Talk:Nick Griffin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Aims

The GAR has raised an important issue - the lack of an 'Aims' section for this article. I'm busy at work for a few days, but if anyone has any links or sources to Griffin's speeches, or commentary on his political ambitions that they could list here (or start adding to the article), that would be great. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

heres a video of one of his speeches where he mentions some of his aims. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not think that we could use YouTube due to potential copyright issues.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it couldnt be used as a source for the article, although the BBC wouldnt mind. There may be good be information on the BBC website about that program which states his political aims in the video. Ill take a look later. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm was the video i linked to remove? or did i never link it BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to his speech upon his election as an MEP, since its on the BNP Youtube channel (presumably theirs) and is clearly not from a professional cameraman as would be employed by ITN or such. Parrot of Doom 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the one about his on kicking out Muslims and replacing them with Ghurkas.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Forthcoming elections

The article states Griffin has run in the 2001 and 2005 general elections, in a couple of northern constituencies. Do we know if he plans to run as a candidate in the forthcoming (2010, presumably) general election, and if so where? Probably worth mentioning either way, if just as a note... Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We have this [[1]]. But I'm not sure how reliable it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

category addition

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add...

Category:Critics of the European Union

(definitely a relevant category in this case) --Heybaby9 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done at 21:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC) by  Btilm 

Page visits

Climbing steadily. I wonder how many we'll see before the week is out? Parrot of Doom 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

175,000 over a two-day period. That's about 10 times what I thought it would be. Parrot of Doom 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please add: Policies and Views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.232.238 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you want a policies and views section, such as this [[2]], we already got one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced repatriation

Can a "senior" editor please amend the stated policy on repatriation. It is no longer forced repatriation but is voluntarily resettlement. Are any "senior" editors actually bothering to EDIT this article? *shakes fist* 82.37.241.251 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need a ""senior" editor" to do it? As far as I can see it isn't a protected article, so Be bold, and make sure your edits are neutral, and well sourced. Wikipedia doesn't have levels of seniority, it's the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. --Saalstin (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Heh, whatdya know. I couldn't see a padlock or hatnote anywhere. Anyways, just create an account and wait a few days and ten edits, and you can edit it, without need for "senior editors" ...--Saalstin (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I undterstand that BNP policy is to depotrt illegal immigrants or those convicted of cr5iminal offneces but to "encorurage" everyone else. The nature of this "encouagement" is vague abnd I suggest deeply sinister.--Streona (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? That isn't what the BNP's website says - "we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants" By the way this article is indefinitely protected. Parrot of Doom 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You must surely know that the BNP does not put everything on its website. In this respect, it is no different from any other organisation. The "encouragement" angle is BNP policy.Emeraude (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Some fiddling has gone on here, because my comment above is not a reply to the one which precedes it. See this diff Parrot of Doom 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Feudalism

I was going to edit the page, to create a link out of the word "Feudalism", since I wasn't sure of the meaning of the word, and this is an encyclopaedia. Since I couldn't, Is there someone here who can? --194.144.19.47 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Steve Smith (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The British National Front was and is 'far-right', yes? Let's not whitewash in this article.

In putting the term 'far right' before 'National Front', and removing the uncited last line that appears to promote Griffin ("Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy.") I have been reverted and accused of 'vandalism' by a regular editor here, User:Parrot of Doom. I would like to say that nobody WP:OWNS Wikipedia articles, and it is against Wikipedia policy to use the term 'vandalism' for an essentially 'POV' issue (POV means someone expressing a point of view) - especially one that is effectively factual - namely the NF being 'far-right'. Wikipedia describes the NF as "a far right and whites-only party" in its main article - and this fact was as true when Griffin was a member of it as it is now. I also gave the clear reasons for removing the promotionally-phrased last line - so I'm not a vandal.

Having maintained that the National Front is indeed 'far right', can anyone really claim that adding this fact to this article is unhelpful or irrelevant? The current introducton gives very little real flavour of Nick Griffin (and his obvious 'notoriety' is left out completely), which compared to other Wikipedia articles on politicians is pretty scandalous in my eyes. Why be so accommodating to Griffin of all people? It looks like whitewashing is going on to me.

We need to do some work here people, and pull together some references: there are plenty in Nick Griffins case! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And a wealth of quotes from tonights show that should be added. No problem with far right being added as description for the NF. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The last line is pretty awkward, but there's a reason for it being there - the article has a big section on Griffin's appearances (or would-be appearances) at things, and the lede ought to summarise what's in the article. However, I think we could perhaps tie the two issues here together:

Since becoming leader of the BNP, Griffin has become the most publicly visible far-right politician in the United Kingdom, and as such has often been invited to public debates (...something about the debates). These invitations have been highly controversial, with many commentators advocating a no platform policy, and have caused extensive discussion of issues of free speech in the political process. (...and something about the protests?).

This takes a pretty clunky line that feels like it's been tacked on, gives it some connection to the rest of the text, and allows us to mention the protests (which are themselves interesting). It also positions him in the broader political spectrum; as it currently stands, we don't clearly define his political views anywhere in the lead, but let the reader infer them from mention of court cases and the names of parties. This is fine for people who've heard of him even in passing, the context is there, but for someone from outside the UK who's no background on the man or the BNP/NF, it's perhaps not desperately helpful. Shimgray | talk | 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says that Griffin is the most publicly visible far-right politician? And why use words like highly and many? Verifiability, not truth, is the order of the day. As for prefixing everything with 'far right', check out the entries on other politicians - few of them make a point of using the political compass. I see no real reason why this article should be any different, if those are setting the standard. Parrot of Doom 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is about a far right extremist, its clearly more important to highlight just how radical the guy is than to highlight the political views of someone from the mainstream parties. Aslong as its sourced, i dont see a problem. Whilst the article must be neutral, obviously anyone reading it must understand just how disgraceful the guy is. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't our job to make people 'understand just how disgraceful the guy is'. That's the job of the reader. Our job is to provide a totally neutral and factually correct encyclopaedic entry. I don't care what people think of the guy, as long as people think the article provided them with a good summary of his life, and political views. Parrot of Doom 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a cite for his relative prominence to hand, but I would be astonished if we couldn't find one easily! I'm just throwing out suggestions here. That sentence is pretty bad, and we really could do with something to replace it; at the moment, the bits about his political opinions are a bit vague, and then suddenly we have these staccato sentences of "He thinks X. Also he has done a lot of Y." Getting a bit more context integrated into the lead would be quite desirable as well; if you don't know who the parties are, it's not clear until the end of the lead we're not referring to a somewhat wayward past of a centrist politician!

