip-within-a-week-new-research-predicts-9977866.html

"The openDemocracy website, which compiled the figures, said the Greens, whose membership has doubled since September, are growing “amazingly fast”." - 'openDemocracy' is linking to the home page of opendemocracy.net

NOTHING - there is NOTHING which shows how a figure of 500 has been arrived at. It's just the home page of opendemocracy.net

The Independent admit they are NOT the source. So how can they be trusted over data from the electoral commission?

The figures we give to the electoral commission is part of our submitted accounts to the electoral commission. As such, IF ANY DATA THAT WE PROVIDE TO ELECTORAL COMMISSION AS PART OF OUR ACCOUNTS, HAS BEEN PROVEN AS FRAUDULENT, OUR TREASURER WOULD BE COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Also our figures are all signed off by an independent auditor.

That's why we bother to give membership figures, broken down by membership type long with revenues to the electoral commission. It's a matter of public record beyond dispute.

I still cannot believe that a hostile newspaper, that admits it is NOT the source, is taken seriously.

I'm disgusted by the way we aren't being treated impartially or fairly by wikipedia editors. Just about every other political party's word for their membership figures has been taken as the gospel truth by wikipedia editors. Even with UKIP, a simple tweet by one of their own MEPs has been taken as the truth and used a reliable source even though UKIP does NOT submit their membership figures to the electoral commission.

I have no choice but to start a dispute resolution compliant. This is NOT going away.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm following up from the RSN request. First, has this been discussed elsewhere? All I'm seeing is the discussion from 2013 above.

At a glance, these arguments seem strong and I'd be inclined to remove the reference and the associated content. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. Would you be able to do that please?

Here is a link to where it was first changed from 4200 to 500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_National_Party&oldid=642542959

After that, the source/reference was changed once or twice.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BNP Headoffice.

Hello people.

Health warning.

1) I'm new to wikipedia - well at least new on the editing side, so please be gentle - I can't talk "wiki" yet!

2) I'm an official in the BNP. Thought I would let you all know that, to save any accusations of bias etc. I promise to stick to facts and all that!

---

Anyway, the head office is currently listed as Welshpool on the wiki. That is now factually incorrect, the BNP operates their H.Q. out of Wigton in Cumbria as listed on our website.

British National Party PO Box 213 Wigton Cumbria CA7 7AL

Welshpool is the old PO Box address that was under control of Nick Griffin, who of course is no longer in the party.

Many Thanks,

Chris Barnett. I.T. Coordinator British National Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdbarnett (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, an editor has updated it.[4] Since changes should be verifiable, I note the new address is listed on the BNP website under contacts. TFD (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

BNP membership numbers

As far as I understand it, we should be using their own numbers for the infobox. Sources contesting those numbers should be considered for inclusion in another note or in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel it is important to keep their most recent, official membership count. To replace it with another's viewpoint seems a rather blatant NPOV violation. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if we thought their numbers were reliable, they are from 2013 and hence out of date. No one disputes that membership has dropped drastically after the recent split in the party. TFD (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"To replace it with another's viewpoint seems a rather blatant NPOV violation." Well, of course, which is why in the interest of NPOV we don't use viewpoints. But this is not a viewpoint, is it? It is a reasoned article from a reliable source making a reasoned estimate based on research. A viewpoint is a personal opinion; this isn't. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a reasoned article if there is no reasoning in it...it simply links to another article. I've been looking for reasoning behind the figure of 500 for quite some time now and it's like going on some kind of quest for the Holy Grail! Chrisdbarnett (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I was using the term as used in NPOV, specifically, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints". Given the edit-warring going on, I think we need to be clear. Removing their own viewpoint, which appears to be the only official count, is an NPOV violation.

I've tried to compromise in the article, including all three sources. Any problems with it? --Ronz (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the fact remains it is not a question of "viewpoints" but of contradictory statistics. The Guardian did not give a "viewpoint": it quoted the total from the BNP's membership list. Though largely accurate, the list did overstate the figure, and was produced by the BNP, not The Guardian. However, this is some years out of date and, for current purposes, pretty useless. The latest BNP figure, for the year ended 31 December 2013, was suspect then (after all, the BNP has no interest in understating the figure!) and, given the continued collapse of the BNP it is now hopelessly out of date. And, to be completely neutral, there is always a danger in accepting anything that any political party states as fact. As for The Independent, I do not know how it obtained its figure, but we must assume that some serious research was carried out and, of course, it is the most up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraude (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 June 2015‎

After the latest deletion, I've changed the ordering and tweaked the presentation slightly. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. There are only 2 people who know what the BNP membership figures actually are. The Membership Secretary and the Treasurer. The Treasurer releases the membership stats to the Electoral Commission once a year (Normally in July) for the end of the previous year. While December 2013 is quite out of date, it is only so because the EC is about a month or two from publishing updated accounts and stats. Such membership stats are part of the accounts that are submitted to the Electoral Commission. If the membership / accounts were to be manipulated in any way, that's our treasurer that could be sent to jail - besides, the whole lot is signed off by an auditor.

