Talk:British National Party/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The Guardian's infiltration

I think that the Guardian article raised a number of ethical questions. The publication of workplace details of BNP members can only be seen as a form of McCarthyism, designed to incite harassment or victimisation. It's fine to scrutinize those who stand for political office but I don't see the public interest in the publication of personal details of ordinary members. I hope that they will not suffer discrimination or worse as a result. If they do then I think Ian Cobain will be directly responsible.

BNP weblogs are also saying that Ian Cobain signed a Data Protection Act form pledging confidentiality. Has the Guardian broken the law?

No one should be discriminated against on account of their political views whether they are Muslim activists, Socialists or members of the BNP. - Art of War 217.38.66.18 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if the bnp is wrong and bad then fine, but two wrongs dont make a right. The Guardian probably has broken the law but as is so often the case with so called 'extreme' political parties, the main 3 parties turn a blind eye (Fethroesforia 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

"Ian Cobain signed a Data Protection Act" As far as I know you don't sign data protection acts, since everyone in the UK (and the EU afaik) are covered by it anyway, personal information is protected under the general Data Protection Act and if the information published by the Guardian can be used to identify the individuals then they broke the law. I'm not sure what the law would be regarding the information if the Guardian had gained it by a request to a public authority however. The Guardian may have signed an NDA, Non-Disclosure Agreement which means they would be bound by contract to not release the information. (MalUK86 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Article is horribly biased..

Im rather annoyed by the obvious but hidden prejudice and bias against the bnp throughout the article. Throughout it is portraying the bnp as thugs and skinheads. When in reality, this is not the case. Almost all violence in bnp rallies has been caused by anti-bnp protesters, mostly drunk, looking for a fight. The bnp has a voice and has a right to it. So this article being biased against the bnp is not only against wikipedia policies, it is against everything democracy stands for. I will be changing the article in the future to allow for an unbiased opinion on the subject (not me..im biased but will not hide it, unlike narrow minded communists who attempt to hide their poltical views whilst editing articles) (Fethroesforia 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

So you are not biased and we are all "narrow minded communists"?
This entry was NOT signed by User:84.9.54.34, try signing your posts next time (Fethroesforia 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

• As someone who was 'guilty' of the same only yesterday, you really ought to be more humble in pointing out the oversights of others! Can I suggest that when you start new sections in this or any discussion, you add them at the 'bottom of the page which is where people naturally look for new material. Emeraude 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'Almost all violence in bnp rallies has been caused by anti-bnp protesters, mostly drunk, looking for a fight.' Rubbish. I'd like to see proof of that, preferably from reputable sources.--Ketlan 06:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally would like to see reputable proof of both sides of the coin so to speak before making a judgement, but then I have yet to set in stone my views on the BNP. Oh and I've tried to find where it states anything about violence at BNP rallies in the article anyway and I'm having trouble; it merely states previous convictions of BNP members specifically to support certain aspects of the violence and criminal behaviour area. --MalUK86 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Front' group

As a member of Solidarity who is also a Socialist I was intrigued to see the Union described as a 'BNP front'. It certainly enjoys both Third Way and BNP support. That is mainly because members of both organisations have been the subject of witch-hunts in the established Unions. Clearly their members still recognise the need for collective protection and organisation in the workplace (wasn't that why Unions were formed in the first place?). It doesn't follow a BNP agenda and is not reliant for the BNP for funds. To describe it as a 'front group' is pretty simplistic in my view. Many people are disgruntled with the cronyism and corruption in many TUC affiliated Unions. I personally am interested in many of the political issues covered in Trade Unions journals (like the people who write them) but I dare say that many ordinary workers find them irrelevant and partisan. The fact that the likes of the CWU continue to finance New Labour with a reactionary, anti-working class, warmongering policy platform is a provocation. The established unions have really failed to effectively tackle cheap non-unionised labour and offshoring. They've sold us out. I feel that Solidarity will attract far wider support than the BNP ever could.

The article simply states that there is evidence that they are a front group, but that this does not necessairily make them so. --Robdurbar 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article goes a little further than that. The wording implies that Solidarity is a front group. One possible reason that they might deny being a 'front' is that they are genuinely independent! This doesn't seem to have been recognised by the user who wrote this section. The whole logic of saying that because some organisers are members of the BNP they are a front is twisted. On that basis you could condemn many independent groups as Conservative, Liberal or New Labour 'fronts'. In the building industry there is a safety campaign with many former/present Workers Revolutionary Party members involved. Is it a 'front' for the WRP? I don't think so and it does very good work! - Art of War

I note that in Issue 78 of the BNP newspaper 'Voice of Freedom' whilst a plug is given to Solidarity in an article stressing that it doesn't discriminate against BNP members they also urge their supporters who hold membership of other unions to opt out of the political fund and deny support to New (Cheap) Labour. The relationship between Solidarity, the BNP and TUC affiliated unions appears quite complex to me and this is not reflected in the Wikipedia article. - Dissident Voice

Of course it's a front group. How could it be otherweise? "Solidarity's" management team consists of John Walker (BNP Treasurer), Clive Potter (BNP candidate), Jay Lee (BNP Candidate), Lee Barnes (BNP Head of Legal Affairs). The chairman is Patrick Harrington (of Third Way rather than the BNP), but a veteran of far right politics, a former leader of the NF and close contact of BNP leader Griffin. Emeraude 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I see that you are relying on a BNP press statement for information as to who is on the Executive of Solidarity (as does Wikipedia)! Not a good idea. Pat Harrington has a quite separate position from that of the BNP and Third Way directly recruits amongst all ethnic and religious communities. Why not say that he is a 'close contact' of veteran anti-Fascist Larry O'Hara? Or indeed any number of other people of various political persuasions. Doesn't that fit the script?

- Art of War

'Why not say that he is a 'close contact' of veteran anti-Fascist Larry O'Hara?' Because this article is about the BNP and the connections between it and Solidarity - nothing to do with Larry O'Hara. That's just a ridiculous divergence in an argument you cannot win.--Ketlan 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If a reader were to click the solidarity link to see the solidarity article and read they will find that citations have been included offering both sides of the argument, and therefore should be free to make up their own mind as to whether it is a front or not, however most will probably not bother checking beyond the BNP article so I added the links there too. I also removed the solidarity picture which is not required, none of the other alledged fronts have a picture so why add one for solidarity? --MalUK86 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Query about allied companies

The BNP has a number of companies attached that can't really be described as affiliated. Albion Life can because it states its affiliation clearly on its site. However, Brightahomes and Skip Hire Register are companies that are run by the BNP as fundraisers but do not state their connection with the party. Perhaps there ought to be another section - Fake Companies.--Ketlan 10:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you any evidence that the company mentioned are BNP fronts? RichardLangford 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. The only link out from Albion Life goes to brightahomes.co.uk and the only link from that is to skiphireregister.co.uk. A WHOIS check shows that the registrant of the domain skiphireregister.co.uk is Steve Blake, also the registrant of the BNP website. Blake is also the registrant for Albion Life. Pretty clear really.--Ketlan 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Define fake company. According to this article albionlife could be a defined as a "fake company", but as for the others you mentioned... As for Steve Blake as the registrant, that article indicates he is the webmaster for the BNP so it could be assumed the other sites registered by him are BNP fronts though this is only speculative, and not hard facts. --MalUK86 06:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New link in 'affiliated' section

Added link to Albion Life Insurance.--Ketlan 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Video removed

In the section Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I've changed the link to the video of Young, nazi and proud on Google to the Channel Four page that gives a summary of the documentary. The video has been removed and the previous link went nowhere.--Ketlan 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous British National Parties

The article says that the name BNP has been used on two previous occasions. Has anyone got a source for this? RichardLangford 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see the name has only been used twice; once following the merging of the White Defence League and the National Labour Party in 1960 or thereabouts, and in 1982 when Tyndall renamed the New National Front to the BNP (which name remains to date). Perhaps the editor was thinking of the British Nationalist Party? --Ketlan 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Islam stuff

"Recently, the BNP has dropped explicit anti-Semitism in favour of attacks on Islam. " Extremely non-NPOV. "In favour of attacks on Islam"? Puh-lease.

I also agree with the guy under me. 217.44.109.170 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be non-NPOV if it wasn't exactly what Griffin says in the cited speech. I think we can safely use the party leader as an authority on strategy. Dogville 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, having said which, your edit is fair enough. Dogville 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

... though I maintain unnecessary. The deleted sentence said nothing more than Griffin has.Dogville 08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete lack of neutrality

As an Australian I'm not terribly familiar with British politics but I must say the entire page seems heavily slanted against the BNP. Maybe the entire article should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Yes I do understand the BNP touches on controversial and sensitive topics, and some feel morally obliged to protest the stance of the BNP, but wikipedia is not the place. It's very unlikely you will change someone's views by writing a biased article.

As an Australian, perhaps you could point to some factual inaccuracies or specific instances of POV? Comments like this are so vague as to be effectively meaningless, which I'm sure was not your intention. Dogville 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Far Right Position Is Questionable

I would like to point out that the position of the BNP on the traditional left-right political spectrum can be brought under scruntiny. It would be more accurate to refer the BNP as an Authoritarian Socialist party using a more versitile multi-dimensional ideological postioning system, as this quote from http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright illustrates:

"The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale."

The diagram is also useful. I realize that I'm not essentially criticising the facts of the article, but more the system used. This is however true of society in general. If a group is identified as xenophobic or racist they are instantly associated with the "far right". The authoritarian left can be just as bigotted and tyrannical.

I agree. Indeed, the BNP seems to believe in largely centre-left economics(in agreement with the above quote). Labelling the party far-right does seem incredibly naive, but then so does labelling it far-left, as some pundits have. To be fair, it's neither. 'Authoritarian centre' might be more accurate, but I'm just speculating.

Furthermore, I'm amazed at this quote from the relevant section of the article - "Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their nationalist and collectivist policies". Surely, the 'left' can be just as nationalist and collectivist as the 'right'? For example, anarchism which is usually labelled as far-left, is the epitome of collectivism, whilst no-one can deny that figures such as Stalin and Gandhi were both strongly nationalist as well as left-wing, as it were. Consequently, any system which places these two individuals close togther on the political spectrum, considering their vastly different opinions on the state, needs a rethink.

Meiktila 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but most people recognise left/right easily and many sources call the BNP 'far-right'. However, to also mention something such as the political compass (which itself has its critics) to clarify for the reader could be useful. --Robdurbar 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think there's a certain circularity to the objections. 'Far right' is in common usage to mean the sort of politics the BNP espouses. 'Far right' does not mean and never has meant extreme economic liberalism. The political compass seems to be assuming the mantle of dogma here. It's a useful analysis but it's not [i]the[/i] analysis. Dogville 22:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the term far right has any factual basis and should be removed from the article. We live in a time of mass propaganda and because of this that the media and rival politicians like to use the highly inaccurate term.

I don't think Authoritarian Socialist would be a good description either as Authoritarian and democratic don't sit well together, The BNP is showing it's commitment to democracy by taking part in elections. RichardLangford 21:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Band by same Name

I would like to also point out that there is a British rock band by the name of British National party, which completely mocks the party of the same name. I don't know anything about the band other than the above info.