Most of our articles on politicians aren't actually very good. However, skimming a few prominent ones, Brown gives a quick summary of his economic policies; Blair discusses the general centrist shift; Thatcher has a big policy section. These don't use the spectrum (except Blair) but they do give solid context on their political stances; I'm just not sure the current lead is clear enough for our putative innocent reader. Shimgray | talk | 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that overnight I had feared the article would descend into chaos, but looking at the version of the page now, I think its better than before. The important thing is that we don't attempt to make "too much" of anything, and that certainly includes prefixing everything with 'right-wing'. The reader is usually intelligent enough to deduce for themselves exactly what kind of man he is. Parrot of Doom 08:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we don't want to bang the drum loudly and fall into the (very easy) trap of emphasising his unattractive political stance too much, but I do think it's possible for us to go too far - to hold ourselves back more than we need to through fear of overemphasis. Banging "far-right" (or worse) in at every opportunity is a bad idea, yes; but is avoiding it entirely always the best approach? Shimgray | talk | 11:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't think its appropriate to mention 'far right' in relation to the BNP, in the lead of this article. Certainly not while Blair, Cameron et al make no mention of their party's political leanings. Its a difficult question to resolve though. Some might say, that were we to add 'far right' to Griffin and his allegiances, we should also then add 'centre left', 'left wing', etc, with regard to his critics. All I'm interested in is a balanced article. I'm not daft enough to believe that the article will ever be acceptable by everyone, people will always complain and see bias where none exists, but if we can find some middle ground that doesn't stray from the facts, I'll be happy with that. The stats are broken right now but I imagine this page got well into 5 figures of views yesterday. Hopefully the majority of those readers will have been content that they weren't being pushed one way or the other. Parrot of Doom 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at reworking the end section to flow a bit better - here. I'm not particularly pleased with the line about the trials; it seems to sit awkwardly wherever I try putting it, but I've tried moving it to the front of the third para to see how that works. The only problem is that "was convicted of distributing"... "been criticised" is a bit of a weird leap; he's been tried for it in the previous sentence, so criticism seems obvious! Perhaps if we switched these two sentences back around... hmm. Thoughts?

The other thing that would be sensible in the lead is a comment on how he's changed the BNP over the past ten years; I can't think of a clear way to phrase it, though. Shimgray | talk | 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In political career -2009

It is stated he is "attacked" for his views on the BBC interview of recent. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but attacked is a rather pejorative word, so maybe "confronted" or "criticized" is better?

145.94.72.243 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, i was thinking perhaps "challenged" would be better? cant think of anything else really BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

On the current wording of tonights Question time, could we change "attacked" to something else, people may think he was physically attacked by members of the audience if we just say that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both words are applicable IMO. The source says he was attacked, watching the programme he was clearly attacked by some members of the audience (ie South Pole), and challenged by others. I've no preference though. Parrot of Doom 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias in the Introduction

The introduction's last line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." is unweighted and does not at all represent the controversy, outcries, and actual uncommonness of the particular 'invites'.

Also, where is the mention of Griffin's unquestionable notoriety? Are we trying to inform people about him in an encyclopedic sense (ie give a broad and unbiased picture of him that would actually be useful to someone), or make a safe unoffensive BNP-friendly article?

Please don't leave this to other people! I have already made a few unsucessful edits today - it only takes one committed person to revert you on Wikipedia, to make change impossible for any single editor to achieve. There is a 3RR revert rule, and admins are always ready to block users and lock articles when perceived 'edit wars' happen. Wikipedia needs people to jump in and have a go.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Make changes that improve the article. Don't delete fully-sourced text, and don't introduce clear bias. Pay attention to the talk page, the GAN, the GAR, and the PR. Maybe then your edits won't get reverted. Parrot of Doom 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in question is not sourced, I am amending it per policy. If you can find a reliable source then reinstate it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to cite anything in a lead, provided that what it summarises is adequately sourced in the article body. Parrot of Doom 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, although on controversial articles, some editors believe it can be helpful to add some citations to the lead to help maintain stability. (Personally, I prefer leads without citations, or with as few as possible.) Note also that "not cited" does not mean the same thing as "not sourced". Geometry guy 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And, I simply amended the phrase to something that could be supported, the original was problematic. --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But in what sense can that comment possibly be “correct”? "Provided that what is sourced is already in the article"! I can't let that pass, as it is just so damaging - so I'm going to say a few things. You cannot just ‘summarise’ any old group of citations (sometime creating a new thing altogether in doing so - which is excempt from needing proof) – you are absolutely obliged to consider WP:weight, along with other of the many guidelines like WP:red flag in Verifiability, and Notability too. Weight alone will more often than not dictate the new text, as it has done now.

These retentive methods of ‘Style reviewing’ are a plague across the full scope of Wikipedia, and this article highlights the foolishness (too long maintained) of methodically tick-boxing inherently illogical style-correctness, whilst routinely (ie as a kind of 'policy') ignoring content( which is ironically seen as the job of the editors, who actually get sidelined in the process). In teh past I've seen so many foolish paragraphs pass though ‘style’, even in Featured Articles (another content-shy process believe it or not). There really is nothing clever about being so clinical when it leads to plain misrepresentation, especially with a subject like this. Many non-British would will be mislead by the text on a basic ‘reader’ level here anyway, which just adds more irony to the process of course . As a rule, it is good to consider what you are doing in life in anyway, regardless of your job.

What happened in Nick Griffin is that simple event-verifying citations from within the article (the few cases of Griffin being invited to speak at mainstream establishments) were converted into a kind of super-flexible ‘source’ material’, which (in that new state) were easily moulded into the stand-alone line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." I strongly suspect that no one got a shoe-in to actually add any weight, due to the rigid system involved - where new content is demoted in value, and even at times discouraged. I’ve seen it happen too often, it’s just plain dumb. What’s worse, a general ethos of ‘protecting the result’ comes from the process, which ended here in me being accused of ‘vandalism’ for attempting change, which I really object to. It really is dumb.

Imagine someone collecting a handful of citations of various people expressing an opinion (shall we say of black people being inferior to whites?) and places them in a relevant section in an article (say a "Controversy" section in a new and developing article called "Racism") . According to Wikipedia’s Style Council, this line inserted at the end of the intro would theoretically be fine: "Many people believe that black people are inferior to whites”. As there was nothing in the developing article about the many issues surrounding IQ test and the reading of them both past and present, no balance is made, and the Intro passes with flying colours. The new authorised version is then considered as ‘passing consensus’ – a broadly finished thing that is duly protected from change.

The Intro equation I’ve seen many times is: X (citations of comments existing somewhere i n the article) = Z (a new flexible ‘source’ material when grouped) = Y (a new and uncited statement of fact, based on the new entity of the ‘source’). THE INNER WORKINGS OF ‘SUMMARY’ ARE SIMPLY NOT APPARENT TO THE TYPICAL WIKIPEDIA READER, who is always at the very bottom of the Wikipedia heap, just below the general editor.

(THE HEAP:

The brass

Empowered admin, style controllers etc

General admin

Maintenance editors

Single Purpose accounts

Article-defending editors

New-content editors

General content editors – the lifeblood of Wikipedia.

The ‘general reader’ – central to policy, but so rarely considered.

(placing the Subject and Trolls would be dependent on the perceived importance of the subject))

Articles like Nick Griffin can be difficult and need creative work on the edit level - but that is the point. So much time on Wikipedia is wasted on stylising incomplete articles and weak unbalanced text. It is no way to bypass edit conflict - that ‘’’has’’’ to be done the hard way, such as in finding ways to express weight. Risking edit battles is far superior to squeezing down to make-shift style-approved articles that are subsequently protected from change. Here that process made the introduction bland, weak and misleading, and the added factor of the subject's inherent extremity ensured the article became seriously misleading – to the point that the article became Nick Griffin-friendly, and hence ultimately biased. What a result.

