Talk:British National Party/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Cleaner introduction

I've just made a new introduction. I know it's not perfect but I want it more neutral. The previous one had cherry-picked quotes to represent the BNP in as much negative light as possible. Save the criticism for the "criticism's of the BNP" section and let readers have a neutral introduction. Davo698 06:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying that being anti-Islamic and Racist is a negative thing is strictly a matter of opinion. The party is certainly candid about its belief that Islam is a religion of suppression, dogma and violence and are proud of it. I admire their courage to stand up to the media, government and left-wing groups that try to intimidate and demonize anyone who dares to be politically incorrect. The fact that the party opposes race-mixing, non-white immigration, foreign aid and Islam should be in the introduction because that is what they stand for and believe that they can back it up.

Yes but it is still an opinion, wikipedia must avoid opinions and POV at all costs.---Lucy-marie 12:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find the new introduction as it currently stands to be fairly well written and informative but it could be improved. The quibbles that I have are firstly that to say that according to the intro the BNP "is often described as racist and fascist". While, strictly speaking, this is true, it would probably be more accurate to say that the GNP is generally or widely considered to be racist and fascist. I'm not sure how such a statement could be properly referenced though. One way round it would be to fill out the statement a bit more. At the moment, it is quite a bald comment, and is dwarfed by the rest of the intro, much of which is made up of quotes by the BNP itself. I think the overwhelming opposition to the party in the media should be more strongly reflected. The second quibble I have is that "non-White" is not very clear on precisely who is meant. Does it mean non-British people or non-Europeans? The restriction of membership to "indigenous Caucasians" would seem to suggest the former. The Angel of Islington 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Create new archive

The page was getting stupidly long to reach the bottom.:) Fethroesforia 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement. I'm not "pro" or "anti" BNP, but it seems like rather "devoted" opponents are trying to smear the party while its supporters try and correct the smears and pretend they're having a balanced discussion. Start from scratch.

Note: For examples of POV a perfect example is the "neo-fascist" reference and incorporating the POV of the SPLC into a supposedly neutral article. See also Godwin's law, Reductio_ad_hitlerum and George Orwell. Davo698 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I notice the page has been tagged to be cleaned up since January and that there has been a lot of discussio since then. Can this tag be removed now or is there more to do? --User 56 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Neo-fascism?

I know that I am not supposed to write at the top but I feel compelled to do so in order for as many of you as possible to consider what I am about to write. Many of you state that the SPLC reference should be trusted because they have experience and knowledge regarding such groups but I think those of you who would argue this are blatantly hypcritical. For example, would you people trust a reference on the page of AIPAC from the group JewWatch that would claim they are Judeo-Fascist? I am certain the same people who defend using the SPLC as a neutral, solid reference would react quite angrily.

The SPLC designation of the BNP as a neo-fascist organization is highly disputable. First, the SPLC is a much-biased source. Second, groups like the SPLC often confuse ideas such as white nationalism with fascism. In this instance, it seems they are confusing socialism with fascism. Discussion in regards to this especially might help. Third, the BNP has never claimed to adhere to any sort of fascist ideologies. See http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/policies.htm#demo . Unless more credible evidence is provided for the BNP's neo-fascist ideological stance, I suggest we cut that. Cheers. 71.164.208.94 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I agree, many of the regulars who have made major edits on here are very much anti-bnp. So dont expect to have much of a debate. More of a huge *jump on them* moment. The majority are totally against the bnp and therefore like to label it as neo-fascist because it insantly brings up the thought of nazi's, instantly making the bnp sound worse even though its not true. I too suggest we cut it. However, the anti-bnp squad will insist it stays. Fethroesforia 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Firstly, it doesn't matter how biased a source the SPLC is; it can still be right! Secondly, the phrase "groups like the SPLC" borders on POV. Thirdly, the SPLC (which I've never heard of outside of this article) is but one of many organisations and learned academics that says the BNP is neo-fascist. Fouthly, what kind of observer can accuse SPLC of confusing socialism with fascism, unlesss they themselves have an interest in doing so, i.e. to make the BNP and similar groups appear more acceptable? As discussed in this page before (and at some length), the traditions of the BNP are directly within the mainstream of fascist groups in Britain post-1945. The fact that they appear to espouse some minor economic policies to the left of 1930s Nazis does not make them socialist, any more than Hitler was a socialist because the word was in the Nazis' name! Personally, (and speaking as a political scientist) I would not label them neo-fascist becasue the use of neo- implies some radical departure from early fascism; it implies that if Hitler's and Mussolini's parties were still around they would still be the same as in the 1930s. No, they would have changed and adapted to modern times, but they would not be called neo-fascist. However, I bow to wider use here and accept that the use of neo- does at least separate the BNP (and the NF, FN, MSI etc) from the parties of Hitler and Mussolini.