Don 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay Porn

This was placed on the talk's archived page, as a new discussion. I have moved it here. --Robdurbar 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

oi ! my gay porn article is completely acceptable

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/9925

it deserves to be there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweeny666 (talk • contribs)

I think that the complaint was not about the contribution, but more about its placement randomly in the article. The article is used to justify the assertion that 'the BNP has always been associated with the gay porn industry', not something that I am aware of. Furthermore, this story is already linked too (though again poorly explained) in the 'plocies' section of the article. Feel free to help improve its discussion there. --Robdurbar 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tided that bit up a little. However, I wonder if there is scope for a 'BNP and homosexulaity' section that could describe the party's approach to the issue? --Robdurbar 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple things.

1. Much as I'd love it to be, it really doesn't sound like the film is porn, nor should we describe it as such. It's evidently a student art movie, albeit homoerotic.[1]

'Much as I'd love it to be' - yes, I think I let my pov control my editing there. Indeed, it could be spun positively for the BNP... here's a member who is clearly comfortable enough with his sexuality to make such a film, showing some level of sophstication and intelligence! --Robdurbar 09:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

2. For what it's worth the Guardian's description (flagellation, naked men frolicking in the river) sounds exactly like the beginning of Part 2 of Riefenstahl's Olympia. So hardly incompatible with the BNP's ideological heritage ...

3. A 'BNP and Homosexuality' section could get very long indeed ... Dogville 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob, nice work on the BNP & homosexuality section. I'm wondering though whether some of the info shouldn't still be under policies (as well)? At least a mention of their previous desire to recriminalise and apparent dropping? Dogville 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about discussing previous policies in the current policy section; that sort of thing could snowball and would involve us being a bit picky and thus going a little non-neutral. However, the comment that it should be illegal to promote homosexuality is reasonable to go into the policies bit. --Robdurbar 23:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, hadn't thought of it like that. Dogville 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 election duplication

We have a lot of this info twice, in the history section and the electoral performance one. I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Dogville 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, should just be in electoral performance I think. RandomIdiot 06:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Eire

it says here that the BNP wants to bring Eire into the UK.Their website didn't give me much information on this ridiculous concept.If anyone knows anymore about this policy could they tell me here. Dermo69

In the 'Northern Ireland' section of the provided link: 'In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. ' --Robdurbar 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule Britannia? --Quentin Smith 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an old 1980s NF policy that been carried into the post-Tyndall BNP. Considering that two former NF leaders - Nick Griffin & Martin Wingfield - are in the centre of things currently, perhaps not surprising. The idea of a British Isles federation has been long mooted across the political spectrum, although post 1992 it has been seen as somewhat redundant a conceptMarkBoyle 19:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rights for Whites

Needs citation. I thought it was a general comment; if it was intended as a citation go ahead. --Quentin Smith 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's cited now. -- WGee 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've doubly removed. --Quentin Smith 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Noticed a lot of weasel words, e.g. in the first paragraph, "some argue..." - who argues? There's a few others in there, hence why I flagged it. If nobody's done it by the morning I will - I would do it now but I'm absolutely knacked. John..

Sure, but be careful. The first "some argue" certainly can't be simply removed, or it would state a BNP claim as fact. Dogville 07:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

" the UK's first-past-the-post system makes it difficult for small parties to achieve electoral success in UK elections", is there anyone that disputes this fact?

Depends what you mean by a small party. Its helped small parties such as the Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern, Plaid Cyrmu, or, in its early days, the Labour Party. I think that the claim '...makes it difficult for geographically-diffuse parties' would be the claim made. --Robdurbar 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, people. There's a difference between admitting the fact as quoted and saying that this is the reason for the BNP's lack of electoral success. That's where the phrase 'this is because' comes in.

Having looked at the edits, I'm not sure why "the BNP and others argue" is less weasel-wordy than "some argue"; although it's certainly more clumsy. But the claim that the BNP's relative lack of success is simply ascribable to the FPP system is hardly obviously factual (other factors, like lack of widespread popular support for overt racism, might play a part). So I think keep "some argue" as in this case it's simply true. And remove the weasel tag unless other examples can be cited. Dogville 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the source now provided (I'll change to 'some argue', but with a source its fine and not weasel words) states directly that the likes of the BNP/Greens/UKIP have suffered because of first past the post.

I don't think the article now suggests that it is the only case; so with source it should be OK. --Robdurbar 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Private eye article

I can't find a link, but there was an interesting article regarding the BNP (and their collective IQ) in Private Eye.

Apparently the BNP councilers in Barking and Dagenham, proposed a motion against discrimination of the indiginious majority, when the time came for the vote only one member actually voted, as the rest did not realise they were meant to vote...

Who says the BNP could run the country.... --SolDrury 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye is not a factual magazine, it's a humourous one. I'm not sure any of their articles are factual so this may just be a joke at the expense of the BNP and their stereotypical thick skinhead thug image.

Private Eye has a great deal of factual coverage, particularly of local politics. The story cited is entirely true. Dogville 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

UKIP/UAF

Is it true that UKIP (arguably not too far off fascism) are supporters of Unite Against Fascism, as the article says? --BobFromBrockley 16:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say that UKIP are near Facism (they are more near the Cons then the BNP) but obviously it would help them to surpport such an organisation to help distenguish themselves from partys such as the BNP.

UKIP is a centre-right party which supports British withdrawal from the European Union - what exactly is "fascist" about it?

From what I've seen, its membership consists largely of lapsed Tories. Some of these people admittedly harbour slightly non-PC views on race and immigration, but to describe the party as "not too far off fascism" is sheer hyperbole. 217.155.20.163 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Labour is closer to being fascist by the accepted definitions: (from the Fascism article):

- developed as a reaction against Communism - yup

- viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check - yup

- tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders - yup

- is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic; in the examples given, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them - yup

- uses explicit populist rhetoric - yup

etc etc. The UKIP is the oppositve of Fascist, as it wishes to reduce state power.

21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Vandals

Islamophobia is up for deletion. Cast your votes

Talk about slanted information. The CATEGORY is up for deletion, not the article. 82.176.211.33 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

The sun front page is POV, it serves no purpose in the artical and should be removed. It is very clearly one sided.

Though I agree that the picture is POV, we can present the opinions of others, such as The Sun. The picture is useful as it indicates the coverage that the BNP receive from the mainstream press.

However, it should only be reintroduced with an appropriate caption. --Robdurbar 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Shorly more than one paper (with one POV) should be shown. --88.108.234.169 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means find a cover story from a mainstream newspaper about the 2004 BNP documentary (or anything else) that provides a substantially different viewpoint. Dogville 17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Griffin photo

The black and white photo of Griffin is tagged as public domain, and therefore acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Please don't replace it with a different photo unless you also tag that photo with copyright info -- or what will happen is we end up losing both (because the new, untagged photo can be deleted at any time, and the old public domain one will be deleted as a matter of policy if it's not used in an article). Dogville 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Far Right?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

Why has the BNP been listed as a far right party? Last time I checked, its economic policies were quite centrist. I will make the necessary changes to "extreme authoritarian".--CaptainSurrey 00:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Politicalcompass.org, while a nice idea, isn't accepted as the dominant force in political discussions. I'll quote from Wikipedia here...

The far right has often been associated in various degrees with paleoconservatism, social, cultural and religious conservatism, reactionary monarchism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvinism, populism, economic protectionism or economic free trade, anti-immigration or racist and xenophobic policies. The BNP is all of these to be quite honest, or at least 90% of them. An authoritarian party wouldn't be a party at all, arguably anyway. Another quote: Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures. The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus. HawkerTyphoon 08:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but the BNP is still a party, authoritarian or not, until such time that it gets into power, at which point it will cease to be a party, and become a permanent authority. You therefore are incorrect! Also, the old scale of left and right is no longer sufficient to measure political parties; and politicalcompass.org isn't so much a "nice idea", but an authority on politics. Just because you want to call the BNP "far right", because it's a catchy leftist attack-term, doesn't mean I have to bow before you an accept it. I suggest we have a vote on the issue.

Unfortunately for you, populism; anti-immigration-ism, racism; and xenophobia are not economic issues. Therefore their presence in a party’s manifesto does not mean that said party is right-wing; if anything, said party is fascist. Fascism lies on the vertical scale, along with authoritarianism. They are parallel. The horizontal scale is purely about economic issues, not social ones.--CaptainSurrey 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The BNP are actually slightly to the left of center on the economic axis, I think. However, they are extremely authoritarian, racist, anti-intellectual, etc - these are all social ideologies rather than economic ones. The descriptions of far-left, far-right (etc) are crude and simplistic descriptions that can often be misleading. Far-right would more accurately describe a regime like that of General Pinochet who was both murderously authoritarian and way to the right on the economy. However, the political compass idea may take a while to filter through into mainstream consciousness. -Neural 00:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia shouldn't be using what is, in the end, just one political theory, as if it were a world accepted truth that all understand. Left/Right - whilst limited - is an easily understood shorthand. And besides, most people would say that their economic policy is not the most interesting or notable thing about the BNP. Robdurbar 07:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Political Compass is not a reliable source and is far from being "an authority on politics". The political sceince establishment does not pay much attention to its political spectrum, evidently, nor do I. Multitudes of reputable political scientists declare that the BNP is far-right. And we don't vote on the issue, CaptainSurry; we go by what the reputable sources say. -- WGee 02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that 'far right' is a deliberately misleading term. I suppose it may be being used by leftists as a way for them to attempt to dissociate themselves from the actual left-wing economic policies of the BNP. Just imagine that if every one accepted that the BNP was a left-of-centre party with authoritarian social policies, it would mean troublesome association for other leftist parties which themselves have potentially authoritarian policies. Marxists may tell you that all they want is a classless society for justice, but what would happen when such a society gets under way? It would become authoritarian, enforcing its policies upon the hapless laissez-faire libertarians.

So plenty of political scientists are calling the BNP far right, fine. But they may have something to gain from doing so, namely the unfair denouncement of the extreme policies of the BNP. But calling the BNP far right is a bit problematic, since the conservatives are closer to the far right than they are to the centre. And it's obvious that the BNP and the Conservatives have not a lot in common. -- --CaptainSurrey 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The BNP leader and the other women both look compleatly stupid in there photos, whether this was intentional or not i surgest that the photos are changed. --88.108.161.10 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in finding free-use photos that are not under copyright, or have rights released etc.; if you have any then feel free to add them. --Robdurbar 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the leader does have a glass eye. Hut 8.5 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Anti-BNP photos and other sources --Boris Johnson VC 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No wonder - how is it going to be NPOV if anti-BNP opinion is excluded? Hut 8.5 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific here? Bear in mind that almost all mainstream sources - newspapers, television companies etc. - are anti-BNP. As for the photos; we are restricted by copyright laws, but if better photos can be found, please do provide them. --Robdurbar 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, shorly it can't be that difficult to get a photo of such a well known person-despite copyright. Furthermore u say that mainstream sources are anti-BNP, i accept this but somthing like a Telegrapth front page with "55% of Britains support BNP policies" would do-soz but i dont know how to upload myself. Finaly there is a lot of criticism of the BNP but very little about support for the BNP from other orgainsations. Thanx--Boris Johnson VC 20:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the survey is already mentioned in the article. I'll have a look for that cover, though. And if you can find any organisations that support the BNP then please, suggest some here. --Robdurbar 09:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As for images; trust us it is. We need to find an image that has been released for free use, is owned by a Wikipedian, or one that is fair use (e.g. an image from a party conference that has been released for publicity). I can't find any at the BNP's website. --Robdurbar 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...any similar cover will do. I still have resivations but i will remove my notice--Boris Johnson VC 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Boris. I removed the Sun cover. Showing a single paper headline with Bloody Nasty People is definitely POV. Add to the fact there isn't an alternative POV headline shown and the whole article becomes unbalanced.--Triedandtested 22:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV: it's an accurate reflection of mainstream media coverage of the BNP. Note that the Wikipedia article doesn't say that the BNP are "Bloody Nasty People," but that the mainstream media is universally critical of the party. There's nothing POV in showing that. VoluntarySlave 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is true. And please keep in mind WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We must include opinions in in proportion to thier prevalence; thus, since the predominant opinion of the BNP is negative, most of the sources in the article will be negative. -- WGee 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You must admit that it is probably one of the worst headlines that could have been found. That was the main thing that led me to believing it was POV. I think it would be better if something more reflective was found even if it is negative. Either that or another headline added with an opposing view alongside the Sun's, if one can ever be found. --Triedandtested 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

i deleted the outdated financial debt figure that the BNP is suppose to have look: http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1217

far right v. rightist

I have just reverted an alteration that was made in the first paragraph. To describe the BNP as "rightist" and link that word to an article in Wikipedia which is tagged as disputed is not helpful; in fact it is downright misleading. The BNP is, within the spectrum of British politics, on the far right, as were its openly fascist and Nazi forebears. Emeraude 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Biassed

All wikipedia articles are supposed to be pretty much neutral, only stating the facts. However this article tends to be extremely biassed from an anti-bnp point of view.

it's not biased, it states facts. its not anyones fault but theirs that their policies and ideaology are so backward and fundamentally wrong that when its put on to paper it makes them look like nasty fascists.