As a consequence of the ‘protect at all costs the passed version’ ethos, one single editor managed to keep the word “far right” out the article on the day Nick Griffin had 8 million adult viewers in a country of only 60 million people. The papers are now talking about the biggest ever surge in their membership. Wikipedia seriously failed the world yesterday. But it so often does fail with Biographies of Living Persons (although WP:BLP does have some good advice), as the execution of the whole style-admin-3RR process just doesn’t fit the bill. The very language of Policy is also at fault by beginning with “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”, and then repeats itself. Sadly it is as far as many people read, and it’s far too ‘Star Trek’ and almost religious in the commanding but ambiguous language used. However, it can only mean that the Wikipedia process 'begins with checking for verifiability, and then we work onwards from there. Style gurus really should take note. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gurkhas

As pointed out elsewhere in this talk page he was quoted when asked about the Gurkhas as saying that "britain is full, no more immigration", yet the article still has him being in support of Gurkhas having a right to settle in the UK. This is demonstrably incorrect and from Griffins own words. Please correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you watch this Parrot of Doom 08:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try harder, he appeared on British news saying that Britain was full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC) In fact, the refence is above in a another section and was covered by the print media too - I reproduce the details here - "Asked whether the Gurkhas should be allowed to stay in Britain, he replied: 'Our policy position is the country is full. No more immigrants.'" Daily Mirror, May 2009. This predates your BNP press conference broadcast on a youtube account - BNPTV on 11 June 2009.... weeks later. Running with BNPTV is allowing the BNP to write content relating to the gurkhas and to retcon their party history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.207.33 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC Question Time

At the moment the article reports Griffin's complaints after the event but does not cover the universal condemnation of him after the event by all newspapers in the UK, from the right as well as the liberal left, and from the popular to the serious. I'd suggest that we included headings from the Express and similar in a couple of sentences for balance. Thoughts? --Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably just a sentence - "His appearance was generally criticised by the press" or similar. An article exists which discusses this criticism in detail, and which can also relate it to criticism of the programme. This is an ongoing drama, my view is generally to hold back and let things settle slightly, before making edits. Otherwise you're just creating extra work for yourself. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The media response is overwhelmingly hostile, but many "bloggers" & letter writers don't see it "fairplay". Diane Abbot on This week just after Question Time made precisely this point when she said something about "not going down well with the British sense of fairplay". Also I think "a sentence" is very underplaying the significance. I think I read 4million more people watched question time than usual. Obviously it remains to see what political significance this event had, but personally, I really hadn't had an opportunity to know what his political views were, and to be honest after the event I think all I know is what David Dimbleby would like me to think what his views are ... so as a result of this failure to let me make up my own mind I'm now rather keen to see him again, which if that is felt by a substantial number of other people as the comment pages suggest, means we are going to see an awful lot more of that toupee! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments below added before reading above I have to admit I came here to see how heated the controversy was on the BBC question time. I was quite pleased to see the article seemed overall to be balanced (although I'm no expert) so WELL DONE!

I'll start by saying I think overall UK population needs to be controlled, so I have some sympathy with the BNP argument about immigration. I was also horrified by the program for the relentless attack against one individual by both panelists and the chair. I've read a few of the papers today and almost every single one is the "slimy slug that got a thrashing", whereas I've seen a lot of comments under these articles saying this program did not live up to the normal sense of fair play of us Brits. The other aspect, is the huge publicity this event has had.

Assumming you do add a section, clearly he made some tremendous gaffs particularly the KKK, and many have picked up on the holocaust denial and the other one I remember is the comment about homosexuals being creepy? was it. Hope this helps! 88.110.76.120 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, leave a few days for this section befor adding the responses from the press. Suggest including the Queen's contribution too. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Article picture.

I think the pic should be changed to something less contraversial. Using a pic with all that VE day stuff is wrong given the huge outcry. Suggest a pic of him alone. I found this pic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Nick_Griffin.jpg and I think this is much more suitable. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So what if the picture is controversial? Its a BNP press conference, organised by the BNP, with BNP backing boards, and the most recent image we have. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am new at this so I dont know what is policy but it seems to me that to use a less provocative picture would be better, one that only shows him. The picture used should be a bland picture of him with a bland context, surely? This picture is open to claims from both sides of POV. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a picture of Griffin in Nazi dress, or at a veteran's day parade. Its a picture of him at a press conference following his election as an MEP. This is the image he chose to present to the world's press. I don't see the problem. Besides which, the other picture is pretty horrid. Parrot of Doom 10:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I go along with you, I was cautious cos I have read all this talk page and i can see things can get heated over silly things, clearly this is below radar. Incidentally my fav pic on wp was one of him with Myra Hindleys hair pasted on that appeared a few months back very briefly - funny but clearly ' not on'. Vertovian (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to think that there was some sort of 'conspiracy' to only have unflattering photo's of him, but even bnp ones look bad. 86.135.83.181 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the background may have been derived from Wikipedia [3] Bevo74 (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a more portrait type picture a while ago to Commons, had a proper license and everything. Appears to have been deleted...might of been targeted and wrongfully deleted... Lt.Specht (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was incorrectly licenced. Parrot of Doom 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If no other pictures are available currently, it might be an idea to simply crop the present picture though. -GabaG (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

2:2

"He graduated with a second-class honours degree in law (2:2)"

This should say "lower second-class honours" as that is what 2:2 is short for.

The page is locked, so can the site staff edit it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by More data added (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Second Class Honours, Lower Division, is this correct? Parrot of Doom 21:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by More data added (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we refer to him as a fascist bigot?

I added a simple, well-sourced few words:

"and a facist bigot"