Fethroesforia: Please do not assume that everyone who describes the BNP as 'neo-fascist' is part of some 'anti-BNP squad'. You have said before, quite rightly, that there is often a stereotyped image of BNP supporters as thick skinheads and I supported you in this; you risk doing the reverse. And bear in mind that your stated support for the BNP means that you must be very careful how you express opinions on this article to avoid allegations of POV. Emeraude 10:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Im used to this sort of 'debate', my history professor is a Lib Dem and thus thinks very low of anyone rightist or far right. I dont think any party should be tarred with a bad brush so to speak. Thinking of an example, assuming there is a communist party of britain, should we condemn them to failure by instantly calling them something to purely stir up negative emotions, maybe neo-stalinist or something. Bringing up [false] negative conotations of them being psychotic, sadistic,murdering 'witch-hunters'. Ideally weshould compare the BNP to other extreme right parties (yes i did say extreme right) such as the French one (the one with Le Pen) et al. So yes,looking, I do agree..partly, almost all their political standpoints are very similar if not identical to facists, or at least the stereotype of facism. In an ideal world,a section could be included in the article to explain why they are 'facist' but the article is too long as it is. Allegations of POV based on political part affiliationis against wikipedia rules (see my user page for the warning and link), so..let them..Fethroesforia 15:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, Lib Dems aren't too keen on anyone far left either! There is a Communist Party of Britain, of course, and communist has been used a term of abuse for decades, particularly in the USA (where even 'socialist' is perjorative!), but Communists/Socialists/Trotskyists don't deny the term and don't regard it as abusive. However, it is the fascists who almost always deny their labelling (and some of their apologists). Read up more on the subject - Michael Mann's Fascists is a good source and deals quite well with this issue of hiding overt fascism, but it's a heavy read in parts. I think you're probably right that the article could do with a section explaining WHY the BNP is (neo-)fascist, but if the article on Fascism were more useful it would not be necessary.