Oh look...*points* A sociology student with dispraxia, I bet. Let me know when you get your third class degree from some plate glass university...--213.40.60.204 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

don't be arrogant. i don't see how my education comes into this you narrow minded pretentious ::azi other fascists parties and far right parties in general hate with a passion, any sort of welfare protectionist state. They were almost whole against nationalisation of industry and core services. The Communists and the left on the other hand are for these things. The BNP is for these things the bNP are not capitalists. They are socialists who also happen to be racists. The BNP is far left.

I know this is a brief and somewhat poorly documented account but it does not make it any less true.

• It's also a load of bollocks! The BNP's supporters are either middle class or lumpemproletariat, classic supporters of fascist parties. When did all these old far right xenophobes of the NF who founded the BNP suddenly become far left xenophobes? Nonsense, absolute nonsense. Don't waste our (and your) time with this rubbish. Emeraude 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The BNP are not strictly speaking a far right pary as the do not want mass economic deregulation they are infavour of renationalisation of the railways and maintaining a national health service. So in that sence they are not a far right party. the reason they may be clasified as a far right party is because of their immigration stance that is a typical policy of far right groups such as UKIP and the NF, but other policies contradict them from being steryotypically far right. This means that classifying them as either far right or xenaphobic center left is difficult if not damn near impossible.--Lucy-marie 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's no use picking on these policy areas as being left or right - the BNP is nothing but a populist party which is why it latches onto what is dear to the hearts and minds of the British people, such as maintaining the Health Service - there is not a single party in the UK that would dare suggest otherwise. Similarly, renationalising railways: everyone agrees that the railways now are a disaster. But consider the antecedents of the BNP and the history of its founders and leading membbers - they are out and out Nazi, a taint the National Front was unable to shake off but which the BNP has made more effort with, unsuccessfully, because anyon who cares to look can see that its founders had convictions for violence, were photographed in Nazi regalia, had a long history of anti-semitism etc etc. Don't let the BNP's protestations of innocence fool you. Rather, look at the totality. To digress slightly, Gen. de Gaulle (a right winger) when in power nationalised the banks and the car industry. Does that make him left wing, or was he just punishing them for collaboration 1940-1945? As I said, you need to see the totality, not one or two isolated points. Emeraude 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i see the point you are coming from and i say that your points are valid but to out and out label them as Far right just because of their predecessors is wrong. So because the labour party used to be an ultra left wing party when it was founded does that mean that still today they have to be classified as ultra left wing rather than the centrist party they have become.--Lucy-marie 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Labour Party" used to be ultra left wing"?? When? How? Never in a million years (well a hundred) could the LP have been described as ultra left (or even far left). Emeraude 10:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer is that there is no clear definition of left and right on the political spectrum and whilst calling them far-right clearly has its difficulties - as you note with refernece to economic policy - it is also the term most commonly used for their sort of policies and is the term by which their actions are best understood. --Robdurbar 00:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BNP isn't just about racial intolerance, its about a basic intolerance of anything other than a fat, white skinhead christian. Their "socialist" and "left" policies are merely a means to attract votes and do not define them as a party. They are extremely right wing, they are Nazi. Hitler included many socialist policies in his national SOCIALIST party just to attract votes, i don't think anyone would dispute him being far right.--Joeshawuk 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally with Joeshawuk here. From what I've just read on this party it sounds like they are a populist far right party. Most of their public policies are flexible depending on what will get them power. There are a few quotes of their party members and indeed leaders saying that they're happy to step away from Anti-semitism for example simply to get into power. However that said ... Hitler did conceal the extent of his Anti-semitism until after he had abolished elections and even to a degree began losing on the Eastern Front. Additionally ... the same people who get quoted as saying they're not anti-semites publicly also get quoted privately contradicting this. This just goes to show that this party puts on a public front that has policies which appeal to British people ONLY as a means to an end. There are many historical precedences for political parties that have done this and many were just as bad at concealing the truth as the BNP. -Senor Freebie / James Rowlands [j_hexen at yahoo dot com]

The BNP is a radical right-wing populist party with strong fascist tendencies, similar to the Nazi party before it gained power. Anyone who asserts that the BNP—and by extension the Nazi party—is left-wing simply because of its populist economic policies has no clue about political science and should thus be more humble in their assertions. -- WGee 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me mr im am the greatest of the great and am the only autority to talk on these matters with an opinion the counts. I am a politics student and the british national party do contain elements of extremem neo-nazi style faschism in their past with things such as forced repatriation. However the people who espoused these tendancies such as John Tindle are either dead or have been excluded from the party. Today they only espousle voulntary re-patriation so have moved even if ever so slightly to the left away from the neo-nazi past they once had. they also cannot be considered far-right on issues such as the environment and agriculture they are extremly left-wing with policies such as high ammounts of polluter pays taxation and a return to self suficency in farming rather than a free trade in food. also form an economc point of view they do not fit nicley into any catagory as they want high rates of corporation tax high VAT but no such thing as income tax. so saying they are an extreme faschist far right party is over subjected and single minded as only a few issues such as national service and immigration are being considered, for an accurate place on the scale all aspects need to be considered from the environment to public transport to taxation as well as immigration and defence. a better comparison with the nazi party is not the BNP but the November 9th Society an analysis of them will show the diffrences betwwen modern naziism and the BNP.--134.225.177.27 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to contradict such a modest politics student. I am merely a graduate in politics, but to take just one of your points: voluntary repatriation. The fact that Tyndall and a few other founders are now dead or expelled is not relevant. That merely reflects longevity and the endemic infighting of the British far right (everyone wants to be Fuhrer!). Here's what NF members in the 1970s thought: "....’We haven’t actually worked out the mechanics of repatriation,’ Mr Fairhurst said. ‘But as we become stronger over the next few years, many of the wealthier coloureds will get their money out and get themselves out too. As the NF comes to power, they will leave of their own free will. We would also pass a law saying that anyone who breaks the law will automatically be repatriated, and spongers will also be repatriated.’" (Source: interview in The Guardian 8 October 1974) All very voluntary, but we know what they really meant. And we know that the BNP is a direct descendant of the NF. Emeraude 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That Quote cannot be used as it is not quoting the BNP themselves. Its like quoting the Labour party from the 1950's and saying it is a representation of the SDP.--Lucy-marie 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can be used and I made it quite clear why I had used it. It was User:134.225.177.27 who suggested that the BNP favours 'voluntary repatriation' and that this was somehow a step change from the earlier groups. It isn't. Emeraude 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is highly dubious to use a difrent party which i admit was a fore-runner but is not the actual party to quote what current members of the party are like. there must have been a reason for the split or they would still be the NF not the BNP.--Lucy-marie 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying I can't mention Take That in a discussion about Robbie Williams. Not that would have such a discussion. On the last point, you're absolutely right. Basically, a faction fight in the NF eventually led to its older leaders being kicked out. If you want to know details, I suggest you read up on the background to the formation of the BNP as well as their antecedents, and not just in Wikipedia - check out some of the works cited. Emeraude 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Far right or Anti-immigration

In the first sentence to avoid the arguments i think the senctence should be changed from most prominent far right party to most prominent anti immigration party. what do other people think?--Lucy-marie 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucy-marie has previously written on this page: "the labour party used to be an ultra left wing party when it was founded". This is nonsense. She has also written "The BNP are not strictly speaking a far right pary as the do not want mass economic deregulation". Well, partly true, but neither do the Conservatives any more. It would appear to me that Lucy-marie is at least confused over what makes a party left or right wing. It is not one policy, or even several policies in one area (such as economic deregulation or not). One must consider the totality of the party's policies. To be honest, the BNP's economic derelugation policies are neither well-known nor the main thrust of their propaganda, but even if they were, the rest of the BNP's policies, plans and programmes are unashamedly extreme right. This fits their background as a direct descendant of 60 years of post-war British neo-Nazi/fascist tradition. (Is anyone suggesting Nazis were left-wing because they planned part of the economy?)

Clearly, taking the totality of the BNP position, they are an extreme right party and I would support labelling them as such here, except that extreme right gets redirected to far right anyway. So keep far right and stop trying to portray them as something they are not.

(Out of interest, why is it only right wing groups that claim that they are not what they are, backed up by supporters and apologists? I've never heard anyone on the left claim to be anything other than a left winger. Is it because if you are or were an open or a closet Nazi, and you want to get public support, you need to pretend you are not as extreme as you are? Just a thought.) Emeraude 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal atttacks on my character by claiming i am a closet nazi. I simply want to have clarity in the article and my opinion on labelling a group on a few isues as one thing or another is wrong. I am not a nazi or any other rediculous thing you can think of. Please refrain from rediculous comments and kep thoughts about someone to yourself.--Lucy-marie 09:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I have in no way suggested YOU are a closet Nazi. I have no thoughts on you at all, have made no ridiculous (or other) comments about you at all. I did refer to some of your earlier writings which I quoted. The words you are referring to are in my last paragraph, in brackets, clearly an aside and not about any one person, let alone you. Emeraude 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lucy, it is not tendentious to label the BNP a far-right political party when every reputable political scientist and news agency describes it as such. Considering your age, your standard of English, and your earlier comment that the Labour Party was originally "ultra-left", you are uninitiated in the realm of political sceince; thus, you should be more humble in your edits and assertions. -- WGee 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I find you comments Wgee conderscending especially when refering to my level of english. Please can we stop having a go at me on this talk page and discuss the Issue that I raised.--Lucy-marie 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But the issue you raised is nonsense. You've made an uninformed assertion that the term "far-right" is not neutral in reference to the BNP, despite the fact that all reputable sources describe it as such. That is analogous to saying that it is not neutral to refer to the massacre of about one million Armenians between 1915 and 1917 as a genocide, merely because some Turkish nationalists reject the label. -- WGee 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean to disparage you by mentioning your standard of English. I merely used it to infer that you are not an undergraduate or graduate. I apologize for offending you. -- WGee 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Better refrencing

There are 106 website links and 44 refrences this cannot be good. The refrences also do not use a template, i am aware this is nt essential but would improve the refrences greatly and creat a more comprehensive list of refrences.--Lucy-marie 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is RUMOURED, no citation or fact

The part where it says that the christian council of britain is made by bnp members...says who? They deny it and the bnp have no mention of it being by them. This is ridiculous. Please someone make a change to this (I did and it got removed by someone) If it is true then fine...BUT SOME FACT TO BACK IT UP PLEASE (Fethroesforia 11:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

I refer you to the Wikipedia article on th Christian Council of Britain and particularly the following section (my emphasis):

Formation and association with the BNP

Taking its name directly in imitation of the Muslim Council of Britain, the Christian Council of Britain was set up by concerned British Christians of various denominations with assistance from members and supporters of the BNP in April 2006. BNP web editor Steve Blake who runs an IT consultancy registered the URL christiancouncil.org.uk on behalf of the CCB and provided a basic template for the fledgling organisation's website. [2] The Observer reported on April 16, 2006 that Clive Potter, another member of the BNP was to be the president of the CCB. [3]. Rev. Robert West, a former Conservative district councillor and a founding member of the Christian Council of Britain defected to the BNP in May 2006 [4].