However, User:Parrot of Doom reverted it, calling it "biased garbage" and then went to add a level 3 warning template to my user page. Ignoring the incivility of such an act for a first edit by an experienced editor, how should we be identifying Griffin. We identify BNP as a facist party, so presumably there are no issues identifying Griffin as a facist. And there can be no question the guy is a bigot, given his own words, and the number of sources that identify him as a bigot, isn't that something that should be identified on this page? Aren't we ignoring the elephant in the room if we don't? Nfitz (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Plainly not. If you think it's notable that elements of the media have assessed him as a bigot, you can try inserting that statement (that some elements of the media have so-assessed him, not that he unambiguously is one) in the appropriate section. Frankly, you're stretching my ability to AGF, here. Steve Smith (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I would hardly call those sources unbiased, and therefore not reliable. In any case "fascist bigot" is hardly encyclopedic language. Rodhullandemu 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You struggle to assume good faith? Why? Give your reasons. The edit was clearly in good faith, even if it was badly formed - and he can always "try" again (your language). It seems to me that some people here are making out that there is some kind of group of 'modern Communists' lying in wait to destroy this article with their terrible anti-Griffin bias! The people most likely to add terms like "bogoted" are simply the middle ground! Please - WHO IS EXPECTED TO 'VANDALISE' THE ARTICLE TO THIS FEARFUL DEGREE SO WORRIED ABOUT?? The far right don't have a leg to stand on as Griffin simply is what he is (they can't hide), and the clever ones would be too 'over the moon' with the article as it stood during the Question Time broadcast to actually want to change it. It's all just a question of getting the language right for the essential content. Deleting or avoiding the 'problematic' issues is just moronic. Absolutely castigating attempts at putting it in? Claiming to struggle with 'AGF'? Beneath contempt. Really - beneath contempt. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my problems with assuming good faith in light of this absurd edit below. My position on this has nothing to do with a desire to defend Griffin, who I find repulsive; it's to defend Wikipedia's core content policies. Steve Smith (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, you don't get to make personal attacks, and then close the discussion!! The edit was not absurd, it's an attempt to make the article NPOV. Ignoring that he is a bigot, and has been identifed as one adds POV to the article; and while some may want to have the article as POV, I certainly don't! Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't your first edit though, was it? You've been warned about adding material such as this before, and apparently you've either forgotten you made such edits, or you're hoping that everyone else has forgotten. I haven't. Parrot of Doom 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, PoD has reminded me that I made a very similiar edit a long time ago! Which isn't suprising, as when one reads the article, it jumps out at one just how POV it is not to include such a statement. (though I confess it is suprising that I have little recollection of the edit, or the subsequent discussion ... but I don't deny it ... and I note that the "warning" was from PoD and was as unnecessary then as it is now. Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Why not unambiguosly refer to him as a bigot? I can't see that there is any doubt given what's already quoted in the article, and numerous references. It appears to be his defining feature. What has AGF got to do with it? Nfitz (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even calling him a fascist *could* be considered POV. Whilst a significant number of sources could be found which suggest the BNP are a fascist party, there would also be sources which would say they were a nationalist/ far right party, andthe BNP themselves would dispute the view that they were fascist, and thus Griffin is a fascist. Whilst I may agree with your assessment, I don't think that it is encyclopedic and holds true to NPOV. Steve-Ho (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• How could calling him a fascist be POV? Our own article on the British National Party clearly labels them as facist ... wouldn't that also be POV? I'd have thought fascist would be the easy one here, and that bigot would require a debate. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the article doesn't label them as fascist. Take care to read the article before you make such comments. Parrot of Doom 16:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • correct - I was just about to say that - the article is balanced - "It has been claimed that the BNP has, since its foundation, been fascist. For example, the Daily Mirror has described the party's MEPs as "vile prophets who preach a Nazi-style doctrine of racial hatred" ... and "Peter Hain describes the BNP as "a racist organisation with known fascist roots and values" and wrote about its "racist and fascist agenda"" but it is balanced with "The BNP denies that it is fascist, calling the accusations “utter nonsense” and there is then an analysis "However, some political scientists support the fascist description and say that the BNP has attempted to hide its true nature and to present a more moderate image in order to attract popular support" and then "n contrast, in an interview in the Guardian, historian Richard Overy said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." and historian David Stevenson said that "The BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s." Steve-Ho (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the intitial problem here is a WIkiepdia-old ownership issue - the very language Parrot of Doom uses gives this away. Although I agreed with his revert in this case (there are better ways present the fact of Griffin's well known bigotry than just to define him a 'bigot'), when I read his "biased garbage" edit note I was appalled at both the rudeness and politics, and planned to warn him myself tonight. As with myself, Nfitz is an experienced editor (from 2005 in his case, 2006 in mine). Also, I am VERY worried about Parrot's real stance on far right issues, despite what he says about Griffin on his user page. It’s an unfortunate truth that many people who so foolishly support the BNP just want certain policies and issues to made more public, and are not at all Griffin fans. I hope people can digest that comment. The BNP are also very, very clever, and without question far right – so I think we are all entitled to be wary of them from a Human Rights stance, whatever some people might insist about dotting each ‘i’ of the WP:AGF policy. Parrot has reacted to edits in this manner before, and if he (or anyone else) does it again I won't hesitate to make an official complaint, both on the rudeness and bias in the content.

No matter what friends you make on Wikpedia, people like Slim Virgin (and others complementary of the trimming of likely problems from the Griffin article in time for Question Time) won't be stupid enough to defend totally uncalled-for civility indiscretions to time-served editors who are CLEARLY acting in good faith. Especially given the dangerous politics involved from one side only here, and considering what should be expected to happen from the middle ground with this article being so plainly lily-livered - about a terrifying political disease that so nearly destroyed Europe. They won't be so keen to line up, and will answer to people like me if they are too hasty. And Jews perhaps, Muslims, blacks - people like that? I'm still reeling from the 'mainstream' introduction I saw here last Thursday. I insist the BNP could not have come up with a better article themselves, as any showing less of their true values would hardly pass. The article had 100,000 hits (obviously - how can we be surprised about that?) and single-handedly proved right the nationally-made argument on why Griffin should not have been invited to the TV show: the irresponsible media (mainly Wikipedia, alas) will be able to casually present Griffin as a standard mainstream politician. And all in the name of supposed damage-limitation to Wikipedia's own credibility.

Parrot please - take a step back from the 'tired owner' stance, or you yourself will cause the kind of editing problems you claim you've been striving to avoid.

One day on this encyclopeda the reader will come first. Any argument that says prospective far right voters (if I'm actually allowed to use that term 'far right'?) can cleverly ‘read between lines’ - or even bother to read to the end of articles - is simply fully naive. Besides, the introduction is king with the reader, as it summerises what is below it. The majority of BNP supporters are THE most vulnerable people in Britain – and often the least educated. Wikipedia consistently ignores both the reader and the subject in its self-providing calculations, and with this deliberately damage-limited article (to put it most politely), it has manifestly helped to ‘rubber stamp’ fascism in the UK. A lot of people (esp non-Europeans) won’t know what that means, but many of us would agree that Wikipedia can scarcely have had a lower day. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Parrot of Doom's politics are; I take him at his word when he says that he's got no love for Griffin's views (I certainly haven't any, as anybody who feels like conducting a Google-assisted background check on me will discover). But that Nfitz is an experienced editor makes it all the harder to AGF of him when he inserts language that his so palpably and flagrantly in violation of our core content policies. Proposing to outright call an article subject a "fascist bigot" and failing to see anything wrong with it when other editors point it out sort of make me wonder how he's managed to spend so much time here without any grasp of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Anyway, I'd suggest closing this thread soon, as there's obvious consensus that Nfitz's addition was inappropriate and Parrot's reversion thereof appropriate. Steve Smith (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that inserting "bigotted" in this manner was never going to work with this article, but you must know yourself that core content allows Hitler to be called bigotted, and shuns 'weasel words' for universal truths. This attempt was against good 'style' for sure (and perhaps good sense too), but was not strictly against policy. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am disgusted by Matt Lewis' insinuations about PoD's politics. It is none of his damn business, and PoD is attempting maintain an unbiased and comprehensive article on a controversial figure. That in no way associates him with far right politics and it is petty, intellectually lazy, and a personal attack to suggest as much. Because of people like Matt Lewis PoD has felt it necessary to deliberately distance himself from such a repugnant person as Griffin by posting a note on his user page. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 