We are being open and transparent. We've never asked for the membership figures on Wikipedia to show the latest membership stats, we've always been happy with figures published via the Electoral Commission. It is impossible to find data or any research that is more reliable, because unless there has been a leak, only we have the data and like *some* other parties, we release the data once a year. Emeraude - NO ONE should assume that a newspaper such as the Independent has done serious research - especially when I have proved they have done nothing of the sort, the Independent even admitted they weren't the source, they linked to another Independent article, then to the front page of some political blogging site, not even to a page that remotely has anything to do with BNP membership stats!
As for the "dangers" of not believing what any political party states as fact, then why don't you around all the UK political party pages and undo all membership stats originated from the respective political parties? Because I can tell you with confidence, that wikipedia editors believed every single UK political party to the left of the BNP when it comes to membership stats....even UKIP...a tweet by a UKIP MEP is cited as bona-fide source/reference for UKIP membership stats! Furthermore...UKIP use a loophole to avoid submitting ANYTHING in the way of financial data to the Electoral Commission, because they legally organize themselves as hundreds of small organizations rather than one big one - very shady....yet they are believed, on the other hand the good old BNP that submits audited accounts to the Electoral Commission has to fight, fight fight and fight just to get the right membership stats up our Wiki page. Chris Barnett - IT Coordinator, British National Party.Chrisdbarnett (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly neutral are you? I have said before and I will repeat: the Electoral Commission publishes parties' annual returns as it receives them. It accords them no special status and their publication confers no measure of accuracy. Only the financial return itself is required to be audited and this is done by auditors appoined by the party, not the EC. The EC will take action if it sees evidence of financial malpractice, but it does not proactively seek this. If a qualified auditor has passed the accounts, that will generally suffice. But, of course, membership numbers are not financial figures, so they are not audited. The figures for membership are contained in Griffin's nonsensical pages of ranting ("4,220", Statement of accounts, p. 11) - not part of the audited accounts - and in the treasurer's comments ("over 4,000" Statement of accounts, p. 16) - also not part of the audited accounts. The point is, they may or not have been correct in July 2014 for the year 2013, but there is no way of being certain and absolutely no EC guarantee that they were. Besides, accurate or not, they are still out of date. Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

1) I've declared my interest many times on this talk page. As such ,I've refrained from making edits to this page myself as per the wikipedia rules. 2) You on the other hand, list "Anti-Fascism" as one of your interests on your own user page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emeraude - yet you have made edits to this page, including reverting an edit, at which time you describe the BNP as "Fascist". Of course, this isn't about whether the BNP is fascist, but your neutrality - you describe the BNP as "fascist", yet you list on your user page "Anti-fascism" as an interest....so much for your neutrality. I think that's a good case for you having a conflict of interest and as such, you shouldn't be editing this page any further. Regarding membership figures submitted to the electoral commission - the Memberships are part of the audited accounts, as the revenue from memberships is listed in the audited party accounts, which in 2013 was £142,183.00. It's simple, if anyone has any evidence that the data is wrong, report us to electoral commission and the police! Getting back to "500" members. For the 4th or 5th time now, I dispute the credibility of the source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#cite_note-2 - It links just to a newspaper website the Independent - not even to an article. I'm not a wikipedia expert, but no one has put up a primary source that has original research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. To summarize, we have done everything to get reliable, audited stats to the Electoral Commission. It's not my fault, that there isn't anything more credible out there. I understand that it would be nice to have more up to date figures, but during July, we'll be submitting the figures for December 2014 to the commission. Not to mention the fact that there are other parties out there that submit their memberships as part of their accounts to the commission for the exact same reasons as we do. No one is editing their pages with dodgy stats based on Chinese whispers.Chrisdbarnett (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: You sail close to making personal attacks on the integrity of editors. My user page also says I am interested in France (that doesn't make me French), law (that doesn't make me a lawyer) and aviation (that doesn't make me an aeroplane). If I described BNP as fascist it's because a) Wikipedia does and b) it is fascist. As it happens, I am opposed to fascism. Aren't you?

The Independent is a reliable source, the party is not. If you can't sort out something with the Electoral Commission that is your problem not ours. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Comment: People that dislike France, don't generally list France as an interest of theirs, the same could be said of people who list planes. Yes, most people including me aren't fascist and would be horrified if a pack of fascists came to power, but then again, most people including myself, don't list anti-fascism as an interest of theirs on their Wikipedia user page. You on the other hand do. You also have just admitted that you believe the BNP is fascist, that you are opposed to fascism and yet you are somehow neutral about the BNP! When I point out the lack of logic, how someone who has such a position can't claim to be neutral, you accuse me of making a personal attack on you, when it was you who said that I'm not neutral despite the fact that unlike you, I'm not running around editing the BNP wiki article. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

While the membership fees are part of the audited statements, we cannot calculate the number of members since we would need to know the membership dues, the numbers of each category, when dues were paid and the varying levels of membership throughout the year. How do we account for life members who may no longer support the party? Does the revenue include memberships bought on behalf of people who may not be aware of their membership? These are all factors that auditors would test if they were asked to provide an opinion on the membership numbers. Synthesis stops us from doing it ourselves. We may however rely on journalists who are expected to provide reasonable guesses. TFD (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Independent is NOT a reliable source because they DO NOT and DID NOT estimate ANY membership figures. You will not be able to find any article by the Independent where any journalist even guesses at the BNP membership figures. I know this, because that is why there are NO Independent articles that are cited on this wikipedia article - because NO Independent article guessed or estimated BNP membership figures. You can keep repeating fiction all you want, it will never make it fact. There is an Independent article out there, that does mention BNP figures, based on the OPINION of a blogger on a website that not even the Independent could be bothered to link to. So 1) No one here can be bothered to find and cite an Independent article that mentions BNP membership, let alone a Independent that cites a reliable source of original research into BNP figures. 2) No editor on this page at this time, can be bothered to link to such an article. Therefore, the source quoted for the figure of "500" is not a reliable source as it is simply the home page of the Independent website. That makes the BNP a more reliable source than a webpage that doesn't even exist! Also, to disregard the BNP's stats over anyone elses, is applying a different standard to the BNP than say other UK political parties, for example UKIP.