So, the appropriate Wikipedia article backs up this article, and provides three sources. That's good enough for anyone. Emeraude

Qoute from the christian council of britain wiki page ...The CCB states that it is "an independent, non-political organisation autonomous of any political party in Britain", however there are frequent claims that it is connected with the British National Party

so which do i believe..this is confusing and hypocritical...i dont care either way if it is or is not set up by the bnp..as long as the 2 articles agree (Fethroesforia 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

There's no contradiction and who, exactly, are you accusing of hypocisy? The CCB wiki article is quite correct in what it says and it has been carefully worded to ensure it is accurate. It says that the CCB states that its unaligned. So it does. The article also points out its very close links to the BNP. These are true. Understand that just because someone states something about themselves, it is not necessarily so. (To take a silly example: I can say "I am the most handsome man in the world." You can report honestly that I said it. It doesn't make it true, and you can also report contrary evidence that disproves or casts doubt on my statement.) Emeraude 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I also notice from your User page that you are a supporter of the BNP and a Christian. That explains a lot. Emeraude 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, calm down, thank you for explaining that though, i hereby take back my original arguement...Had to read it again to see the context (read my user page again, you will see im abnormal..takes me time to realise things) (Fethroesforia 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

No problem - glad my expalanation clarified things for you. (And there's so much non-normality about it's practically normal.) Emeraude

Just for the record, I'm a Christian. :^) And whoever claims to simultaneously espouse Christianity and racism is very confused and afflicted, for the two cannot be reconciled. -- WGee 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WHO SAID IM RACIST? man this annoys me..who said im racist? no-one...stop generalising people..im a bpn supporter..so what..doesnt mean I support ALL their policies..not at all..ask a tory if they support every tory policy..they willlikely say no..I am not a racist and the insinuation disgusts me Fethroesforia 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the final part anti-bnp?

Including anti-bnp links in an encyclopedic article is surely against NPOV. I checked the labour party..guess what...no anti-labour links. I checked christianity, muslim, america..not a single one has anti-'insert person/place/party' link. So surely including them in a bnp article is..very one sided. Open to debate..and please someone correct me if Im wrong:) *puts open minded hat on* (Fethroesforia 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Well the obvious thing to point out is that there is no 'anti-Labour' organisation. As long as they're clearly labelled, I don't really see the problem? --Robdurbar 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Very common on wikipedia pages are external links to "criticisms of...", rather than links to "opposition to..." as with this page, but it doesn't violate the NPOV principle to link to critical material. BobFromBrockley 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In any article, neutral point of view can only be given if pro and anti sides are represented and this applies equally to the links. There are links to the BNP's own sites, so links to opposition sites are also needed. It is up to readers to come to their own decisions about whether or not they are pro- or anti- having read the evidence/views. To remove links to the antis would not allow this. Emeraude 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Why is that on the page? What can be done to remove it? --Robdurbar 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is flawed in every way, biased against the bnp, what can be done? nothing...as leftist idiots will remove anything even remotely non-biased. The article is pretty much beyond help..though not the fault of some of the people around here, they spend a lot of time removing spam and rubbish from the page placed by rightist idiots...lost battle... (Fethroesforia 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Removal of the NPOV tag wold be like removing the the letter E from the English alphabet. It is essential to the article until the whole article is re written with no political bias there are large swathes of the article which sound like something written by red ken while describing Oliver FInegold and other parts which read like their manifesto. Until these descrepancies biases and points of view are removed then the artical is about as biased as can be.--Lucy-marie 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: In the interests of unbiased discussion, it should be pointed out that on his user page Fethroesforia states that he is a supporter of the BNP. Emeraude 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

True...he does...but i as unbiased as i can be (ive never attempted to contribute unfairly to comunist pages or anything) Also incase anyone is wondering if im another stereotypical drunken thug skinhead, i personally think I am the opposite of that. Im a supporter of the bnp. So what? you mean there can be a POV that isnt anti-bnp? oh dear... (Fethroesforia 15:48?, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Of course not. There are POVs that are pro-BNP, anti-BNP, neutral-BNP. That's what POV means. But if you are taking part in a discussion about point of view in an article, and saying that there is bias, you ought to start by stating your own position as a supporter of one side of the argument, i.e. you have a certain point of view and are arguing from it. (You didn't sign your contribution above - I'm sure that was an oversight.) Emeraude 15:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..erratic post..well..now people know im pro-bnp (but i try my best to not be biased)..but im sure you understand some of the things said in here..annoy me quite a bit (just for the record..i hate any obvious bias in articles..if the article was pro-bnp id still be moaning) alas..i refrain from making changes onthe bnp page itself.. (Fethroesforia 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

OK, but my point is that 'this article needs an overhall, its completly anti-BNP' doesn't really get us very far if we want to fix this problem, does it? To be honest, if you're not making any practical suggestions for changes, then I'm not very happy about there being a tag, because the page reads all right to me.

So, take a section - say the history bit (its the longest one, so gives us most to work with). What would you change in that section to make the article neutral? I'm geniuinely looking to help but we need to actually concentrate on the content if we want to reach an acceptable article. --Robdurbar 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been a response to this offer. I don't see how this article is biased and if there is no justification beyond 'its not neutral' - with no examples given to support this - and no offers of how the article can be improved, then the tag really ought to be removed. So, again, I ask for constructive criticism, examples of non-neutral sections, or possible improvements. Robdurbar 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well firstly, whats the point of me even attempting to edit to article to make it 'unbiased' when (myself being a bnp supporter) will most certainly be met with prejudical hatred and unfounded statements, as well as anything i right being rubbished as 'that of a racist skinhead (of which im neither)' To be honest, if you can find no bias in the article...well...im lost for words, and im past searching through the article, theres too many weasel words and general bias to bother counting anymore. Fethroesforia 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well endugle me. Don't edit the article if you think people will not accept it, place your comments/suggestions here; others can enter them for you. And please, people won't move your edits if their resonable, just because you support the party. --Robdurbar 09:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-Marie, in your attempts to "neutralize" the article, you seem to be forgetting that anything asserted as fact must reflect the mainstream opinions of expert, independent secondary sources. And the assertion that the BNP is far-right satisfies that requisite. The opinion of a washed-up, virulently anti-leftist Conservative politician qualifies as neither expert nor independent, and it does nothing to invalidate the opinions of multitudes of academics and journalists who desbribe the BNP as far-right or radical right. In fact, I don't see why Tebbit's opinion is relevant at all. We're giving undue weight to the opinion of someone who is neither eminent nor prominent and who has a track record of equating leftism and fascism. If you have an expert, independent secondary source disputing that the BNP is far-right, present it, because Tebbit's opinion alone is essentially worthless, anti-leftist propaganda. -- WGee 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was merley stating that the article itself conradicts the label of being right wing. However the comment you make in your above statement are hardly remaining neutral and on the point. I admit that he may not be the most reliable source but most of the 'mainstream' sources are just as biased as he is, so i was just stating what reading the article it self asserted. I also do not think any source is truly indipendant when describing any political party, what next the daily mail supporting the liberal decmocrats and security issues.--Lucy-marie 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, having someone as Tebbit discussing the issue could be beneficial - it represents someone vocalising the idea that they're not right wing - which some people think they are not. By adding his name to it, we provide a referent for the sort of position that thinks the BNP aren't right wing

As for the tag - that shouldn't be used to just to indicate an aritcle is controversial. Its there to indicate that an article is non-neutral. The fact is that as far as I can tell, this article only reports facts. I agree with WGee that unless there some tangiable objections to the content are provided, the tag ought to go. As seen above, I have offered plenty of opportunities to provide a few examples of non neturality. I am still happy to hold out for a few more days in the hope that some examples can be given. To put it simply, if you don't tell us what you think its wrong, then it can't be fixed. --Robdurbar 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily one section it is just the orevall fell i get after reading the article i fell the overall tone is slanted against the BNP. some se ctons such as The Guardian's infiltration section although maybe true give me that impression.--Lucy-marie 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My objection was more along these lines: Why should we relay the opinion of one washed-up rightist who is neither prominent nor eminent yet omit the myriad of independent (by which I mean not affiliated with a partisan organization, Lucy-Marie) academics, experts in their fields, who all agree that the BNP is far-right? It seems to me that whoever added Tebbit's comments is trying to subtly push the POV that the BNP is not far-right, since he or she chose to highlight one in a thousand sources that associates the BNP with the left. New editors to this page constantly declare that the BNP is closer to the left than to the right, but to assert such a thing is to demonstrate ignorance of the underlying philosophies of fascism and socialism and of the right and the left. We must not give legitimacy to common misapprehensions by including obscure sources that justify them; rather, it is the job of encyclopedias to dispel myths. -- WGee 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hear where you are coming from i am not under the disolution that the main academics view them as right wing but as you keep on championing them please provide some evidence to back up your claims. It is also the responsibility of an encyclopedia to prevent a neutral unbiased opinion. The best articles present no side of any arguments whre this article does. In ways with sections abot left wing newspaper articles such as the guardian.--Lucy-marie 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I'm not a university student, I don't have free access to many academic sources. But you can catch a glimpse of them using Google Scholar [5]. -- WGee 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it is not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to "prevent a neutral unbiased opinion." If that were the case, then an encyclopedia would be nothing more than a collection of partisan opinion. An encyclopedia should describe all relevant viewpoints, but at the same time it must give prominence to what is commonly accepted as fact—hence WP:Undue weight. -- WGee 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i meant present not prevent so that is my fault sorry for my typing error.--Lucy-marie 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I should point out, moreover, that the purpose of the POV tag is not to get people to "look for something" of whose existence we are unsure. If that's your object, then you should begin an RfC. -- WGee 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the =

weird paragraph under the links? about violence and criminal behaviour? whys it under links? Fethroesforia 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tracked it down. You did it when you last edited. You accidentally deleted the > from the </ref> so that it had no effect and everything following was treated as a reference. I've put it back so no damage done. Emeraude 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ahhhhh...ok..thanks :) Fethroesforia 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before..but...