"People like Matt" seem to only start by making good faith edits, then getting fully abused for trying it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was fully aware that the edit was unlikely to stand the way it was; however it was an attempt to start what should be there. Simply removing the text, rather than fixing it is not the appropriate action. And this discussion should be about what text SHOULD be there, rather than feeling I've just stepped into some kind of private debate. The complete lack of mention of bigotry or facism in the article is shocking. The article is clearly biased by the lack of mention of it, and something should be in the summary ... as that's all many will ever read. Hmm, I was going to note a comparison to other articles on fascist leaders ... but I'm very surprised to see that even Adolph Hitler's article doesn't note that he was a fascist ... wow, that seems wrong to me. Hmm ... someone with more time than I have should probably go through some of these articles and see if there is a pattern of censorship going on ... Nfitz (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think thought experiments like that are particularly useful here. If you knew, or thought, that your edit was likely to be contentious, it would have been more prudent to propose it here first rather than to foment an edit-war. I regard that as not only tendentious, but also disruptive. Raising the stakes is rarely helpful on Wikipedia, particularly in such a contentious article, and more so to make a point. As to the merits of this debate, I really couldn't care less. I would be happy if people came here without any baggage and merely attempted to write an encyclopedic article about the topic at hand. No wonder I am so often disappointed. Rodhullandemu 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have now brought it here, so let's discuss it. I haven't tried to change the main article again. What's funny is that you ask me to bring it here; and I have done so, but no one actually wants to discuss it. All they want to do is flame each other, and shut down the discussion! So let's stop stifling discussion and discuss how we discuss his well-referenced bigotry. Nfitz (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All I see above IS discussion, mostly based on policy around reliable sources; bottom line is that if those sources, accepted here, describe him as such, then we can use those sources, but not so as to give undue weight to them. But I do also see you pissing against the wind of consensus, to no great effect, as it would seem that consensus is not on your side, bearing in mind your obligation to substantiate your argument. If you're not happy here, take it to dispute resolution or concede gracefully, please. There's been ample discussion here already. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, do we have to use such foul language as "pissing"? There's been any discussion here at all ... I made the comment, I came back and found the discussion closed. I re-opened, and nothing more was said and it was closed again. I don't think I've ever seen such haste in stopping a discussion ... and that mystifies me! Let's give it a few weeks. In the meantime, is the issue the sources? If the quality of the sources were different (someone mentioned they didn't like them because they were a Tabloid ... but I don't see how the size of paper that they print on is important ... the Times is a tabloid now. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of fascism:

{{quote|

It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

— George Orwell, "What is Fascism?", Tribune, 1944.

The more things change... Sceptre ^(talk) 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nfitz, if you want to leave this topic open for another week, fine, but I don't think you appreciate just how self-evidently out of line with Wikipedia's content policies you are here; extending this discussion will prove a waste of time for anybody who chooses to participate. Steve Smith (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is it out of line. I made one edit on this in months; people didn't like it; so I came here to discuss how it should be phrased to stay in line with Wikipedia policies. This is what happens on other pages ... are there special rules here? Besides, why is there nothing here but meta-conversations ... I want to discuss how it should be phrased ... Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is severely skewed and as such will only push more people to vote BNP, just as the stage management of QT did. Why can't we understand that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.140.4 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why were these categories removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=322483715&oldid=322399765

He's clearly part of the far right in the UK, and he is definitely an outspoken critic of the European Union. Why the removal?--KmpsJg (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's because both Category:British National Front politicians and Category:British National Party politicians (which the article is in) are in Category:Critics of the European Union and Category:British far right politicians, and we don't generally include the same article in both a category and one of its subcategories (otherwise, Category:People would get awfully large). Steve Smith (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Stance?

According to an article in The Telegraph (Nov. 29th, 2009):

'In a speech in the European parliament last week, Griffin said “man made global warming is an unproven theory” and an “elite scam” put forward by “anti-intellectual cranks”. He said those who warned of the effects of climate change had reached "an Orwellian consensus" that was "based not on scientific agreement, but on bullying, censorship and fraudulent statistics.'

This seems strange to me as I thought Nick Griffin and the BNP were strong on environmental issues, including that of global warming. Can anyone comment on this - what is their environmental policy and stance on this particular issue? Ivankinsman (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin believes that anthropogenic climate change is a myth. As the article already mentions. Parrot of Doom 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

"He also claimed that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war" - with regard to the 'attempt', what is 'this' exactly? I tried listening to the interview but got bored about half way in. Parrot of Doom 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shame on you. Its refering to the setting up of the EDL and the associated street violence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cop a Haggan

In the section about the copenhaggan climate non event I think it should use past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It can do when the Conference is over. Emeraude (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reads too much like a news ticker tape, updated as each story changes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That always happens with any Wikipedia article that is linked to current events. Best leave it to the weekend and then sort out tenses, trim down, whatever. Things don't have to be perfect from the off. Emeraude (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

David Duke

What exactly happened during this trip? Was he sharing a platform with Duke, and supporting the KKK? Or was he arguing against them? I've been trying to find a reliable source but so far haven't been successful. Parrot of Doom 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If he was sharing a platform wih him (Like he said), he would be with him fully. even though he says he was debating with Duke, these were probably merely personal disagreements. Plus, would a member of any other non-racial-based party (Tory, Lib-dem, Labour .etc) be going to America to argue with him? To summarise this, he is a KKK sympathiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.224.133 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont have sources about what happened, only the video [4]. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a fundraising visit, I will seek a reliable source, all I can find is secondary sources after a quick google. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

Does anyone have a source for the religion of Nick Griffin? I know he has made statements suggesting he at least supports or defends Christianity, but he could of course be an Atheist/Agnostic. -TheG (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg

As this image has now been added back to the article several times, could someone please explain to me why this needs to be here? Why is his appearance at Cambridge so important that it warrants a non-free image? Yes, the fact he went to Cambridge is important, and this should certainly be discussed in the article, but precisely what is this image adding? J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Non free image in a BLP that adds nothing of additional value should not be in the article at all. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice way to begin an argument. You should have, instead, began "As I've tried unsuccessfully to remove this image on several occasions without first discussing the matter", as that would have been closer to the truth.