Chrisdbarnett (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Given a choice between the BNP and the Independent then Wikipedia practice on sourcing favours the latter. You need a third party source I'm afraid ----Snowded ^TALK 20:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That "choice" isn't on the table because the article being cited is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_National_Party#cite_note-2 only points to the Independent homepage - NOTHING about BNP membership figures on the homepage of the Independent. Someone might as claim that the Daily Mail thinks the BNP has 500,000 members and then cite the front page of the Daily Mail website! The webpage being linked to, doesn't make the claims that are being made on this Wikipedia article. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'll answer to earlier questions..."Does the revenue include memberships bought on behalf of people who may not be aware of their membership?" - You could ask ANY political party that question and their answer would be more or less the same as ours. "How do we account for life members who may no longer support the party?" - You don't need to because we already have. If a Life Member resigns we would want them flagged up as resigned as it costs money to service their membership, for example literature in the post. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Instead of assuming that BNP is unreliable, could someone make a case? Likewise for the Independent story being somehow more reliable. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A point of order Ronz if you don't mind - The first problem is that there is no Independent story being referenced - just the homepage of the Independent website! Someone should reference an actual webpage from the Independent that contains anything about BNP membership numbers...then we should take it from there as to whether such a page is appropriate or reliable. My case in point, as devils advocate..."Obama is not a US Citizen according to Homeland Security http://www.dhs.gov/" - would be laughable...then "BNP Membership as little as 500 according to Independent www.independent.co.uk" is just as silly. Once someone has referenced the actual Independent story, then it's up for discussion as to whether in than form it's an appropriate source. In the meantime, surely the whole thing should be discounted until someone edits it with at least a link to a story that acctually even mentions BNP membership numbers?Chrisdbarnett (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You are totally wrong and, if I may so, rather incompetent. The article in The Independent is fully referenced. The figure of 500 in the infobox is followed by ^{note 1}. When you read note 1, it says "An April 2015 article in The Independent estimated the membership may have dropped to 500.^[1]" That ^[1] refers to reference number 1, just a few lines lower on the page, which provides a direct link to The Independent article "General Election 2015: The BNP has almost vanished from British politics".

The article goes on to quote Andrew Brons that "80 or 90 per cent" of the membership have quit. That would leave between about 400 and 800. Brons clearly has an axe to grind, but his figures do chime with the Independent. Personally, I wouldn't trust Brons, but I guess that as a loyal BNPer you'd trust your former MEP even less!!

Out of interest, what figure does the BNP currently claim for membership? Emeraude (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"You are totally wrong and, if I may so, rather incompetent" - You may NOT make personal attacks, it's against Wikipedia rules. So just the number "1" is hyperlinked to a note - anyone can be excused for missing that. Before I argue why that reference is totally irrelevant and inappropriate, I'll dismiss your claim by Andrew Brons. Andrew Brons, who you admit has an axe to grind first made all of his wild claims about BNP membership in 2012. Since then the BNP has proved him to be a liar as the December 2013 membership figures were nothing like Andrew Bron's wild claims. Moving on to the Independent article that you are referring to does not cite or refer to any research. It only links to another article By The Independent which then in turn just links to the home page of opendemocracy.net - which makes no mention of the BNP membership. My point is that the two articles in the Independent don't point to any research therefore it's impossible to dispute or defend them against. I'll give you an example. If the National Enquirer website said "Obama is not a US Citizen" - then linked to the homepage of the US Homeland security as it's source, would a Wikipedia editor be able to take that seriously and post it up? I don't think so. So why should we have a situation where the Independent says "BNP Membership lower than 500 according to Opendemocracy.net" - when the Opendemocracy.net homepage does not even mention the BNP! Now...I know for a fact that the 2nd Independent article about the Greens (And the BNP) was deliberately changed by the Independent, because their "source" is laughable...and that laughable source actually used "research" done by someone else and that's even more laughable - That however, doesn't matter, because the 2 Independent articles are so weak it's laughable. Both articles admit the Independent hasn't done any research, they have just linked to either other Independent articles or the homepage opendemocracy.net Chrisdbarnett (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer an earlier question by Emeraude - You asked what the current BNP figures are. By asking this question, you have proved that you are not reading this section of this talk page. Please re-read this section of this talk page, if you did, you would know that the BNP membership figures are released to the public once a year and that the latest BNP figures are being filed with the Electoral Commission next month in July. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To summarize...to point out a pattern here...both yourself (Emeraude) and the Independent are so desperate to talk down the BNP membership figures, a quote from Andrew Brons made in 2012 has been wheeled out. Since then, the December 2013 figures (which no one disputes) proved that all of that talking down was incorrect and the claims were wild. The figures that will be filed with the EC in July will no doubt also prove that the figure of 500 was a complete joke. I would bet my bottom dollar, that this time next year, despite being though this twice, we'll be having the same conversation on this talk page, this time next year...that there will be people on here insisting that our membership figures are only a fraction of what they really are, despite the media and political opponents being caught out lying time and time again. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When a reliable third party source publishes up to date figures we can change it. Until then please stop wasting everyone's time ----Snowded ^TALK 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"We"? You don't speak for the wiki community or all editors. We are having a discussion on this talk page about the membership and I know that Ronz, who appears to be a neutral editor wants us to discuss this issue of BNP membership stats and the reliability of the referenced sources. If you don't have a counter-argument to my valid points, then it's you that needs to leave us alone to get on with the discussion. Also, I quote you "When a reliable third party source publishes up to date figures we can change it" - So you admit then, that the Independent is an unreliable source? Good. I knew I was getting somewhere. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"the December 2013 figures (which no one disputes)". Evidence no one disputes them? Brons certainly does.Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So you and the BNP itself do not know how many members you have until you publish 2014's figures next month. Incredible! Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Brons published an opinion on his MEP website regarding BNP membership figures in October 2012, you know, that's more than a year before December 2013. If he believes that the party has filed fraudulent figures to the EC, he can contact the EC or the police. Also, I've answered many times on this talk page about who in the BNP knows what the exact membership figures are - The Membership Secretary and the Treasurer. The Treasurer submits the membership figures to the Electoral Commission as part of the audited accounts once a year. He does this, because the figures are indisputable. Emeraude, if the BNP had a history of making up it's membership figures that would be one thing, but I am sure, that given that you active in UK politics, you aren't neutral, you are biased and you'll do everything you can to ensure that our BNP figures are factored down on wikipedia. You just can't help yourself. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