The sun newspaper front page....

ive seen anti-muslim headline..never see them on wikipedia, ive seen anti blair headlines..never seen them....Im bound not to like them, im just wondering..why they are neccessary (im sure they are..im just..not thinking straight i guess) Fethroesforia 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Its aim is to be indicative of the negative press coverage that the BNP receives. --Robdurbar 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that stating negative press coverage recieved by the party in the introduction as it almost tells the reader before reaching the main article the part has major detractors. I do however see a place for it later on in the article in the opposition to the BNP section.--Lucy-marie 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we please

Leave the NPOV tag alone..theres an obvious POV throughout the article, pointed out by a fair few people (NOT persons...lol) Im not going to sort the tag out..i get a feeling it will go on and go off again multiple times before morning. But I will reinstate some of the edited hyperlinks some guy put in before WGee reverted it to theirs (removing some edited hyperlinks) Fethroesforia 02:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "obvious" bias, only some sort of general, indescribable one alleged by you and Lucy-Marie. -- WGee 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to politely explain to you what bits could be improved..maybe sort it out tomorrow or mark some bits down tonight..but your attitude towards me is..well..icy to say the least, branding me a racist and just being both vague and rude in your posts to me. Fethroesforia 03:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My insinutation was only meant to suggest that you should deeply reconsider, in light of the teachings of Christ, supporting a party that advocates racial segregation and scientific racism. -- WGee 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont appreciate the insinuation, considering I feel that every other political party is or would destroy england and ruin the english identity, rather than being a racist supporter of the bnp..its more..the bnp would be tougher on certain things than other parties (not racial..im on about other things..like the nhs and the safety of its staff) Fethroesforia 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's not try and preach each other's polticis to each other - this is neither the time nor the place.

Fethroseforia, I'd really appreciate it if you could mark a couple of examples out of what you see as bias. I don't expect you to list everything that you think is wrong with it so we can resolve the differences overnight - but a couple of examples to might get us started! --Robdurbar 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Ill see what I can do robdurbar :) Fethroesforia 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro

In your bold restructuring of the introduction, Lucy-Marie, you have white-washed some very relevant information. First, any party that is explicitly "wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples" can and must be accurately referred to as "racist." Indeed the clause "The BNP denies that it is racist, however" implies that the BNP is commonly viewed as a supporter of racism, but since we also state the BNP's official position, that is within the bounds of both common sense and WP:NPOV. Second, you seem to have had a problem with the sentence "The party believes that racism is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as ‘realists’". So I'll point you to the relevant quotations:

• "'Racism', in other words, is not a consequence of ‘false consciousness', economics, imperialism or the work of evil agitators, it is part of human nature."
• "it is what allows us to say with confidence and sincerity that we are not ‘racists', but realists." [6]

To say that the party believes that "racial differences" are part of human nature is true, but it white-washes the fact that the party expressly considers racism part of human nature. Finally, I don't quite understand your objections to the last paragraph. Before you attempt to remove perceived bias, you should tell us what that bias is so that we can collaboratively work to remove it. -- WGee 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed those from the introduction but do not have a prblem with them being re inserted furtherd down in the aricle i think it starts the article off on the wrpong foot by immedatily putting a negative about the aparty up straight away.--Lucy-marie 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also define th importance of this sentence: Anti-fascist organizations such as Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism dedicate the bulk of their efforts to denouncing the BNP. I think its like saying the daily mail and the telegraph dedicate large portions of thier papers to lampooning the labour party.--Lucy-marie 19:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note i didn't delete the stuff on racism my paragraphy rewording read like this:The BNP sees itself as standing up for the white British working class. Main parties such as the Conservative Party and Mayor of London Ken Livingstone distance themselves from the BNP. Politicicans from other parties accuse the BNP of being racist, an accustation that the BNP strongly denies. The party believes that racial differences are a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".

As for 'racist/racism'. It seems to me that the current wording - as in the pre-rewrite version - in its use of 'however' and the term 'racism' - which carries negative connotations taht no one can deny - suggests that the policies and beliefs of the previous paragraph are something to be ashamed of and are somehow wrong. This is making a value judgement and, to be fair, is probably non-neutral. Though I advocate the retention of the UAF/Searchlight sentence, I think Lucy's intro otherwise has its merits. Robdurbar 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence carries the connotation that the BNP advocates racism, and it does, virtually explicitly. No one, in good faith, can claim that the racial segregation that the BNP expressly advocates is not a form of racism. Even without the "however", the mere mentioning of racism in relation to the BNP implies that it is widely regarded as racist. Such a connotation is unavoidable considering the BNP's racist constitution.

Moreover, that British anti-fascist organizations dedicate the bulk of their efforts to denouncing the BNP is quite notable, as it is not the case with any other party. Perhaps no other party in recent times has created such a furor among politicians and non-governmental organizations as the BNP. It is also unique in that mainstream poltical parties have explicitly refused to collaborate with it, and they have gone out of their way to rebuke a party that only received 0.7% of the vote in the last general election.

-- WGee 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but it is till point of view to menton points of view against the party in the introduction so i suggest moving it to the opposition to the BNP section--Lucy-marie 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you quite see where I'm coming from. It is not a mere "point of view" that the BNP advocates racism, but a fact that is wholly supported by logic. Like I said, it is impossible to deny in good faith, given its constitution, that the BNP does not advocate racism. We have the opinion of the overwhelming majority juxtaposed with the opinion of the party itself, and I have yet to be told how that violates WP:NPOV. -- WGee 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The use of the words osrtacised and rebuked are clearly not npov words and the genral fell of the paragraph is that of the BNP being wrong and should be hated for it. Not all point of view debates can be easily defined by wikipedia policy. This is a situation where users are colaborating and saying the wording needs changing and i have provided an alternative which has recieved initial support.--Lucy-marie 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] To suggest that we cannot impartially refer to racial segregation as "racist" is quite ridiculous, and it defies the precedent set by the featured Ku Klux Klan article. The term "racist" has been thrown around innumerable times as a political epithet, but there are situations in which it can be used for what it denotes rather than for what it connotes. -- WGee 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, one needs to pay attention to what the words denote rather than what they connote. Look up those two words in a dictionary and I am sure you will find that they are very appropriate given the context. If you can think of a better way to describe the BNP's situation, please propose it here on the talk page, but mainstream politicians are doing more than "distancing themselves" from the BNP. -- WGee 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, you are treating Wikipedia as though it were a democracy and have restored your version, despite the fact that we have not yet reached a consensus. You have moreover failed to address all of my criticisms regarding your version. Please revert back to my last revision, which has the legitimacy of having been supported by the consensus for a long time. Your version bears no such legitimacy. -- WGee 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes i hear where you are coming from and i have no problem with stating this as a policy later on in the article but it tottaly unecessary at the begining of he article as it immedatly brings racism into the article which is not completly what should be done immedatly. the introduction should only introduce the rticle not bring up sections or contrversial topics.--Lucy-marie 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your justification does nothing to quell my belief that your white-washing of the introduction is unacceptable. Please read WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY before you resort to mob rule. -- WGee 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't asked for a vote threfore it is not a democracy. It Is merly a concensus between more than one user.

I really don't see the current version as a white washing. Really, the only change that has been made is that we've defined more clearly who is labeling the BNP as racist. To come at it objectively, the old wording was framed to make it sounds like 'Wikipedia' believed that there was something ineherently wrong with the policies in the first paragraph. It gave the BNP's ideals, then said 'however, they don't think they're racist'. Now, we can see that 'racial segregation' is a form of racism and isn't a policy to be proud of; but we simply can't say that in the article. We can probably go as far as saying its 'racist'; but that doesn't mean we have to if we can give some tangiable critics saying that it is racist, which the new version does. Robdurbar 10:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The construction "The BNP denies that it is racist, however" (the "however" in particular) suggests that the aforementioned principles of the BNP are racist. And there is nothing wrong with either saying or implying that the BNP's advocacy of racial segregation is "racist." Something so obvious does not need to be verified by sources and is certainly not biased. It is better for Wikipedia to assert as fact that the BNP's beliefs are racist rather than do so under the guise of weasel words. Again, there is nothing biased or factually inaccurate about characterizing racial segregation as racist. -- WGee 03:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of weasel words from the other proposal? If you refer to 'The BNP is widely regarded as being racist' - then this could easily be re-phrased as 'These parties and politicians all view the BNP as racist'. I still feel that the current wording suggests that there is something inherently negative in the policies of the BNP. Surely the fact that the BNP denies that its policies of racial segregation are racist means that this is not 'obivous'. What is obvious to one person is almost never obvious to another. Though some people understand 'racism' to mean 'an ideology that there are inherent differences between human races', many others would understand it to mean 'an ideology that a certain race or races are superiod to others'. There is an importnat difference there. All I'm saying is surely it is better for us to have the claim that the BNP is racist attributed to a few people, so that it can be shown that this is an opinion held by the majority, and not a conclusion dervied by our own definition of racism? Robdurbar 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"'These parties and politicians all view the BNP as racist'." I don't think that goes far enough. To take only the views of parties and politicians into account when describing another party is not sufficient; after all, they are bound to be biased or open to accusations of bias, even if they are right. I think the BNP is racist; I think certain of its policies are racist. Most people I know think it's racist, and the few BNP supporters I know also think it's racist - that's why they support it! Of course, what I and people I know think is not citeable, but with WGee's argument above, we at least get to use something of a 'common sense' justification. Another point: You say that (to paraphrase) if the opponents say something and the BNP denies it, it is not obvious. This is not entirely logical - there are numerous examples in life of where this would be a silly attitude. Have you ever seen a court case where the criminal is obviously guilty but denies it? In the interests of justice and a fair trial, the accused is allowed to plead not guilty and put their case. By analogy, in this article it should say that the BNP is racist (or considered racist, though personally I favour the former) on the grounds proposed by WGee, but that they deny it. Which is near enough waht the article says. Emeraude 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you are coming from with your courtroom analogy but the jury itself must be impartial at the start rather than the media jumping all over it and say that a person is guilty. I think the article should take the position of the jury at the start of a trial and not the media coering the trial. I think the wording need to be as neutral as possible and avoid any negative conotation expressed in the wording. This is because having a negative tone or negative conotations in the wording are not a neutral point of view and saying thay are a racist party is a point of view and uprovable whater they are actuallly racist, with out citing what their true thoughts are, (this could only be acheived by mind reading) so lets not put strong words in the start of the page and leave that for more apropriatre sections later on.--Lucy-marie 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, neither of those two points really get where I'm coming from. I agree with Emeraude - that's why I originally picked the wording 'are widely regarded as being', though I noted that that phrase was a bit weasily. I'd be happy to find a medium (e.g. The British media and all other political parties reflect the majority opinion that the BNP is racist). I'm afraid I don't by the "the media are biased agianst the BNP" argument - I think more that they reflect the majority of public opinion. I'm not overly fussed here - I don't think either version is too bad. I'd rather try eiditing them than reverting between the two. I think both are pretty much the same to be honest - I mildly prefer Lucy-marie's, with my couple of ammendmants. Robdurbar 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What amendments do you propse?--Lucy-marie 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Guardian infiltration

the section about the guardian in my opinion is highly biased against the guardain and the BNP i would like to request a comment from other users on the best way to re-word the section to a more neutral point of view. the section surently reads as follows:
On December 21, 2006 the liberal Guardian newspaper revealed that one of its journalists, Iain Cobain, had worked undercover in the organisation for seven months, and became the party's Central London organiser. The report revealed that the BNP uses clandestine rendezvous points (RVP, actually public places) for its members to gather prior to secret meetings elsewhere and the extent to which party members frequently use false names. The BNP is also succeeding in reaching beyond its white working class base to attract affluent new members in parts of London where it has previously been shunned. Cobain had access to the central London membership list (on an encrypted Excel spreadsheet) which includes "dozens of company directors, computing entrepreneurs, bankers and estate agents, and a handful of teachers".
I also have a problem with use of brackets in this section as they break up the flow of the section.--Lucy-marie 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with it. Accurately reports what The Guardian said. The Guardian article itself was accurate. I can't see how any of this is "highly biased", but if it were highly biased against both the BNP and the The Guardian then it is probably overall neutral. Emeraude 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion i think it should read neutrally towards both of them. I think the word liberal as a description of the Guardian is bias, clandestine is also when describing BNP rv points is biased, in my opinion. I think that it should be neutral towards poth subjects in the section and not bias towards both. I think that saying one cancels out another is a valid point, but when reading, it may be more biased against one than another to certian reeaders.--Lucy-marie 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to be explained why the use “clandestine rendezvous points” and “false names”, such as the threat of violence or disruption caused by opponents of the BNP. dwc lr 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

An intereting point, but seeing as the Guardian gave no reason that would be pure speculation. Emeraude 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that 'liberal' stood out to me when I read through the article, though to be fair I don't think the Guardian or its readers would reject that title. It's probably better with it out. As for the other bits - are these direct quotes? If so, we put them in "" marks, and problem is solved. --Robdurbar 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea and would need refrencing if they are . Which brings me on to another point about refrencing in his article there are 44 refrences and 106 website links this need sorting out.--Lucy-marie 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done all that. Actually, its quite good that we did look at it - for example, the Guardian did not claim the redenzvous points were 'clandestine', but that the meetings were. I've replaced the commnents with direct quotes from the article.