The image stands as a visual reminder to those reading this article that Griffin is a Cambridge-educated man. Such people are not normally known for their links to nationalist political views, and in Griffin's case, as the head of the UK's most well-known (and perhaps notorious) nationalist party, its important to identify this. He became politically active while at Cambridge. He used his educational background to help win leadership of the BNP. Despite talking mostly bollocks, he is an educated and erudite man, something which cannot often be said of those with whom he associates. He has been asked on several occasions to return there, to speak. Even the BBC thought the image worth using (they lifted it from here) on a national news report at the time of the BBC QT saga. There are very few images to choose from, of Griffin before he became leader of the BNP. Chief among those candidates would be the image of him on a National Front march, which might certainly be warranted, however that would only lead to claims of bias, signs of which the editors here have worked studiously to avoid. Parrot of Doom 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The grainy, low-res image shows a young man holding up a card with a number. It does not provide any context to help the reader understand Griffin's stay at Cambridge, silly haircut notwithstanding. "The image stands as a visual reminder to those reading this article that Griffin is a Cambridge-educated man." In other words, it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", but is simply decorative. I doubt it would be worth including even if it were free.  Skomorokh  14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by Skomorokh, the image is of questionable utility and serves only a decorative function. The elements you are describing can and are adequately described with words. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Off2riorob, Skomorokh and David Fuchs. Yes, his time at Cambridge is almost certainly important, but I really fail to see why we need a picture of it. Talk about it, by all means, but it doesn't need a non-free image to "prove" that he was there, or remind us that he was there, or anything similar. Would anyone have an objection to the image being removed again? J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would. This isn't a life or death situation, allow the discussion time to develop. Parrot of Doom 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, go on then, get developing... It's only currently you who feels this image should be used, and your arguments appear to be completely unrelated to our non-free content criteria. The burden of proof actually lies with those wishing to include content to demonstrate that the image meets our criteria (as the linked page explains), and you're not doing a great job. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As below so above. I do not see that this adds anything to the article, but nor do I see (unlike some very slight reservations below) that this detracts from it either. I would pull up on one thing, what exactly in the picture establishes its Cambridge it could be any matriculation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the difference is that this image is non-free. Non-free images should certainly not be used if they do not add anything to the article, and should be used far more carefully than free images. Take a look at our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can see validity in both points of view. I agree that it is close-to-the-bone of the fair use policy (which may dictate ultimately), but I wouldn't agree that the image is purely decorative; it does have value and is indicative (if not entirely clear) of Griffin's university scholarship. Rather than an outright removal, is there the possibility of finding a stronger (by which I mean addressess the concerns of the above users) replacement image first? Even if we set a time limit (2 weeks hunt?). --Jza84 |  Talk  18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you suggesting here, a stronger free image, or a stronger non-free image? And this is hardly close to the bone- the image really isn't adding anything. The article would be perfectly understandable and would be lacking nothing if it was removed. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

--Of course, we (should) all know that a free image trumps a non-free image, so yes that would be the best outcome from this discussion. Isn't there a website/source we could contact for free publication? Has anybody considered asking the BNP/man himself to provide something from Griffin's student days (they may - dare I say - believe that kind of exposure is appealing?). I agree with you J Milburn that the article is understandable without the image, but like I say, it is an image that has value and brings value to our readers. I thought that the timebound hunt would be a suitable compromise: no alternative found within 2 weeks = remove the image? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn I wasn't aware that there was a time limit on a discussion. I've made my point, people can agree or disagree, frankly I couldn't give two shits, but I'm not about to be bullied into submission by the likes of you. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this realy this inprotant. Its one Photo that shows some kid holding up a number (at the time I assume he was not a free man).Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't really that important, and it wouldn't be the end of the world if it were removed. I happen to think that its use is justified, others disagree. What pisses me off is the willingness displayed by users such as J Milburn to override everybody else and impose their own views. It stinks, and I'll not stand idly by while it happens. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Jza84 option is the best (we can decide what constitutes a better picture (me I want one of him dressed as Biffo the bear) when a picture is produced).Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If we believe a free image could be found, then this image should be removed anyway, as per NFCC#1. It seems fairly clear that the image doesn't meet NFCC#8, and those who do feel it is adding something useful to the article seem to generally feel it may not meet NFCC#1. I'm not really seeing any reason to keep it in the article. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think (I hope I do not step on any ones toes) that what is being susgested is a cooling of period and a chance to see if better pictures are availible (which may not be the case). You will notice that Jza84 putes a question mark after delete, he is asking a queston, nit making a statment (if I interperate him correctly). He is offering a temproary compromise that we effectly hold this for two weeks anf then come back with clearer heads and maybe better pictures.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, it's just a suggestion; it could be 1 week if necessary. We're all adults and (at a glance) pretty good editors: consensus and co-operation should be the goal.... I take that back, a good article for the readers should be the goal, but we should facilitate it through collaborative editting. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Who needs consensus when there's always an admin who's prepared to go around due process and delete the image anyway. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed. I'm disappointed to say the least. There was no consensus for the deletion; I thought we were working towards a suitable compromise. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. What chance for those not at a computer to contribute, eh? Better to close the discussion when the time suits one's argument. Parrot of Doom 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Compromise is nice, but remember we already have our compromise- the non-free content criteria are our compromise between those who want to freely use non-free content, and those who want the encyclopedia to be entirely free. Process exists as a means to an end, and there's no real point in running through the motions in this case. However, I cannot speak for FPAS myself. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But there had been no agrement as to whether or not this was in breach.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread? In any case, there is not a need to debate every edit or action- if content is clearly in violation of policy, it may be removed. J Milburn (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is over there, about 3 miles to your left. Parrot of Doom 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the locality of a handy IRC channel where one can ask someone else to short-circuit consensus for you? I have to say that this simultaneously sucks and stinks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't "clearly" in violation of anything. And "may" does not mean "must". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I don't think FPAS even uses IRC. And what are you referring to with the may/must distinction? J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"May be removed" is a far cry from "must be removed" or even "has to be removed". Your tone throughout this 'discussion' has been that it must be removed. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you quoting? That's what I meant. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have commented on the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Irving pic

What is the rational for having the picture of irving on this article? Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the Irving picture, there is no reason to add his picture which gives undue weight to their association and involvement. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, given that Irving was one of several speakers at the event why not have all thier pictures? This seems a clear case of undue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor Fred the oyster has inserted the picture without a rational for its inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. I returned the article to its status quo until this little discussion has run its course. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Its no big deal Fred, but you are the person that has inserted this picture and you should provide a reason as to why you have done that, there is no status quo as you call it, the picture was removed by a good faith editor, me, with a decent reason and you have ignored my reason and inserted it again without any rational for its inclusion except..It was already there? What is your rational for adding it to the article? Why do you think it should be in the article? I will assume you support its inclusion or you would not of replaced it after I removed it. I am a bit surprised as to why you made this edit, I see you have never previously edited this article? Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Fred didn't insert it—I did that, many months ago. Nobody until now has questioned its inclusion. You're the one that removed it, and Fred merely restored the stable version of the article.

The image has plenty of rationale for inclusion. You should try reading the large paragraph it stands next to, which mentions the controversial forum at which both Griffin and Irving, both notorious Holocaust revisionists, attended. Not to mention Griffin's other associations with Irving. What the fuck is it with people today, flouncing into articles and removing things they don't like without first discussing the matter? Parrot of Doom