if you continue with these personal attacks and the overall failure to listen you are likely to end up with a block or topic ban. You have not formally declared a. Inflict of interest which is a general guideline here.. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that Emeraude is not politically neutral in the UK, is not a personal attack, it's relevant. If that was to be a personal attack, then any criticism of anyone (including me) is a personal attack! Ive declared my COI a number of times on this talk page and it's obvious to anyone reading this talk page that I'm BNP - many times I've even refered to the BNP as "we"! The only reason why it's not on my user page, is because I've done nothing with my user page! Never-the-less I'll declare it there. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It is a personal attack on my integrity as a Wikipedia editor. You are stating that I am not neutral. Your basis for this accusation is that I am "active in UK politics". Being active in politics does not preclude neutrality (or you can leave now!). As it happens, beyond voting, I am completely inactive in UK or any other country's politics, so you are doubly wrong. Please withdraw this slur. Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I withdraw my remark that you're not neutral. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting back on topic of for the benefit of neutral people.

Note 1 points to this URL : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-the-bnp-has-almost-vanished-from-british-politics-10176194.html - for the claim that the BNP has only 500 members. While The Independent is considered a mainstream newspaper in the UK the article itself is only referring to another page on the Independent website. It's author does not and has not claimed any kind of research or even guesswork at the BNP membership figures...it's just linking to this article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-party-membership-will-overtake-ukip-within-a-week-new-research-predicts-9977866.html