As for reffing - its a dull job, but they do all need converting to references. If anyone wants to do some, go ahead! --Robdurbar 18:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 100 references to do and possibly more as a template is not used on some. which I think is a must, i will start to do the first twenty but would like some one to take up the next twenty and so on so he task does not become tottal rediculously monotonus.--Lucy-marie 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of weasle words

In the 2004-2005 section this sentenceis used. This move has been criticized by some as playing on people's high emotions and grief following a horrendous attack I think the phrase "horrendous attack" needs to be directly quoted and who are some.--Lucy-marie 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read through this. The source after the sentence provides some evidence as to who the some is (it could be replaced with 'commentators', 'journalists', 'some, for example the Daily Mail' if we really want?), but the horendous can just go I think. --Robdurbar 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay...

Looking through the article theres a fair few points which can be changed/removed/citation..etc..I will run through the article in the near future and highlight the (probably) many bits that I believe are not neutral. Though I have exams coming up soon as well as finsihing off my personal statement for university, you will have to forgive me for not being paticularly quick about it:) Fethroesforia 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems I quickly picked out

"the British National Party received 0.7% of the popular vote and did not win any seats in the House of Commons"...any source? I know its true (i think) but how does the reader? Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether election results count as information that is widely available or not. But it can easily be sourced from the BBC website.

"All mainstream parties and politicians"..All? every single one? proof? Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the intro being discussed abvoe so expect that to change anyway. --Robdurbar 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"BNP is widely regarded as being racist"...says who? its like saying..george bush is a warmongering idiot..but it isnt on his wikipedia page? no source...no proof..regardless if you believe its right or not..it doesnt represent the views of the entire world believe it or not Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto - indeed, that very sentence has been mentioned. --Robdurbar 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to a message i received, the bnp deny to be racist..try to prove it..please..a reliable source reading the minds of the bnp and telling me they are racist, I couldnt care less if you or other people believe they are..its called proof..and it is what its lacking..No it isnt obvious either..dont try and pull that one, the sentence is both a lie and slur and it has nothing at all the back it up..it needs to be changed..probably the thing that needs changing most on the page Fethroesforia 01:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"the guardian" oh..a centre left newspaper..having a go at the bnp..thats a first..i assume what the guardian says is not biased right? ha...though i guess its important in the bnp's history..im just against a newspaper's illegal activities Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesb't mean that we're not allowed to report it, so long as we attribute the details to them. --Robdurbar 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"It also includes faith and community leaders and politicians from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party (e.g., David Cameron), RESPECT, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party. Searchlight magazine has monitored the activities of the BNP and its members for many years, and has published many articles highly critical of them." oh really?source? Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source for that is pretty obvious - Searchlight itself. Emeraude 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

and im supposed to trawl through the entire website to find the names? seriously? Fethroesforia 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right to point out this section ("and other radical right-wing groups"). Thanks, this needs looking at. --Robdurbar 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks robdurbar (you manage to keep a level head throughout this whole discussion) Theres more but im..as of late slightly distracted..with exams coming up and all. Ill point out more when i get more time:) Fethroesforia 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Those and the other uncitated statements already in there, those are the few I can pick out right now..seeing as im halfway through a biology paper i figured Id take a break Fethroesforia 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully minor corrections

The intro concluded with the words: "Anti-fascist organizations such as Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial propotion of their efforts to denouncing the BNP. [8]"

I have corrected a typo in there, but have distinguished Searchligh as a magazine, not an organisation. I have also removed the reference and footnote which refers to the website. Searchlight is a magazine and its coverage is not (as previously suggested) mostly about denouncing the BNP, or even 'substantially' - articles cover the whole of Europe and the world. Check the Searchlight website for indexes to issues. This article is talking about Searchlight the mag, not its website. Also, I think 'devote' reads better than 'dedicate'. Emeraude 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone please do something about this quote

Im sure if i do it..it will be reverted immediatly

"The BNP is widely regarded as being racist, an accustation that the BNP strongly denies."

regarded by whom? any sources of widely (in my mind..meaning the majority..so im looking for a nationwide survey asking this very question if such a one exists) and..accustation..? who are they denying it from? searchlight? communists? mickey mouse? We need to expand on these things if this is to be NPOV..alas..im not going to edit it but im hoping we can have a CIVIL conversation about this..hopefully with something to back up wildly extreme claims and then someone can edit this part, which I find..wildly POV Fethroesforia 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I Think the Sentence should read as a follow on from the last something like: This is because of the BNP being percieved as racists by the conservatives and ken livingstone. Also why is this sentence there at dose not seam to serve a place other tan to promote anti-fascism and thus portray the BNP as fascist: The party is opposed by anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism.--Lucy-marie 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but if I edit it..im willing to bet a small fortune it will get reverted because none of the above have seen this and will think i did it on impulse. And the magazines? well..seems obvious...that communist/left wing magazines are having a swipe at a so called right wing party (go figure..the bnp isnt economically right). I mean.."accustation that the BNP strongly denies" says who? this is what annoys me..who? who accuses? where does it say the bnp denied? what did they deny exactly? when? who denied it exactly? griffin or someone else? the sentence produces so many questions because...its garbage...*sigh* Fethroesforia 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there is no substantial change in this discussion over the sentence should be 12.00pm tuesday January 8th (GMT). The most iritating thing is the weasel word you have mentioned that obviously are pov and must be removed.--Lucy-marie 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They must be..and..a certain person..im pretty sure will likely revert it..(they will remain unnamed) but I looked at 'their' user discussion, it is filled with argurments from them reverting and deleting sections of 'fascist' groups, labelling nationalist parties as racist and once reverting one page 44 times in one night (they should be banned many times over) I believe they reverted this page a lot not long back. anyway..i agree..its obvious pov and is an embarressment to the 'neutrality' of wikipedia.. Fethroesforia 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have a look at the intro discussion and join in there. --Robdurbar 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken sources

source 54..blank link..... Fethroesforia 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

so is source 33 Fethroesforia 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

and 52 Fethroesforia 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

70 and 71 are identical Fethroesforia 00:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

86 and 87 are also the same Fethroesforia 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Identical sources is not a problem. 70 refers to a charge against someone. It needs to be sourced. 71 refers to another charge against him. It needs to be sourced. The fact that both sources are the same does not matter. If one of them was not sourced you would be the first to complain, with justification. Same applies to 86 & 87. Emeraude 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with identical sources. --Robdurbar 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say there was..i merely misunderstood that the references had changed..i thiught it still had the number system with the listed at bottom where a letter was used if two sources were identical..I see now...geez... Fethroesforia 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro (2)

Here is the introduction as I would like to see it (it is more or less the version that has been supported by the consensus for months before the arrival of Lucy-Marie):

The British National Party (BNP) is the most prominent far-right political party in the United Kingdom. It has 55 councillors in local government, but lacks representation in the national Parliament. In the 2005 general election, the British National Party received 0.7% of the popular vote and did not win any seats in the House of Commons.

According to its constitution, the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." It is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". To achieve this aim, the BNP advocates the use of "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK. Membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians."

The BNP denies that it is racist, however, stating that it is merely standing up for the white British working class. The party believes that racism (they explicitly say "racism", not merely "racial differences"—how many times do I have to explain this? For what its worth I don't recall that point being made once before. If I've missed I'm sorry, but I've not heard you or anyone else say it Robdurbar 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC) ) is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".

The BNP is marginalized by the political mainstream. Conservative Party leader David Cameron, for example, has called on voters to "back anyone but the BNP," while Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has criticized "the politics of race hate peddled by the BNP." Anti-fascist organizations such as Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism dedicate the bulk of their efforts to denouncing the party.

Because there was never a consensus to alter the lead in the first place, this version should stay, for it is the only one to ever have been supported by the consensus. Could somebody explain the flaw in my logic?

Moreover, no logical argument has been made as to why the BNP's policies of racial segregation cannot be factually referred to as "racist." As both I and Emeraude have demonstrated, the BNP's opinion does not negate the truth. The word and everthing connected to it will always have negative connotations, but the term is warranted for what it denotes.

So, racial segregation (what the BNP advocates) is unassailably racist, and to conceal the fact that it is racist by using weasel phrases (e.g., "widely regarded as") amounts to white-washing. Likewise, it is not merely the "opinion" of all politicians and reporters that the BNP is racist, but a fact. I could always re-word the sentence in question to say, "Despite the fact that the BNP supports racial segregation, it denies that it is racist," but such wording conveys exactly the same message, only in a clumsier way.

Could you point out any other concerns with this version?

-- WGee 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I sound huffy, but I have essentially been saying the same thing for days, and people continue to give evasive responses that are void of logic. -- WGee 07:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add somewhere in the introduction that the BNP is a "radical right-wing populist" party and is, likewise, "anti-Establishment" (cf. [7] [8] [9]). And any "radical" or "anti-Establishment" is, by definition, on the fringe of mainstream politics. -- WGee 07:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above wording, and your rationale, with two provisos. 1. The figure of 55 councillors is no longer accurate; I have read that there have been resignations and some disqualifications of councillors on account of criminal records. I don't have the details to hand, but the figure is now certainly slightly less than 55. Perhaps reword to something like "It has had as many as 55 councillors." if the exact number can't be found. 2. In the last sentence: Searchlight is not an organisation but a magazine. I had edited this for this version [[10]] and explained why above under "Hopefully minor corrections". Emeraude 13:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I never had a massive problem with the original. I think that is an acceptable introduction to the artilce. That said, in an ideal world I'd make the following changes:

• It has 55 councillors in local government, but lacks representation in the national Parliament. In the 2005 general election, the British National Party received 0.7% of the popular vote and did not win any seats in the House of Commons. Essentially, the two emboldened bits repeat the same point - perhaps stike the second half of that last sentence?
• I still have a problem with the entence 'The BNP denies it is racist, however'. Here's the Wikipedia article on racism:

Racism is a belief or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement — with a corollary that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.[1] (now it seems to me that this is the definition of racism that you are following. It is, in your words, 'obvious'. And you are right that if the definition were to stop there, there would be no problem. However, read on)

The term racism is sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group[2]

It is this second definition of racism that is used which makes me worreid about us stating, without qualification, that these are racist policies. I don't see any contemporay BNP policies or documents that suggest this belief (btw, I'm not saying many of its members don't think that...). I don't mind saying: 'The British national media and the majority of politicians and commentators (with two/three references providing cross-spectrum examples) describe the BNP as racist. The BNP denies this, saying that racial differences racism is a natural part of humanity and that their policies are merely realist'.