I have already given you a civilty warning today and now your swearing again in a public talkpage? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate. Parrot of Doom 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture gives undue weight to their association, they were at the same meeting, it that it? and they are both holocaust deniers, but griffin has moved from that position and with your rational for inclusion you could also add a picture of Hitler, sorry it is excessive association where there is none and requires removal. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Griffin hasn't moved even slightly from his revisionist position. I don't know what gives you the idea that he has. Parrot of Doom 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there. Now whilst I agree that the image of Irving may be undue I do not think that its inclusion is so bad that it warrents thbis level of personal stake. Try having some chips first people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here we go. Using the word "inserted" makes it sound like I actually put the image into the article. i.e. you are trying to deflect the issue that you removed an image from a stable article (surprisingly stable given its controversial nature) without due discussion. I merely returned the article to its state prior to your removal per WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted and now the discussion can last longer than the 30 minutes you initially gave it. And just because you think that YOU have a good reason for removing an image does not mean that it is a good reason. And incidentally just who do you think you are handing out warnings to people. That is the job of administrators, something you aren't (though obviously want to be given your attitude). You are just a prole like the rest of us. Feel free to warn anyone you feel like warning, just don't expect them to give a monkey's. Your word is not law, neither are your warnings.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred this is were you are mistaken, there is no such thing as a stable version of an article, only in the minds of editors that support that version, as I removed the picture and you replaced it, you are the inserter of the picture, you are responsible for its inclusion, you added it without a rational for its inclusion at all, you should not do that without a clear reason to include, there is no rational to include this picture in this article and you should not have replaced it without a good reason, the article was stable is not a reason to revert a good faith editor. The inclusion of this picture is clearly undue weight and imo there can be little support for its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Clearly any discussion with you is pointless. You obviously have an unassailable opinion that you are right. Please feel free to think that. Others, myself included reserve the right to disagree, Either way BRD applies. I actually have no interest in whether the picture stays or goes. Unfortunately for you I do have an interest in bold edits being discussed before the bold edit is carried out. merely giving a 30 minute warning is not by any definition a "discussion". I refuse to play your little games. You obviously came to this article from PoD's page with the attention of creating wikidrama. I, for one do, not intend to be on your cast list. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We expect editors to give warnings when appropriate whether or not they are Administrators. It isn't an administrator's job. What we do (besides also give warnings ourselves) is take action on warnings. Which I'm quite prepared to do if necessary, which I hope it won't be. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said above. He can feel free to warn someone, but he shouldn't expect anyone to actually take any notice of it due to his total lack of authority. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets drag this kicking and screaming back onto hte subject. What is the justification for the pictures inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But seeing as it has been there for some time with no one objecting, we must also consider: What is the justification for the picture's removal? Off2riorob's argument (without any discussion) that "there is no reason to add his picture which gives undue weight to their association and involvement" is just his opinion. Personally, I think it useful if only to break up a mass of text, but that's just my opinion. Emeraude (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My honest opinion is that the picture does not add to our understanding of Mr Griffin, not does it illustrate the debate they were part of very well. But by the same token it does not detract from the artcile either (other then saying this is what the sort of people who share Mr Griffins views look like). So I can see Off2riorob's point that this does seem slightly undue (After all there is no real connection beyond sharing certain views). But I can see the counter point, its not really all that bad. it is (to my mmind a bit of a non-issue and as such I feel that to ere on the side of caution we should remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, I don't think we can put people in bios to simply break up large sections of text, there is simply not a strong enough connection between the two people to include Irvine pic, the connection appears to only be that they spoke at the same conference, that might be a good reason to include pics of them both if the article was about the conference but its not its a biography of griffin and we should not add pics of everyone he is loosely associated with or people that we assert he has similar views to. If someone is Knighted we don't add a picture of the Queen or we don't add pictures David Cameron to the Gordon Brown article, take the tony blair article, we have a picture of his wife, fair enough, and we have Blair with Bush as there was a strong association that all people would agree with to Bush we have blair with bush, we do not have a picture of bush on his own without blair, I can't see any rational or poicy that would support the inclusion of this pic of Irvine on this article, it should be removed.Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you, until you started giving examples. Clearly someone knighted/Queen or Brown/Cameron is a bit of a tenuous link; but you could argue that Bush/Blair is as close as Griffin/Irving. It's really not that important, so it is might as well saty as go. Emeraude (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly not a connection anywhere as strong as bush and blair and there are no pictures of bush on his own without blair, only a picture of them shaking hands together, is there anything to suggest that Griffin is friends with Irvine or even knows him or have we a record of them even speaking? Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So because there are no pictures on this article of Irving and Griffin together, you think that is a rationale for not including a picture of Irving here? Despite the fact that they both shared a forum, despite the fact that Griffin stewarded one of Irving's meetings, despite the fact that they both holocaust revisionists, and despite the fact that Griffin has criticised Irving for apparently going back on his earlier statements?

Have you even read this article, or its sources? Parrot of Doom 12:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sharing a forum on one occasion by invite of a third party is not a strong association; both being holocaust revisionists is WP:SYNTH unless a source makes this link; the pic would be appropriate in a section on Griffin stewarding Irving's meeting or a section on Griffin criticising Irving. In this section, the important points relevant to Griffin are a) he was at the Oxford Union b) there were protests. I've changed it for an image of the Oxford Union, as this is the point that should be communicated to the reader. Ty 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't synthesis, which—with the greatest respect—you'd understand if you'd read the article in full. The picture of the Oxford Union was clearly taken by an amateur, which is why I removed it. Parrot of Doom 15:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read the parts that connect them and see no strength of association to support a picture of him, it is undue weight to have his picture here, the text in the article also doesn't show a good reason, if there was perhaps a photo of them together I could support it but on his own like that gives the impression of a much greater degree of association than there actually is. I have been looking around to see if it is a normal thing to do and it doesn't seem to be something that is done on other BLPs, I am struggleing to find a comparable situation, do you know of some? Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given my thoughts on the matter, you can either agree or disagree, I don't care. I'm not going to repeat myself for people who can't even be bothered to read the article or its sources. Oh, and learn to indent your replies, it makes it easier for people to follow a discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talk • contribs)

I've put the Irving picture next to text where Griffin criticises Irving; this is something significant. Here Griffin has made Irving relevant to his life, so I see the image as relevant. Ty 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see Parrot of Doom has already changed article. This is the version I suggest.[5] Apart from that I've done my bit... Ty 13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

...apart from an observation per Wikipedia:Captions#Establishing_relevance_to_the_article that "A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article", so that a caption just stating "David Irving" is not sufficient. A previous discussion about inclusion of images of other people in a BLP is at Talk:Damien_Hirst#Removal_of_images. Ty 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've come here from a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I think the Irving picture by itself is a problem, however if the caption made clear its purpose in the article it might be OK, e.g. "David Irving, criticized by Grffin for ...".--agr (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was better when it was removed altogether, Tyrenius said, that it would be ok in a section about irvine , all there is about irvine is.. He criticized Holocaust denier David Irving for admitting that up to four million Jews might have died in the Holocaust; he wrote "True Revisionists will not be fooled by this new twist to the sorry tale of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." .. the is one simple criticism and its still excessive weight to have a picture of him to support such a small issue in Griffins life. I have been looking around and adding a picture like this is extremely rare, there is nothing to suggest that these two people have ever even spoken to each other. Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminological inexactitude: by section I meant a section of text, not a wiki section. This is the third occurrence of Irving in the article, and readers will be informed by seeing who is being talked about. Although the text in this part is short, it is significant, and most readers would consider it to be so, rather than a "simple criticism" or a "small issue". Ty 15:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Its totally excessive to have his pic at all, Griffin worked for him for a short while as a doorman when he was broke. By adding the pic it gives association that is not there, you might as well add hitler too.Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That is advocacy, not analysis, and does not address the points in my prior post. I note Hitler is not mentioned at all in the article, so I don't see any justification for adding a picture of him. If one public figure makes a significant criticism of another public figure about a highly controversial subject, that creates an "association", if you want to put it that way. It is certainly something a reader would find significant. The Oxford Union has also created an "association" by choosing to link them together on the same platform. This is not negligable. (And they both accepted to appear together on that platform.) Ty 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Griffin worked for him for a short while as a doorman when he was broke" says Off2riorob. Presumably, purely by random chance? What a complete surprise it must have been to find yourself working for a leading Holocaust denier. Do you really think we're that stupid? Besides, even the article says "steward" which, to my way of thinking, is a bit more than a dooramn. Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a caption, but am bemused to find that the only apparent reason the image is in the article is because Griffin once made a passing comment about this person that was quoted in the news. A casual reader skimming the article might come away with the impression that the two had a close association, but there must be hundreds of people whom Griffin has similarly commented upon. The choice of this image for inclusion does not seem at all neutral.  Skomorokh  15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are not hundreds of people who occupy the significantly controversial position that Irving does (and that Griffin does). You have also ignored the fact that Irving features in three places in this article, and quite heavily in the Oxford Union passage. You have also not addressed the fact that this is a telling criticism, not a trivial one. Ty 15:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Again

