Talk:New Nationalist Party (UK)

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

Apparently, this party folded last weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.41.128 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the editor of this page who is reverting to incorrect information please desist. W4evw 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme))

W4evw 10:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have these NNP users banned? They have no idea what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Suggesting that only members of political organisations should be allowed to contribute to entries about those organisations goes against all Wikipedia's principles. They have no interest in objectivity, balance or citing sources. The current version of this entry is the most objective and accurate thus far; however I fear it will disappear before too long unless something is done. Ideally, members of all political organisations should not be able to write entries about them (although I would say the same for people on the other extreme to extremist parties or absolute obsessive opponents of the parties, which I am not).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Wiki entry is supposed to be a definitive, objective presentation of information - not a mischievous, politically biased attack on another political group. Clearly, in the best interests of accuracy, it is best handled by folk who are knowledgeable about the facts.

Indeed the current version is not too bad if the personal invective and incorrect political labelling is altereed. Whether a compromise can be reached I don't know. Maybe it would be best to remove the entry - of which (like an encyclopedia) - there can be only one.

Maybe leave it to the official political party that it is portraying, to set up their own page. It would of course be objective, balanced and would cite sources.

There is too much of a culture of 'banning' of political groups who have policies you don't agree with. More give and take is needed - there is you will note, no call to ban 'New Labour' folk on the same basis. W4evw 12:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how this works .. but please see your talk page off the History tab .. W4evw 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

I disagree entirely with the above, but I'm bored with going through this now - how do you feel with my current version as a compromise?

And incidentally if you *really* were a British nationalist, and recognised where the main threat to the culture you hold so dear comes from, you'd spell it "encyclopaedia". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.71.229 (talk)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed what you had changed .. if you revert back, I'll check more carefully. The side bar has one item that is incorrect for the new Party .. it should read 'Centre-Right'.

This is a new political grouping which is different in many ways to the Party some members left. The policies are emerging as different.

Also, the page is an international shop window, so I think the official banner is interesting and fair.

If you can go along with those points (on sufferance if you like) I'd be grateful. We will keep the policies up to date as they are decided - we've only been going for a month ..:-)

regards,

Graham W4evw 08:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Oh, I forgot to reply to your last point .. I'm afraid we are facing many adverse influences at present. I'd be interested to know what you think the main one is ..

Are we allowed to discuss it here .. I'd feel more comfortable on a purpose built forum somewhere.

Anonymity has it's limitations - I don't feel able to give my e-mail address, but I'd love to discuss things with you. We're quite civilised you know .. :-)

Any chance you could pop up on the NNP forum : http://www.fos4us.com/ Then we could have a much more relaxed discussion. Be pleased to see you there - look for GWS (that's me).

W4evw 08:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

In the interests of being factually correct, which I believe, as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should be. Can this page cease to involve baseless personal attacks on Party Officers? The NNP does include a few former members of the BNP, but what does that tell you about us? Surely, a precursory look through the Promises section of our website would allow you to conclude that we are not as extreme as the BNP. That being the case, can we be allowed to carry on with our work, without these ridiculous asertions as to who we are please?

Dave Cheetham Deputy Chairman New Nationalist Party.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for letting this page settle down as is :-)

It's not couched in quite as neutral a language as I would have liked, but as a compromise it's not bad.

If I add to the policies section, or you see anything you think is less than fair, please leave a note here and I will address the issue.

best wishes,

Graham W4evw 09:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clearly, your group intend to persist posting misleading information to suit your hostile agenda. I have applied for mediation to resolve this issue.

W4evw 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

There are so many changes being made to this page by persons whose affiliation is anonymous, that the information is at best incomplete, and at worst vindictive and misleading.

The Wiki sytem is so opaque and unhelpful that it is impossible to discuss the issues properly with anyone in an 'official' position.

It would probably be best to delete it entirely, rather than display malicious information.

If anyone from Wiki would like to contact me please leave a Wiki e-mail address that I can contact.

Graham (NNP)

W4evw 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I find the 'history' of this page incredible.

It was created by someone associated with the Amicus Trade Union (why am I not surprised by that), on 9th Dec 2006 - two days PRIOR to the new Party being registered. Now how did they manage that?

What was it about the creation of this new political party that created such a frenzy of editing, that to-date amounts to 160 or so edits.

For goodness sake, we only require to state a few facts like the registration date, the Name, the Officers, and the current policies. What's so hard about that?

It took only 14 more 'enhancements' to find the outrageous edit by an anonymous 'contributor' to change the name to the 'New Nigger Party'.

Most of the edits seem to have been aimed at trying to damage the new Party, almost before it got going.

It's a pity Trade Union members don't have more important things to do but post vindictive material against competing Parties. Not unexpected though in our current 'anti-democratic' Country.

Graham

W4evw 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the page and wish to reply to your comments about me. I created the NNP article for the simple reason that any registered political party in the United Kingdom is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. My primary source when creating the article was your own website, as you will notice if you look at the first entry in the history, which contains a link to nnp.org.uk. Your URL was at the time starting to be circulated on the USENET newsgroup alt.politics.british by a poster called "Chris X". If you and your colleagues jumped the gun in publicising your party before the Electoral Commission had completed the registration then it is hardly my fault.

The fact that you have ex-BNP people in your party, including your leader Sharon Ebanks, is in my view a relevant fact. In the same way the Nick Griffin article mentions his earlier involvement with the NF and International Third Position.

I am not ashamed, indeed I am proud, to be an opponent of the far right (in the guise of the BNP, NF, NNP, EFP, BPP, or other), but take the view that rather than resorting to the lazy rhetoric of "fascist" and "Nazi" as some do, it is better to let the facts speak for themselves. That is why I quoted the main points of your manifesto, whilst attempting to avoid venturing an opinion of my own, and included the link to your website. Rugxulo 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________________________

Hi,

OK .. that's fine :-) Thanks for creating the page - I just hope we can keep it clean and factual.

I'm glad you don't wish to resort to lazy rhetoric of the kind you mention. It is unfair and innaccurate. As is the 'far right' tag. NNP policies span a wide range of political ideas, many of which are more closely aligned to the old Labour Party.

You must of course support whichever political group you think will best serve the Country. Given the state of Education, Health, Personal debt, the Armed Forces, Pensions, Employment prospects, Morals, Immigration, Prisons, European absorption, social cohesion .. etc - you must surely see that the groups you denigrate and deny a platform to, have legitimate cause for concern.

You won't get any disrespectful insults from our group - indeed I hope you enjoy the coming elections.

If we can just agree to keep the NNP Wiki page 'fair' that will be great ..

all the best,

Graham W4evw 10:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

I have adjusted one of the policies that said "offering [non-white people] financial packages to return home" to read "offering them financial packages to emigrate". "Return home" violates Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. How can British-born non-white people "return home" when the UK is their home. The term "emigrate" is factually correct and NPOV. Ground Zero | t 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct

There is increasingly less evidence that The NNP still exists. All the website links are dead and on the the wiki page for Sharon Ebanks it is referred to as closed down. It is difficult to add this to the article without some information of a paerticular event unless it has jusy faded away.--Streona (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Nationalist Party (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]