Again the Independent does not claim any research of their own, or even guesswork of their own. The second article in this chain simply refers to "research" done by opendemocracy.net. There is no link from the Independent to any page on opendemoracy.net which talks about BNP membership figures. Therefore there is no research for anyone to read, dissect and challenge. There is no information on how anyone has arrived at the figure of 500, so how on Earth can it be used as a reference? Remember, this isn't the same as a reporter saying that he seen a building collapse or an act of violence - this is about a left wing newspaper that has changed it's articles so that it's no longer linking to the "research" for the explicit reason that it can't be researched or challanged. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Following the links, the Independent figures come from the January 2014 "State of Hate" report from "Hope not Hate." Whether or not that report is reliable or accurate is irrelevant, mainstream media have chosen to accept it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what mainstream sources say, and we are not supposed to conduct independent research to determine which is correct. Incidentally, the 500 figure appears to come from the BNP's 2014 report to the electoral commission, and "Hope not Hate" put it closer to 400. TFD (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Either you are going to treat the Independent articles seriously or you are not? Which is it? Neither article mentions any "State of Hate" report by "Hope Not Hate" - Neither article links to any such "Research". The BNP has never filed any report with the Electoral Commission that claims 500 members - if you disagree, then perhaps you can link to a relevant page on the EC website which backs up your argument? If you can't link to this mystical report that eludes us and you can't link to the Electoral Commission - then what you are talking about is academic. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Independent refers to Open Democracy which refers to the "State of Hate" report. But Wikipedia policy is to just accept what reliable sources say, in this case The Independent. If the BNP's income/expenditure was over £250k, they must submit audited accounts not later than 7 July 2015. Perhaps we could wait until then and this discussion may be moot. Out of curiosity, do you know how many members the BNP reported for 2014 or when they will submit their accounts? TFD (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Independent links to the HOME PAGE the FRONT PAGE of Open Democracy - www.opendemocracy.net - END OF MYSTERY TRAIL - No mention of BNP membership figures or Hope not Hate on the www.opendemocracy.net homepage. I assume this is because there is NO RESEARCH behind the fraudulent claims of BNP membership being 500 and Hope Not Hate, haven't published anything at all. Please do not ask me questions to satisfy your curiosity, especially ones I've already answered as we don't want to clutter or cloud this discussion. Chrisdbarnett (Removed one sentence so not to be taken as a personal attack after reading WP:AVOIDYOU). Chrisdbarnett (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To Summarize. The "Independent" links to another article on it's website...which then in turn links to the home page of some political blogging website OPENDEMOCRACY.NET - Somewhere, on an unknown bloggers page on opendemoracy.net, that no one wants to link to...because it's secret...there is something about the membership of various political parties....the said blogger enthusiastically took every party's word for their membership figures...but he/she decided not to ask the BNP, but gott a special secret report that's not published and only available to financial supporters of an organization that campaigns against the BNP - Unbelievable! Chrisdbarnett (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Open Democracy article which says it gets its numbers from the "State of Hate" report. That report in turn says it takes its numbers from the BNP's 2014 report. TFD (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. But the Independent doesn't link to Adam Ramsay's blog page, perhaps they don't link to it, because Adam Ramsey is politically active with the Scottish Green party, having stood as a candidate for them in 2012? Anyway..whatever our Green party friend says about this so called "State of Hate" report, I would have to donate £10 to an organization that makes veiled threats against me such as "We know where you live." to even see a such a report, so I don't know what's in it, neither does anyone who's expecting to get answers from the BNP wiki page. As a Wikipedia editor, are you happy with a report that's a secret collaboration by a rival political organisation, that is vaguely talked about by a Green party (Another hostile political rival) candidate on his blog, which is then in turn vaguely reported by a left wing newspaper that can't even be bothered to link to the Green party candidates blog? Chrisdbarnett (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is an extract from Adam Ramsay's blog "With the far-right parties, I took a different approach. Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn't trust a BNP or Britain First spin doctor any further than I could kick them in the Goeballs" - I'll leave it to editors that are objective and politically neutral (as far as the UK is concerned) to make their minds up about whether such "research" is serious, fair, balanced and unbiased. - Let's face it, a Green party activist and campaigner has a done a feel good propaganda piece for the press, having a go at political opponents and emailed it out as a press release to news outlets sympathetic to his politics, who have simply published what he wanted. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I note, that the same standards used for other UK political parties are not being applied to the BNP. For UKIP, it appears to be one of their own membership update video on youtube is being used as a reference for their membership numbers.

On the Conservatives, wikipedia article it's a House of Commons briefing report dated January 2015 that is used as a reference for Conservative Party membership numbers - They are still going with the figure of 4200 for the BNP. Earlier attempts by myself to get editors of this page to recognize The House of Commons report have failed.

For the Liberal Democrats wiki page membership numbers, their own website is used - http://www.libdems.org.uk/membership_figures

The Labour Party wikipedia page uses the Labour supporting The Daily Mirror as a reference for their memberhsip figures.

The Enland & Wales Green Party's wiki pages has a page from a website called "Business Green" run a story about their membership figures.

Come on people. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the BNP can't be trusted to publish their own membership figures, when all other UK political parties either publish their own figures, or simply have their supporters quoted as a third source. Furthermore, to try and hide behind wikipedia rules, saying that "research" doesn't need to be accurate, but then say that BNP data can't be used, claiming that it can't be accurate despite not having any evidence to prove it, is blatantly hypocritical. You either care about the figures being correct and accurate or you don't. You either want to treat all UK political parties fairly on wikipedia or you don't.Chrisdbarnett (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just STOP, you have not formally declared a COI and you should do so. That means you should not edit pages in which you have a COI other than for non-contentious issues. Further we are not a soapbox so you need to stop using this talk page as such. If you can't accept that you do not have agreement to change then this goes on formal report with a request to have you topic banned at least. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Thank you for your comment. I have called for arbitration. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you mean putting a COI notice at the top of this page, I've thanked Joseph302 for helping out with that. I've said many times that I haven't placed any edits on the British National Party wiki page. As per advice given in this COIN discussion

COIN does not prevent me from discussing edits on this talk page.

If you believe that I am breaking any rules as per WP:SOAP then you are more than welcome to discuss with me on my page, what parts of WP:SOAP I am breaking etc. If you still believe that I am breaking WP:SOAP and that I'm being uncooperative, then please take it up with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks.

So what do you say the membership is? Surely as the BNP's IT co-ordinator and an NEC member you must know. Or is it still secret even from you until July when you tell the Electoral Commission? Emeraude (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

If I could say what the membership is then surely I would have simply knocked up an article on the BNP website and published it, with an edit request on this talk page? The party only discloses the membership figures once a year. Should we decide to change the way we do that, the next NEC meeting would be our earliest opportunity to do so. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

All that matters are what the sources say and how we determine their prominence given what little we have to work with. I can't see how we can go far wrong following what has been done with articles on similar political parties. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

A change to a section heading has been made by a banned sockpuppet user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_National_Party&diff=673275082&oldid=672175786

I can't make the change back myself because of COI.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisdbarnett (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The change you have linked to was not made by a banned sockpuppet user as you allege; it was made by me. I changed the heading from Last general election to present: 2010–2015 which was out of date, to Electoral peak and subsequent decline: 2010–2015 which takes into account the fact that there has been a general election since 2010, and accurately summarises the content of the section below it. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Political position