I start from the premise stated above "What is the rationale for having the picture of Irving on this article?". Generally images are intended for explicatory purposes that text is incapable of achieving, and that included free images. If people want to know what Irving looks like they can read his own article. Using this image here, albeit with a "disclaimer" caption seems to me a breach of WP:NPOV in that despite the caption, it being used as a Trojan Horse to introduce a "guilt by association". I have no great love for either Irving or Griffin (sarc.) but this appears to me to be an improper, and polemical use of this image. It says nothing about Griffin that could not be said using text, and, indeed, already is said. It does not belong here, because its presence is not neutral, but masquerades as deceptively neutral. It's an improper use of the image. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Griffin

Following AfD decision to merge the Edgar Griffin article here (a mistake, in my view), I have done that. Emeraude (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of that is of no relevance to this article, and should be deleted. Parrot of Doom 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of an Afd in which it was decided that Edgar Griffin was not notable enough for his own page (as most of his notability is as a result of who his son is), I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, but regardless, the decision was to merge into this page, not to delete it. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The decision was flawed. We have (as per your edit just now) a whole bunch of text that has nothing whatsoever to do with Nick Griffin. Who cares what his parents have done or are doing, so long as it isn't anything to do with their son? It doesn't belong here, it should either be in its own article, on the BNP article. If a place can't be found there, then delete it. Its irrelevant. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. Articles on just about all people in Wikipedia make mention of their family and, if relevant, details about them other than simple their names/birthdays etc. In this case, EG's expulsion from the Tories (a notable event, after all) is directly related to his son's political activity and his wife's political activity. It is NOT relevant that the party was the BNP; it was the fact of the direct incompatibilty of membership of one party and campaigning or helping to campaign for another. As for having "a whole bunch of text that has nothing whatsoever to do with Nick", that is eminently untrue; it may be not about something he has done himself, but then, the same could be said about some of the references to David Irving in the article. We can understnd N Griffin by his association with Irving; similarly, we can understand him by his parents. And it's not as if it even takes up a large space! Emeraude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If its connected then connect it in the article, using a reliable source. Otherwise it's trivia, and can go. Parrot of Doom 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, there used to be mention (cited) in the article that it was Edgar Griffin who introduced his son to politics by taking him to a National Front meeting when he was 14 or 15. (I don't know why or when this was removed.) So there is a clear link between father and son politically/ideologically (and mother come to that). It's not trivia by any means, and needs to be here somewhere, perhaps as ad addition to the Early career bit???? Emeraude (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cited to this article, which says "Nick Griffin's involvement in far-right politics is said to have begun when his father, a right-wing Tory councillor, took him to a National Front meeting at the age of 15" which is basically speculation.

I think it is trivia—its adding information which has no real bearing on Nick Griffin, just for the sake of it. If somebody came here, now, and inserted that material (without the prior merge), I'd remove it without hesitation. Maybe there exists a reliable source which says "Nick Griffin asked his dad to take BNP calls at his home, while he worked as a Tory councillor", or "Nick Griffin said that what happened to his dad was etc etc", then it would almost certainly be relevant. The fact is, what happened to Edgar Griffin is relevant to Edgar Griffin, and not, in this case, to Nick Griffin. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Nick said that his dad served in the RAF but Jack Straw's dad was imprisoned during the war? That bit has just got pruned but is part of Griffin's attempt to portray himself as not really a fan of Hitler honest Guv.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an article dealing specifically with the QT episode, that would be better placed in there. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And then people reading it and wondering who Edgar Griffin is could follow the link to........ Oh no, we deleted that article didn't we. Emeraude (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, unfortunate isn't it? Parrot of Doom 13:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In relation to a discusion on the BNP page why is not material relating to the IDS leadership campign not on the IDS page? If its notable thats the place for it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I also notice that the Egar Grffin page in fact still has an existance outside this page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems quite improper to merge BLPs for family members in controversial cases of this sort. Families commonly have black sheep who should only get brief linking mentions to avoid guilt by association and other breaches of NPOV. See Jimmy Carter and Billy Carter for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point. It would be most unfair to have Edgar damned because of his son is a black sheep!! Emeraude (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Its also what makes him notable, his son. Unlike Billy Carter has neer stood for an office higher then councilor. He is not related to the holder of the highest Iellected) officed in the land. Nor has he been invlived in dodget dealings with foregn governemnts. List of U.S. presidential relatives tend to imply that to be notable a relative of even the US president (the highest office in the land) a relative has to be notable in thier own right. Lord Pearson of Rannoch is the leader of a UK party, but his father has no page, nor does David Camerons father. He is not (and nevere has been) notable apart from the realisionship Mr Griffin Snr has with his son.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
      • What makes him notable was his forced resignation from the Tory party which is only peripherally related ot his son who was not the member of the family whose BNP calls Edgar was taking.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • So why is it not in the tory party article if its notable? Moreover many people are expelled from the tory party, does that make them notable? Also the onlt thing the sources say is that (from the origional Edgar Griffin article) what that he was "for his links to the far-right British National Party" "action was taken against Edgar Griffin for "assisting the British National Party", of which his son Nick Griffin is chairman." "and he has a membership phone line installed in his house.

" There is not mention of what his actviivties were. Also all the sources seem to consider his relasionship with his son of inprotance. An idication that they may think that is the reason he helped. There is no mentio that i can find to say that it was on behlaf of another member of the family.[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He was taking the calls for his wife, a BNP candidate and official. Emeraude (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not one of the sources said this. Moreover would this have been any more news worthy then any other explusion if he had not been the father of Nick Griffin? Given that every one of the sources make the point that he is Nick Griffins father I would argue that no it would not be. Moreover there is no idication from the sources that Mrs Griffin is the membership secretary (one of the sources states it was a membship phone line (not sure what that is but the name implies some relasionship to membership requests)).Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Over at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_talk_pages_when_mergers_are_proposed you said that the closure was improper. Do you want to open a review? Or can merge outcomes be ignored altogether?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • They can when they make no sense. The correct decision should have been to delete. Parrot of Doom 10:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)