Regarding your last sentence: I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of POV - quite the opposite in fact. I was referring to the way that given your position you generally manage to avoid any POV in your contributions to this discussion and reminding you of that. Emeraude 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm recommending books, Robert Paxton: The Anatomy of Fascism. Emeraude 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainlydidnt mean that last sentence to be aimed at you, more at the people vandlaising the bnp article with 'BNP R GAY' or something else equally 'funny'. I have nothing against communists,unlike some bnp members. The country which won world war 2 was the soviet union, whilst britain was doddering around, the french surrendering etc. Im about to readup the actualmeaning of facist. Like most people my age (18) the only think i can think of when thinking of facist is hitler and mussolini, so im hoping to find out how similar thebnpare to facists. The bnp articledoesneed trimming down but there isnt much that can be removed without reducing the articles value (which might I add, is extremely good, top marks to yourself and Hackney [sorry..forgot full username]).Ive been AWOL recently, exams and such, university applications and such. Thanks for book reccomedation, im a big book reader so Ill search that out. Speaking of books, any idea on any great books on hitler, specifically mentioning his'power' or lack of it over certain things (aside from the great books by Kershaw and Bullock)..as Im doing my open book exam on him..(to make it clear, to anyone who may doubt otherwise because I 'support' the bnp..I dont deny the holocaust [i have been to sachsenhausen concentration camp] and certainlydont idolise Hitler) Fethroesforia 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PS- sorry for bad typing, my keyboard has gone weird, especially the spacebar. But..what imissed out saying is 99.99% of people regard the bnp as facists, thats goodenough for me to go into wikipedia. if 99.99%of people believed aliens existed..then that too. Fethroesforia 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(In regards to comments made by Emeraude) First, this is true, but you've given no indication that this is such. You say in your third point that it is one of many "learned organisations" that calls BNP fascist but if everyone in the world still beleived in Bohr's model of the atom, it wouldn't make it any less true. I am asking for real evidence that the BNP is fascist--not socialist, not white nationalist, etc., just fascist. Second, you're right; everyone is biased, you must admit, but the SPLC is admittedly moreseo in its agenda against so-called racism and such. Your third point has been addressed. Fourth, you are the one that says that no matter how biased a source may be, it can still be right; take your own advice, sir! Everyone has an agenda and mine here is from more of an obsessive need for truth in semantics since words dictate thought and thought dictates action. Calling bias into question is one thing but ad hominem is another. We should quite willing to discuss reasons that the BNP is neo-fascist (or fascist, as you prefer--perhaps it may indeed be a better label if indeed that is what this is) but only when in the context of direct evidence and not wild claims and emotions. 71.164.208.94 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Integral Europe: Fast-Capitalism, Multiculturalism, Neofascism by Douglas R. Holmes contains a detailed discussion of the BNPs neo-fascism. VoluntarySlave 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal opinion here i think that as there is only one source for the information and the source is in my opinion dubious, the statement should be removed until more sources are found. This has been previous procedure with statement such as white nationalism.--Lucy-marie 13:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Which source is, in your opinion, dubious? There is one source given in the article I believe, and VoluntarySlave has given another one above. Here's a third: RENTON, DAVID "A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party" in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005. In addition, the books listed in the Bibliography more than adequately address this issue. The fascist nature of the BNP is also accepted by the mass media in Britain (including those on the right like the Daily Mail) and regularly exposed by Searchlight and others. Other sources have been given at various times in the past in this discussion page. Emeraude 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have the sources then why not add them to the article? Im not after a politics lecture here I'm simply after more sources for the statement like the others in the infobox have.--Lucy-marie 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need. There is one statement sourced, and three items in the bibiliography. No need to add more. Emeraude 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If the parts of the bibliography directly refers to that statement it should be cited next to the statement not buried in the bibliography. I don't see why this cannot be the case.--Lucy-marie 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to this all of this i would like to say if you are to include a new "label" then more than one neutral source is required. The source currently used is disputed and therefor not neutral. I think the new "label" should be removed until an undisputed neutral source can be found.--Lucy-marie 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a new label. If you want to change the reference, use the one VoluntarySlave gave above or any of the others throughout the article, but you have not given any objection that I can see to the present source. Since when is "more than one neutral source" required? If everything had several sources, there'd be no room for text! Remember, we are talking about an infobox here which is supposed to provide an at-a-glance summary of key topics that are including within the article. (And take a look at France. In the infobox it says the capital is Paris, the official language is French, the anthem is La Marseillaise. But there's no source given for any of that. Are you proposing these assertion should be deleted until multiple neutral sources are provided? I bet you can't find a neutral source for any of these 'facts' anywhere in Wikipedia.) Emeraude 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Emeraude. I would like to say-that by just typing french national anthem into google hundreds of pages are returned giving the same answer. This is not the same as if BNP and Neo-faschism were typed in. In the case f the BNP pressure groups are retuned, in the case of the French national anthem tourist groups and general information on France is returned. The french one has returned hundred of neutral sources the BNP one is controversial and has not provided neutral sources and as the topic is controversial multiple sourcing adds more weight to the claim.--Lucy-marie 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point, surely. Google is not an encyclopeadia. Wikipedia is. Google may be useful to give an indication of notability, however imperfect, but facts need to be cited from reliable sources. Regardless og how many links Google returns, how many of them are 'reliable sources'? My point is that Wikipedia does not cite anywhere any evidence that Paris is the capital of France and you might reply that there's no point in "stating the bleeding obvious". Equally, it could be that is "bleeding obvious" that the BNP is fascist! But, 'bleeding obvious' or not, there are sources cited in the article, so what's the problem? 213.36.24.153 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So you are willing to state that literally hundreds of articles returning the same information from a google search is unreliable. The point of the neo-fascist ideology is that it is point of view and can be argued for and against, it is very hard to argue that the french national anthem is not La Marseillaise. THe source being quoted is not neutral and besides only one is directly cited. for an section which is as controversial as this multiple sources are required which are as neutral as possible the current source is neither neutral or reliable.--Lucy-marie 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Current source??? You've clearly not looked at the article recently. The neo-facsist tag is not there and hasn't been for some time. I'm out of the country at the moment and unable to provide sources, but I will later. Yes, it is very hard to argue that the French national anthem is not La Marseillaise. But, it is equally hard to argue that it is if someone demands evidence. The point is, Google is NOT a reliable source, not are the sites it gives. (I challenge you to find a 'reliable' source that the Marseillaise is the national anthem, and I KNOW that is.) You have not addressed the point I made that reliable independent sources are not provided for every 'fact' given in Wikipedia, such as Paris being the capital of France. Sources do not have to be NEUTRAL - they have to be RELIABLE. Emeraude 20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok so what do you suggest If I am to give 100 different sources saying the French anthem is what it is would that be wrong, If they are from travel agencies the british foreign office and the official french presidents site. I find it ridiculous that in the face of some many people saying the tag should not be there that you are of there is an insistence that it should in some be incorporated with the tag. I would like for once that this be bought to a close with the conclusion that the tag be discarded. I would also like to draw a parallel with the G8 talk here, when chris said you are the only person arguing for this. I think that the consensus is that this be discarded. I am also no longer willing to go 5000 rounds on a minor topic here with you again and again it seems and this is just my opinion the article ownership has been taken by you, please release your grip on the article in the face of this consensus, Also i don't care where in the world you are.--Lucy-marie 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To put this the other way round - do you have any reliable sources that say that the BNP is not neo-fascist? If it is disputed, as you say, presumably it is a matter of scholarly debate, and there should be reliable sources on both sides of the debate. VoluntarySlave 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you are to prove a negative? Also wikipedia Doesn't work by trying to disprove something I works on the principally of proff of something from a reliable unbiased source through consensus--Lucy-marie 10:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems you're bearing grudges rather than engaging in debate again. Look, there is not a serious observer or academic to my knowledge who says that the BNP is not a (neo-)fascist organisation. The history of its forerunners is well documented in Wkipedia - every one of them was gascist. Its leaders and previous leaders are/were fascists. Its policies are mainstream fascist, however they dress them up. Reading the BNP article itself will tell you that! Besides, I and others HAVE provided sources in this discussion - you simply choose to ignore them. The article itself is the reference for the infobox tag! Personally, I find infoboxes of this type less than useful, but if there is one it should state that the BNP by alll objective criteria is fascist. As to 'ownership' of the article being taken by me, I regard that statement as a vile assault on my integrity. If you took the trouble to read the article and how many edits I have made, you will quickly see that I have contibuted very, very little to the article but have reverted on countless occasions blatant vandalism. Emeraude 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware most of the "vile" comments your are talking about have been withdrawn before any comment on them was made upon them. General consensus has been that the phrase be scrapped.--Lucy-marie 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made no mention of vile comments, but a vile accusation, which though struck through, is still visible, and demands an apology. And you are wrong about 'general consensus' in this issue. Emeraude 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms, one proves a negative by finding a reliable source that asserts that negative. In other words, a reliable source that says that the BNP are not (neo-)fascist. The point is, we already have reliable sources that say that the BNP is neo-fascist. If there are also reliable sources that say the BNP is not neo-fascist, then the article should say that there is debate about whether or not they are neo-fascist; if there are reliable sources on one side only, the article should follow those sources. VoluntarySlave 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is under dispute so a reliable source may in your opinion be available, but not in everybody's. Could you please give a reasonable view of what kind of source you would accept as a negative? As for consensus there is also no clear consensus for inclusion.--Lucy-marie 15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting edits by 24.203.22.162