This article, which is used to identify and source political positions on other UK political parties, identifies the core (not total) position of the BNP as left of UKIP. While it further states that this is due to a hazy economic policy juxtaposed by a fervently loud social one, isn't it internally inconsistent to ignore the validity of the same source on a different party's article? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it identifies the BNP as to the left of UKIP on economic issues (where economic liberalism is defined as extreme right). No doubt the would appear to the right of UKIP where cultural liberalism is defined as extreme left. None of that has any relevance to where they fall in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My question on this issue mainly derives from this chart: [5] --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Occupational ban: ambiguous wording

Knowing very little about the BNP, I was puzzled to read the following because it made me wonder why the BNP would ban members of certain occupations from joining, as well as wondering what occupations those would be: "High-profile groups and people including The Royal British Legion and David Cameron have criticised the BNP, and BNP membership is prohibited for people of certain occupations. It restricted membership to "indigenous British" people until a 2010 legal challenge to its constitution."

After researching it, I realized this was meant to indicate the opposite: some occupations ban their members from joining the BNP, not the other way around, which is the meaning strongly implied by the second sentence. As an example of those occupations, the following Guardian article explains that at least some police officers and prison employees are banned by their employers from joining BNP. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/19/thefarright-freedomofinformation

I can't improve the article because it's edit-protected, so could someone please fix the wording by eliminating the passive voice? For example, "High-profile groups and people including The Royal British Legion and David Cameron have criticised the BNP, and certain occupations have prohibited their members from BNP membership." Maybe the Guardian article could be added as a reference. Thank you. 50.90.119.225 (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A good point. It made perfect sense to those of us who already knew, but I can see how it would be confusing to someone new to the subject. I have changed the text to "...members of certain occupations are prohibited from joining it", and, to avoid repetiotion, altered the start of the following sentence to begin "BNP" instead of "It". Hope that is now clear.

I have not added a reference. The issue is dealt with in greater detail, with references, in the section Organisations which ban BNP membership. Emeraude (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Not sure what the general approach to leads in political parties' articles is, but the introduction here reads highly non-neutral to me. I had a quick look at the articles on the Conservative Party, Labour Party (UK) and Green Party of England and Wales, and none of them mention single policies in the lead nor mention legal affairs of their respective leaders. As such, singling out the BNP appears quite biased to me, so if someone has a bit of spare time on their hands, an improvement would be welcome. (Or I can do that myself in a few days' time.) odder (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That might be something to do with the legal affairs of the BNP being a notable aspect of what it is. The single policies are also properly referenced. I suggest you bring proposed changes here first as (over multiple debates) the consensus todate is that this article is not biased. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a wiki, so I'll edit the article myself, thank you. My point about that policy is that it doesn't belong in the lead but in the policy section, as is customary with other political parties. Same with the banning of Adam Walker — it belongs in his article and not of his party, unless it can be proven to be of high importance to the party (such as through references to reputable sources). odder (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that if you made those changes without first gaining agreement on the talk page they have been reverted - as you say this is Wikipedia. I'm open to moving the resignation and new Chair to the main section but not the other changes ----Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes don't need to be agreed upon first, but discussion should occur after an objection (see WP:BRD). clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but if the editor is given fair notice on the talk page that something is controversial it would be more prudent to discuss it first and certainly better than edit warring and taking it to ANI without an RFC or dispute resolution. Not a good idea.

Still waiting for you to cite a policy or a guideline that supports this non-neutral version of the lead. I've cited mine: MOS:LEAD. And if you're trying to score points by mentioning my taking the issue to ANI, read that post again and think deeply, maybe you'll see I don't edit that often on this project and might not be aware of all the intricate formalities. odder (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The BNP is different from other parties and therefore is presented differently. TFD (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think that there are some issues of non-neutrality in the lede here. For instance, why are we mentioning that Walker was a former teacher who got barred from the profession in the opening paragraph? By all means mention this (perhaps pertinent) fact in the body of the article itself, but why is it being mentioned at such a prominent place, as if it were a crucial piece of information about the party itself? For me this is primarily an issue of undue weight, although I can't deny that reading such a fact at such a juncture does seem to have a non-neutral aspect to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You don't think it's of great importance that the BNP appoint as its leader someone who verbally abused three 10- to 12-year old boys, chased them in his car and slashed their bike tyres with a knife? That says more about the sort of party that the BNP is than anything else! This man is worse than his predecessor. Emeraude (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

While that does seem significant, it's difficult to make the case here considering the article doesn't mention it. In fact the article proper doesn't even mention the teacher thing at all. It does look like the lead could do with some work if people are dumping stuff in it without properly adding it to the article (which unfortunately is of course the case) whether that is removing the content, or adding it to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there's a case to be made for moving the information from the lead to the body. Willondon (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that its of lede paragraph level of importance, certainly. Moreover, I do worry that it is being included in the spirit of "let's make the BNP look as bad as possible" rather than "let's provide a fair, balanced, encyclopaedic discussion of the BNP using reliable (and primarily academic) sources". In my opinion, the BNP's own stated policies speak for themselves; we don't need to drag trivia out into the lede in order to discredit them further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The character of the leader is relevant and that is hardly trivia. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It is trivia, but more importantly for us, mentioning this is contradictory to the guidelines specified at MOS:LEAD. According to those guidelines, the lead is supposed to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" (Provide an accessible overview), "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject" (Relative emphasis); the first paragraph should additionally "define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" (Opening paragraph). The current wording of the lead—and of the first paragraph in particular—is very far away from those guidelines. odder (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well we should probably make sure there is more in the main body, but it is surely relevant to the lede. It is factual and referenced and seems to comply with the statements you quote ----Snowded ^TALK 13:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely, it's not relevant to the lead nor does it comply with those statements. It doesn't summarise the contents of the article, it places undue weight on the fact that the leader of the BNP was banned from teaching, and by naming that one particular policy, the first paragraph is way too specific. It should follow the examples set by the articles on the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and the Green Party (or, if we want to take examples from outside England, also the article on the Scottish National Party), whose leads provide really good summaries and deal with the subject in general terms rather than unnecessary details. Now I'd happily edit this article to follow those examples, however you lot keep reverting my good-faith edits. odder (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Similar data on the leader of another political party could well be relevant.----Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To Odder: Firstly, while you may describe them as "good faith edits" and may have intended that in the first instance, you have not made them in good faith but ignored all protocol by refusing to seek consensus, engage with the consensus that has built up on this page over a period of time and insisted that you had the right to edit in any way you saw fit. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason at all for what happens in some other articles on political parties to happen in all of them, any more than every article on football teams has to be the same, or albums, or anything else. Thirdly, I do need you to question your politcal nous if you think that going outside England only applies to the SNP - you do know that Conservatives, Labour and Greens also operate there (and the BBP for that matter). As they all do in Wales. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is little point in attempting to seek consensus to bring balanced neutrality to this article, as any fool can see. The extensive talk page history speaks for itself.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality in Wikipedia means presenting views in accordance with their acceptance in reliable sources. That does not mean balancing good points and bad points or what the BNP says about itself and what external sources say. TFD (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on I'm not arguing, but this stuck record of "consensus" etc. cuts little ice as to thinly-disguised determination to maintain a collective wall of negativity to this party (which I'm sure even Griffin knew was never going to get anywhere significant). I check this article every few months to determine whether "consensus" among a certain small clique of editors is to finally abandon personal bias and selectiveness and actually allow people out there - who actually have a neutral mindset - to provide the sorely-needed reconstruction to the article, in a fair and balanced manner, and not maintain thinly disguised personal intentions. Happy New Year.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream media and academic sources portray the party in a very negative way. Whether they are right or wrong, as editors we are obligated to reflect their assessment. If you want to change the portrayal of the party in this article, you need to either change the portrayal in mainstream media and academic writing or change Wikipedia policies. Neither of those changes can be accomplished on this talk page. TFD (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I know. It's okay - the casual observer can expect this after all these years. Just looking at the overall revision/revert history and written predictable justification for doing so reveals you are happy to reflect them in a continuously negative light, and, in so doing, revealing personal motivations/bias etc. against them. We can expect your collective reverting to this "professional adherance" in later comments... We must all be wrong in our viewpoints as to what seems to be the bias and obv. intended steering of readers' mindsets. I'm aware of the negativity in the press and not in any way saying there shouldn't be referenced insertions, but the weight of this content negates any professionalism. The veil of adhering to professionalism as your collective personal justification for this disgrace is about as believable as a cannibal being a vegan. Forget it, but genuine thanks for your civil reply even if it is intended as postured professionalism.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

removed from register of political parties

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/electoral-commission-statement-on-removal-of-british-national-party-from-register-of-political-parties --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The BNP claims that it has not dissolved. It appears that the party leadership is incompetent (no surprises there) and failed to submit the necessary documentation to register the party. I don't think we should be so quick to state that the BNP no longer exists. -- Hazhk (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it hasn't ceased to exist. It is no longer a registered political party, but I bet if you went to its offices or its website you would still find activity. Instead of re-writing this in the past tense, it should be revised to clarify that it is an organisation that used to be a registered political party. Ground Zero | t 15:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The BNP is free to register and will likely do so. This 'episode' should be reflected in the history section --Hazhk (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Although we cannot take into account that they will likely re-register as that is OR - I'm not clear why there is an argument being made against the idea that the BNP no longer exists as unless I'm missing a deleted post, nobody actually made that claim? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article had been edited to say that the BNP was a political party, and described its policies in the past tense. There was no indication in those edits that it continues, unfortunately, as an organisation. the article has been edited by others and by me to reflect this. Ground Zero | t 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the lead currently says that " It was a registered political party between 1982 and 2016", which definitely isn't true as there was no such register until the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence in question now. Registration only came into force in 1999 and the BNP was registered on 25 February that year; however this seems excessive detail for the lead so I didn't put it in. The deregistration is covered later in the lead anyway. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh really. Much ado about nothing.