Anonymous user 24.203.22.162 has made a number of edits to the article which I have reverted in total. My reasoning is as follows: 24.203.22.162 has added statements that the BNP is anti-Roma; this may well be true, but the reference to it being in the BNP Constitution is totally false. The new figures given in the table for Change in % votes are wrong: they are based on the number of votes whereas the column clearly refers to how many points the 'percentage of votes has changed by. One edit was noted as: "I removed a part of the text which contradicts the rest of the article. How can you say the party has stopped mentioning race when party membership is restricted to whites". It does not contradict the rest of the article: the party is restircted to white and it HAS stopped publicly mentioning race as an issue. This does not mean they have changed their views, just that they are careful what they say and this needs to be stated, and was, until this edit.

It may be that 24.203.22.162 has some valid points, but in general the edits are either unhelpful or incorrect. If anyone wants to examine them on a one-by-one basis and suggest their incorporation, please do. Emeraude 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology The edit ot election results was actually by another editor, 88.111.41.106, but I explained above why it was reverted. Emeraude 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not referring to the BNP constitution when I added that their definition of the European people excludes the Roma and European Muslims but rather their website. I remember how during the controversy regarding curbing the immigration of Romanians and Bulgarians upon their induction to the E.U. there was an article on their website that claimed this was an epitomy of the government's cowardice. They claimed that this was an endeavor to prevent gypsies from flooding into the U.K. but that the government did not have the courage to state this openly and that they should rather ban gypsies from immigrating.

Problems with the Homosexuality and the BNP section

If you actually read the article sourced, Mr. Edwards says that homosexuals are welcome, providing the BNP doesn't know about it. This appears to me a ban on open homosexuals, and thus it is not accurate to say that the BNP 'welcomes', 'accepts', or 'tolerates' homosexuals. Mr. Edwards then goes on to make homophobic comments about homosexuals. The BNP remains a homophobic party. --Revolución hablar ver 00:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No citation for Guardian accusation

"However some have pointed out that the Guardian is a far left newspaper with a strong political agenda and that its infiltration was designed to intimidate supporters of the BNP in positions of power with the threat of public humiliation" Who has pointed this out? I think it would be very difficult to prove the Guardian is a "far left" newspaper.

Green party

The assertion that the BNP is a green party is based on the BNP's own pronouncement, which includes the phrase "We are the only true 'Green Party' in Britain because only the BNP have the resolve to end mass immigration into Britain ". The BNP is not an independent source on the BNP. No serious commentator has ever described the BNP as green; its policies in this area do not make it any greener than Labour or Conservative and nowhere approaching genuine Green parties. In the absence of independent support for this description, I am once again removing the green tag from the infobox. Emeraude 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, being green means making the preservation of the environment a priority. Whether or not you agree with their approach or their perception of what is most detrimental to environment is absolutely irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.236.144.4 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The ways of going about the problem are different but that does not mean it isn't a priority so I agree with the above statement.--Lucy-marie 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)