They've chalked it up to a clerical error on their website (a polite way of saying that someone screwed up and forgot to submit the reregistration in time) and said that they "will be re-registered within a matter of days." I'd suggest removing this from the lead, as it's not notable enough. Valenciano (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

For the time-being, it is not a registered political party. If they get re-registered, we can change it then. Let's not take their word for it. "Political party" will be commonly understood to mean a registered party, so i think that it is worth being clear in the lead. Ground Zero | t 21:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ground Zero, this ought to be be pointed out in the lead. 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that being a political party is understood to mean a registered political party. Our respective article on that says nothing about registration in the lead, and very little thereafter. Neither do most other definitions. Even the electoral commission source given says: "The party can, however, submit an application to re-register at any time." So even they still regard the BNP as a party. It is therefore total original research to describe them as a former political party, however much we may wish that to be the case. They've said they'll re-register and reliable sources have reported that. Sure, we can have a giggle at their ineptitude and give that a brief mention, but not, per WP:NPOV, while ignoring what they've said to the contrary. Overall, is it really likely that they'll be unable to come up with the 25 quid fee which will make that sentence redundant? Not plausible. Valenciano (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC link does not say that they will deregister, it only quotes a BNPer implying that they will. BNPers say a lot of things. I agree that there probably will, but Wikipedia is not crystal ball. If they reregister, we can change it then. I suggest describing them as an "unregistered political party". Registration is material: having the party's name on the ballot matters (see Literal Democrat). Ground Zero | t 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the Literal Democrats case and the similar situation with the unofficial Labour candidate in Slough in 1992. The deregistration event certainly deserves a brief mention, but I seriously doubt we need to go into such detail in the lead, which should cover important events in the party's history, notable controversies etc.

What are those events? Foundation, move away from street politics and cutting ties with groups like Combat18 and moderating policies in order to pursue an election strategy. 1992 Millwall breakthrough, 2001 breakthrough following Oldham riots, controversies surrounding key figures, Griffin's Holocaust denial on the Cook report, court appearance with Collett following Channel 4 documentary, decline after Griffin used his question time appearance to eulogise the KuKluxKlan as non-violent. All of those are far more important events than this clerical screw up by the party, yet most of them aren't even mentioned in the lead, which is already too heavily tilted towards recent events.

I would also cite WP:CRYSTAL, but in a different way: we've no idea that the deregistration will prove significant overall in the party's history. In fact, as it's odds-on that they will re-register, very likely it will not be. It would only be significant if, by May, they have still failed to come up with the 25 quid and are therefore contesting elections as independents. So we should adopt a wait-and-see policy on adding it to the lead, to which we shouldn't be adding events which probably won't be significant in a few months' time. Valenciano (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The Commission did not say the BNP no longer exists, just that it is no longer registered. But it is still recognized. "The party can, however, submit an application to re-register at any time and their name, descriptions and emblems are protected under PPERA for two years to prevent other parties using them." And I agree with Valenciano that registration or recognition by the Commission is part of the definition of a political party. There are for example "underground parties", parties that are outlawed and continue to exist. TFD (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The British National Party is now back on the register and approved by the Commission. BNP Registration on Electoral Commission Website .I cannot make the amendment because of declared interest. Many thanks. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tabloids

I cleaned out some stuff sourced to tabloid journalism. Could people please remember that WP:BLPSOURCES prohibits using this type of source for matters concerning living people? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't prohibit tabloids for factual matters, it prohibits tabloid journalism. This has come up elsewhere and no other editor supported you and you did not take part in the discussion raised on the matter. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

That's right. And, John, it has nothing whatever to do with non-biographical issues, which applies to many of the bits you've deleted. Be so kind as to restore them. Emeraude (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, User:John - engaging in the same behaviour - editing against consensus to further their agenda. Also, I didn't realise the British National Party was a living person. Thanks for that interesting clarification. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British National Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://communications.bnp.org.uk/ge2010manifesto.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.bnp.org.uk/sms-news-texts/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.bnp.org.uk/faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016

Please amend the first sentence in the British_National_Party#Controversies section to remove the word "tabloid". The cited newspaper sources are The Observer, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph; none of which are tabloid.

2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:4D71:ACF:D40:72CA (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial category

@Snowded: re special:diff/735200918

You restored Category:Holocaust denial in the United Kingdom even though there is no mention on this article of the Holocaust.

I would remind you of WP:CATDEF here:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having

If this applies, why is there no mention elsewhere in the article of BNP being Holocaust deniers? Why are there no supporting references on the article? This category should not exist without the supporting citations. Please supply them quickly or I will remove the category soon. Ranze (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Founder clearly in the category and no evidence of refutation by party (same applies to your identical comment on another article). The most basic of searches would also show that removal of this category is controversial so I suggest you wait agreement on the talk page before attempting any removal. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that categories are navigation devices, I do not see how this is helpful. Certainly most of the BLP leadership have been Holocaust deniars and the major Holocaust deniars have supported the BLP and similar parties. But this article does not a present explain the connection. TFD (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This sort of political party (and its various factional splits) are heavily linked with the political beliefs of its leaders - indeed that is one of the ways they are studied. The controversies of the BNP on national television over holocaust denial (which are reported here and on linked pages) make that point as well. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If a reader goes to Category:Holocaust denial, they can filter to Category:Holocaust denial by country and Category:Holocaust denial in the United Kingdom, which returns three articles (British National Party, Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and National Front (UK)), and Category:British Holocaust deniers (17 articles). Or they can click on Category:Holocaust denial in the United Kingdom in this article. Neither the BLP or NF articles mention Holocaust denial.

So at present I do not see the utility of the category as a navigational device, which is the purpose of categories, per WP:CATEGORY. It might be better to include Category:Far-right politics in the Holocaust denial category. So a reader interested in Holocaust denial who wanted to know more about far right parties could easily navigate to them by following the country links. We could also include Category:Far-right politics in the UK in Category:Holoaust denial in the UK.

TFD (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)