* Terms like radical are value judgements and will always be so. I don't mind 'anti-establishment'; it provides a more concrete and less value laden view.

• As for councillor numbers - they are very hard to monitor. Perhaps we could say "as of the 2006 local elections, the BNP has 55 councillors"?

These aren't stubborn proposals for me. I think your current proposal is broadly accurate and is as good, if not better, than I could do. I agree that whilst discussions are onngoing, we should really be showing the pre-December intro. If there were to be a vast range of objections to my comments, then clearly we have a consensus and I'm not going to start complaining. But to me, those changes (or changes of those sort) would make the artilce appear more neutral.Robdurbar 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay..WGee..firstly..the article..i felt..was getting accurate and unbiased, then you came back and reverted some of peoples work. I find this rude as you did not bother to wait for any replies before making hasty changes. It seems it is impossible to attempt to work with you on this. Your edit history and discussions has thrown light on your left wing views, ultra-reverting behaviour and reverting without warning. As for robdurbar, who seems to somehow be able to keep compsure during this discussion page, i agree with most of what was said. We cant throw the word 'racist' around, most of the people i know feel George Bush is a racist..can i put that on his oage because i FEEL it is correct? can i make large and possibly controversial edits without prior warning? No..I cannot..for it is vandalism WGee..somehow your behaviour is classed otherwise. I ould like nothing more than to talk on a calm and sensible level about this. But I am shocked to see the edits made without any prior warning or discussion. This is not a personal attack by the way, for I feel you (WGee) make valuable and helpful edits to wikipedia. I hope we can have a sensible consensus about this. Rather than arguing and reverting, and throwing our own beliefs and feelings around, can we not come to some sort of a conclusion with this? Find some middle ground and attempt to give the other some leeway. I am more than happy for some things to be said, but not with some of the unpredictable behaviour which I feel almost all of us have used in the edits to this page. Can I ask that before any more major edits are made (reversions [unless from vandalism], tags, categorising, hyperlinking) that we can have a discussion about it? This will save both time and hassle in the long run. I hope we can come to a resolution. Fethroesforia 15:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think Wee had been conducting "ultra-reverting" behaviour. I do hope the above post doesn't distract from some of the content issues I brought up above, because I really hope we can sought something out. Editing a page to your own version isn't vandalism (see WP:VAND) and I simply hope that Wee can appreciate that definitions of racism aren't as clear cut as he understands. Remember, Fetherose, that you can always remove the extra edits Wee has made and I'm sure he will accept that until discussion is finished.

In the meantime, then, I think its worth looking more closely at the sources for the 'radical' claim, as this is essentially the main change made by Wee from the intro that had been used for a good few months. I actually drop my opposition to this wording, so long as the google scholar searches are replaced with references to actual articles that label the BNP 'radical right' (which is easy enough). Robdurbar 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ill have a look in the article. To be honest, id be okay if someone said 'the bnp are violent thuggish racist skinheads' if they had a reasnoble and unbiased and unlibel source for this..but it wont happen obviously. The bnp are not racist..if some of their prominent members are then so be it..but the part isnt..(innocent till proven guilty..etc) My point is..im against the use of the word racist as I believe it has conotations which are untrue, 'racist' can not be thrown around lightly, as its both wrong, rude and potentially libellous (i say potentially) I agree with your post, my point is I dont want speculation and beliefs of editors to detract from otherwise useful edits, no-one should allow their personal feelings to change their edits. (if i saw vandalism on a conservative, bnp, labour, ukip, respect or any political party..i would argue their case as it is only right) Fethroesforia 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A better phrase would be ""as of the 2006 local elections, the BNP had 55 councillors", in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 16:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are we trying to include these phrases unless we are trying to portray them in a certian wayt i think the simplest way to maintain a npov is to not include them at all and save ourselves a headache.--Lucy-marie 17:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree lucy-marie, but what are the odds of others agreeing with this npov? small if anything at all. Im trying to come to a compromise, knowing that those for the term 'racist bnp' and those against it..they will never be able to fuly include it or fully omit it (as much as id like a npov article on the bnp..it wont happen..ever) :) though i understand your concern, removing a biased word is surely better than trying to soften its meaning (the word is unproven, unfairly, and unjustly attributed to the bnp in the article. The inclusion of it alone is a joke Fethroesforia 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please suggest an alternate header, and present it in the way WGee did then? One Night In Hackney 18:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely anything without the word (which is biased and an opinion) racist...as its an opinion...wikipedia is a collection of NPOV articles..or so i thought..anyway..wikipedia isnt the place for peoples political thoughts or opinions..its down to facts...'racist' is not a fact..its nothing but a rumour..garbage.. Fethroesforia 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So anything that portrays the BNP in a more positive light? Hardly NPOV. "Racist" is backed up by the BNP's own constitution, and the interpretation can be confirmed by reliable sources from across the UK media. The majority of people that say the BNP is not racist are its supporters, so it would be POV not to include it. One Night In Hackney 18:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Racist is not backedup by their constiution..find the qoute *we are racist* and i will happily put it in the article. Unfortunatly..their constution and manifestos do not back up that point. its called opinion that bnp are racist..its POV to include it,calling anyone or anything racist on wikipedia is wrong unless they acknowledge it themselves Fethroesforia 18:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can and here is my proposed version from the original talk on the introduction:

The BNP sees itself as standing up for the white British working class. Main parties such as the Conservative Party and Mayor of London Ken Livingstone distance themselves from the BNP. Politicicans from other parties accuse the BNP of being racist, an accustation that the BNP strongly denies. The party believes that racial differences are a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".

I think it satisfies some by have that some say the BNP is racist and satisfies others by not asserting it is true. The main reason i dislike wgee version is because it needs an update and has not been updated for months, uses weasel words and make assertations about the truth with no verifiable truth. This is however just my opinion and WGee will most likly disagree with it but i am entitled to it just as Wgee is to holding an opinion--Lucy-marie 18:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the phrase in the BNP's constitution "we are racist" then we can include the phrase but we cannot take the media and reliable sources as thier main objective is to increase coverage of themsleves and we can never say the BNP are truly racists with out reading all memebrs minds and it saying exactly the same, Which is currwntly not possible.--Lucy-marie 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) The BNP did not use the phrase "racial differences". [11] states:

‘Racism', in other words, is not a consequence of ‘false consciousness', economics, imperialism or the work of evil agitators, it is part of human nature.

I fail to see how a quote derived from the BNP's own manifesto can be POV. One Night In Hackney 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying it is part of human nature..which it is..see the start to many wars...is not the same to saying they are racist. Try again Fethroesforia 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confused:

Phrase being objected to - The party believes that racism is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".

Phrase proposed in return - The party believes that racial differences are a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".

Try again... One Night In Hackney 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh..i agree with that..im just heavily opposed to the word racist being used in the opening article where it is not needed. sorry..my deepest apoligies (seriously) I agree to that..(sorry again) *eats humble pie* Fethroesforia 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The British media, the vast majority of other politicians all say the BNP is racist. See [12],[13],[14], [15], [16]. That's from a two minute search of google and the Daily mail.

To be honest, my two problems with the racism bit are, firstly, that in the construction above, we have the BNP denying something before we mention anyone accusing them of it. It just seems the wrong way round to do things; I just think it would be much easier to say something along along the lines of my above proposal.

Secondly, as I noted and as no-one has really responded to, the word 'racism' does carry two meanings - namely that of 'an ideology that races are different' and 'an ideology that one race is better than the other'. If we use the word 'racist' unqualifyingly, we could effectively be making that second charge, even if we don't intend to be. Robdurbar 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick question robdurbar...the majority of english people and papers believe boris johnson is a muppet (i like him..but anyway) does that mean i can put that on his page..'some people claim boris is a muppet..but he denies this' though I do understand your view. Its rather hard to call them racist without making the 2nd charge..and we cant put an explaination of this on the page. Im open to suggestions from anyone :) Fethroesforia 19:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, yes. If enough people published things saying 'Johnson is a muppet' then it would be fine. --Robdurbar 20:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

seriously? thats..a rather sad reflection on human society..anyway..i still find the word misleading (i believe you have said that yourself or something similar)may i ask what you propose would be good to replace it? (having read through the article..i believe that the use of 'racist' is one of theonly things holding the article back from being almost wholly npov. Fethroesforia 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar, you said, "The term racism is sometimes used to refer to preference for one's own ethnic group. It is this second definition of racism that is used which makes me worreid about us stating, without qualification, that these are racist policies. I don't see any contemporay BNP policies or documents that suggest this belief." I'll give you two: it wants to evict non-whites from the country and it restricts party membership to whites only. Racial segregation in general is based on ethnocentrism: it is all about keeping your ethnic group "in" and the others "out". -- WGee 11:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that that is an interpretation of the policy. The BNP would argue that it does not seek to keep others out because they are worse (Second definition) but because they are different (first definition). I don't see how we can objectively judge the motivation. --Robdurbar 12:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a persons opinion that is how they interpret the policy. Surely wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts..not pure speculation and opinion. We cant judge the bnp with the word rcist because of its two connotations. I hope this can be sorted soon, maybe someone can think of an alternate word than racist? Fethroesforia 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar, we have already established that the BNP's self-proclaimed principles are irrelevant to what is factually accurate—we must merely report the BNP's position to satisfy WP:NPOV. The problem here is not the definition of racism, per se, but whether or not we can objectively imply that the BNP's advocacy of racial segregation is racist. -- WGee 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed

the small sentences containing 'racist'. It is pure opinion. Inclusion of words such as xenophobe/homophobic and anti-semitic can be dsicussed here if wanted for inclusion. But not racist, hopefully we can come to an agreement on what to do..if anything..maybe a word less extreme than racist? Fethroesforia 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well what about the many ciations provided above or the alternative way of phrasing it? The mainstream opinion is that the BNP are racist. --Robdurbar 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just..find the word racist to mean something very extreme. I dislike the word intently. Any word instead would be almost certainly fine by me. Just not the word racist. any other word/sentence etc will do. I just oppose to the use of 'racist' as i believe its..just wrong to include in the article and find it unnecessary Fethroesforia 19:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not try to alter this article based on your idiosyncratic interpretation of a word; instead, look it up in a dictionary and base your argument on what it denotes (academics, learned people, and, likewise, encyclopedias tend to use words that way). Also, since racism is currently an ideology of the extreme right, it is appropriate for it to evoke images of "something very extreme". Similarly, you are forgetting that the BNP is a party of the extreme right [17]. -- WGee 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep up WGee..i very quickly reverted my version yesterday. says who it is extreme right? its your opinion..thats nice..not suitable for wikipedia though Fethroesforia 12:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... Maybe try clicking on the link I provided. -- WGee 13:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You googled BNP EXTREME RIGHT into google scholar..so naturally..unsuprisingly..it comes with extreme right bnp links. Besides, it doesnt matter. I dont want to argue about this. I would merely like to see suggestions to replace the word racism for reasons described by robdurbar. (i am trying to avoid beig hot headed here.. so..please dont try and provoke me again by using sarcasm..thanks) Fethroesforia 13:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely if you wish to replace the word, you should be able to suggest alternatives? One Night In Hackney 13:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why the nastiness? It is un-needed and considered rude Fethroesforia 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"You googled BNP EXTREME RIGHT into google scholar..so naturally..unsuprisingly..it comes with extreme right bnp links." Um, that was the sort of the idea: to show you that at least 1600 scholars classify the BNP as extreme right. If you want results on "cheese", you wouldn't search for "steak"... You're not making much sense. -- WGee 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you regarded that as uncivil, it wasn't intended that way. It's just not very constructive to maintain a position of "I don't like that word" while not suggesting anything in return. One Night In Hackney 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WGee..you didnt make your point correctly..just showing me a list..doesnt prove much..anyway...what has this got to do with the use of the word racist? and One Night in Hackney..if i found an alternative word..what chance has it got of being included when Emeraude and WGee are adamant it should stay (despite it being an opinion) Fethroesforia 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(artibrary outdent) To save me reading throgh this entire page for something I seem to have missed, can you at least tell me the alternative word please? One Night In Hackney 13:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres some surely..anti semitism (if that can be put in the right way), xenophobic? white supremecist? anything that basically isnt using an incorrect word {racist) Fethroesforia 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that racist was a "softer" term than white supremacist, and I think most people would agree with me. Plus, a "white supremacist" is inherently "racist", so I don't quite understand your logic. -- WGee 13:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its my upbringing..but ive always being taught that racist is a much worse word than any words meaning the same. Though thank you for your time for talking about this. Can I get back to you after asking some friends over what they believe is a good word to use on an encyclopedia. If they think that racist is an ok term..then I will happily back down..I have just always being told to never accuse someone of being racist (i never have..never will..i find it inappropriate, Ill get back to you :) thanks, and..no hard feelings right? Fethroesforia 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well xenophobic makes no sense, as white Europeans are fine and dandy according to the BNP. It's quite possible to be not racist but be anti-semetic, the two are totally different things. I'm not overly keen on white supremacist, for reasons I shall go into. We're quoting cited sources by saying the BNP are racist, and including the BNP's rebuttal/denial of this. The cited sources didn't say "white supremacist" to begin with, so it doesn't make sense to change anything they said. It's the same as the "racism/racial differences" discussed above. We're using the words that were originally spoken/written to avoid problems, or trying anyway.... One Night In Hackney 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One night in hackey, Ive found you to be rude in all your posts towards me and also uncivil, alas, I think i am close to solving this as nastiness will not help solve this Fethroesforia 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A word of wisdom: if you accuse people of being "rude and nasty" to you, chances are they will become rude and nasty, or their rudeness and nastiness will intensify. That said, I did not notice anything uncivil about his posts: saying that something "does not make sense" is perfectly civil. In fact, he worded his critique in a way that was meant to be non-offensive—using euphemisms such as "I'm not overly keen on" rather than "I abhor". Fethroesforia, by making scathing accusations against people, especially new users, you could diminish any prospect of a productive relationship. -- WGee 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

'Surely if you wish to replace the word, you should be able to suggest alternatives?'

to me..personally..it sounds like sarcasm and an attack on me. Maybe im too sensitive...but thats just me. 'or trying anyway' again...... Fethroesforia 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm, just logic; and logic cannot always be hidden behind an amicable facade.

Also, One Night in Hackney hit it home: "We're using the words that were originally spoken/written to avoid problems." Indeed, the truer we stay to the sources, the fewer POV conflicts will arise. Thus, if the source refers to the word racism, we should use the word racism. -- WGee 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry..that wasnt meant to appear so uptight. Im in the middle of dealing with a friend in need right now, im not exactly wanting a confrontation right now. I take back my original claims about uncivil posts. Can we..try and attempt to..or even pretend to try..to get along in some form or way? Fethroesforia 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

There is no rationale for reinstating Lucy-Marie's anti-consensual introduction. I say again: her revision has no legitimacy because it has never been approved by a consensus of editors. Therefore, until this dispute is resolved, we should revert to the only introduction to have ever been supported by a consensus of editors. This is the first step in resolving the dispute. -- WGee 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully support. The introduction supported by consensus should be retained while discussion is ongoing. One Night In Hackney 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Im confused as to which version is being reverted to, but whatever, i support it AS LONG AS this whole mess can be sorted out kindly and appopriatly Fethroesforia 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh..WGee, could you copy and paste an introduction that we agree on (last conensual intro or whatever) rather than reveting all the way back? so we wont lose valued edits (spelling, hyperlinking..etc) thanks :) Fethroesforia 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll only revert the introduction: everything else will remain. I'm glad that we can overcome this initial barrier to a resolution. -- WGee 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok..fine by me..id just like a discussion about some of the things which could be changed..rather than lots of reverting (ive seen..both pro and anti bnp reverts without much discussion [i dont think anyone is absolve from any blame]) Id like a further discussion on the word use in the article, but Ill let myself calm down first (not over this..over a seperate matter right now). But for now..i support any reversions (as long as its been mentioned on talk page first..as has been done here) :) Hope theres no hard feelings Fethroesforia 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word racist in the article

I am still against it, but I think it might have a place in the article, after speaking with friends and family, who are generally split over the use of the word (whether its too harsh to describe the bnp [before you ask most i asked are labour supporters, most of blackpool is] or not)The word generally brings a negative conotation and has a nasty meaning and undertone, regardless if it is denied it automatically places 'oh dear, they are bad' thought in the readers head regardless of what follows. Adding the points which robdurbar has made, the word is not..in my mind..of suitable material to go into wikipedia, though a situation where the bnp has ben accused of racism by a certain party, and then a statement directly in response rejecting the acusation would almost certainly satisfy me as long as the accusation and rejection response are both to and from the same parties...hard to explain) anyway, Some of the rudeness show towards me for merely putting forward my ideas is..rather downhearting..I thought mostof us were over this. Any mature discussion (ie: not flaming me, accusing me, using sarcasm) will be greatly appreciated and will fall on [intently] listening ears Fethroesforia 17:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If a party supports racial segregation and the repatriation of non-whites and restricts party membership to "indigenous Caucasians", then it is assumed to be racist—especially among the Americans (and, to a lesser extent, the Canadians) who comprise the bulk of the users, who have vivid memories of the Jim Crow era. Since the BNP's policies automatically suggest that it is racist, then the BNP is on the defensive and must immediately reject racism. For those who refuse to refer to the BNP's policies as "racist," could you explain to me how they could be anything but? So far I've only been presented with specious arguments about semantics and connotations. -- WGee 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that everyone here has read the BNP's manifesto, which includes rather obvious allusions to scientific racism:

This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any particular ethnic group or race is ‘superior' or ‘inferior'; we simply recognise that – as any biologist would be able to predict, and the new medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming – human populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while being separated for many thousands of years have developed differences in many fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems, behavioural tendencies and such like. To deny such differences on the grounds of egalitarian dogma has always been wrong, but to continue to do so in the light of the latest medical evidence is to condemn people to unnecessary suffering on account of racially specific health problems. We therefore believe that the myth that “we are all the same under the skin” will soon be as discredited as its feminist equivalent, and that all political parties will have to drastically amend their thinking to reflect the new reality in the not too distant future. [18]

Note the attempt to justify racism by making specious appeals to biology, medicine, and Darwinism: i.e., scientific racism. Says the racism article, "Racism is a belief or doctrine which states that inherent biological differences between human races determine cultural or individual achievement. . . ." Similarly, the BNP says that "biological" and "micro-evolutionay" differences account for differences in "behavioural tendencies and such like." Although the BNP disavows white supremacy, it also expressely rejects racial equality. And if races are inequal, then certain races must be superior or inferior to others—basic deductive reasoning. -- WGee 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So by your own definition it is deductive reasoning that they are racist, so it is a form of original research on your behalf so cannot be included in this article. So the word raist has to be removed or it is now a form of original research on your behalf WGee.--Lucy-marie 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the term racist is not original research as it is used by the vast majority of sources. However, they are not unquestionably racist as we do not know the motivation behind BNP policies i.e. there is no evidence (I believe) to back up WGee's final sentance. That does not mean we cannot use the term racist at all and I think it needs to crop up in the intro.

Thus back to my suggestion that we say: 'The BNP are widely described as being racist (two/three indicative sources) though this is an accusation they deny.' The rest of the intro would then be fine as it is. --Robdurbar 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok how about this: Major political parties such as the conservative party and the mayor of London Ken Livingstone Disatnce themselves from the BNP as they view them as a racist party. I am not saying the term racist itself is Original research but WGee's explanation was and it was also invalid deductive reasoning.--Lucy-marie 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: the wording is excessively euphemistic. Any party that advocates racial segregation is racist and should be described as nothing but. Also, instead of trying to prove your points by assertion, Lucy-Marie, you would do well to support them with some reasoning. Simply declaring that my deductive reasoning is invalid without explaining how is meaningless. -- WGee 05:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we

Listen to what each other has to say? rather than dismissing it and being rude. Ive been trying to keep a cool head recently, I would appreciate some actual CO-OPERATING in the edits made here. any hasty edits get reverted, any hasty reverts will be reinstate and so on. Surely it makes more sense to talk about this. WGee, talking with people at my college (we did a discussion on racism and civil rights in one of my lessons so i bought the discussion up) I decided I am okay keeping the wordin as long as subsequent sources are bought it..preferbly sensible discussions (eg..are the bnp racist? article in a non bias source..rather than 'BNP RACIST THUGS') this will..make the editing easier..and wil stop things getting out of control and someone going overboard with edits/reverts/rudeness and warnings being placed. Again..I would appreciate co-operation..as much as some of you would rather get very ill than co-operate with a bnp supporter, but I am trying my best to be open minded, and I will co-operate with anyone willing to help make sensible and NPOV edits to the article. Fethroesforia 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll co-operate with anyone of any political background who is trying to improve the article. I am sorry if you considered any of my prior messsages to be uncivil, it wasn't my intention. However it is helpful if you try and be constructive with your comments, which you seem to be doing more of in the last 24 hours. I don't think anyone is trying to make the article scream "BNP racist thugs", as the BNP of 2007 is significantly different to say the BNP of 1991. And as said above, the page should be the one previously agreed by consensus while discussion is ongoing, that is the fair and reasonable thing to do. One Night In Hackney 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..i think i over reacted previously. I do believe the party was very racist in Tyndall's time, but now it isnt as extreme as it was (so much so..Griffin is losing supporters because of his relaxed stance). 'The BNP was considered extremely racist' or something better worded would be much better in my opinion. Especially because its toned down recently (with jewish members and whatnot) I agree with the consensus. I cant ask for everyone to agree on something if a version no-one agrees with is the current page. I do object to the current wording but Ill try not to get so annoyed by it:) Fethroesforia 18:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really referring to beliefs as such, from what I can see the BNP's core policies still seem to be the same. The language might have become slightly more sophisticated, but the message is the same broadly speaking. I'm really referring to the change in image. Back in '91 the BNP was very much a street based organisation with MA1 wearing skinheads, but they have moved a long way from that in recent years. One Night In Hackney 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but i believe that is why it is alienating the supporters which cause trouble. The message is the same, and whether or not they are racist is not paticularly important, its the implication of word use which is wrong and POV, though it is wrong, the lack of any commonly agreed alternative (for the moment) means it should stay Fethroesforia 18:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok why not have the version which was previously proposed by myself that stated who views them as racists and gives direct quotes and refrences.--Lucy-marie 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

True or not, the BNP are widely regarded as racists. This can be supported by direct quotes from many politicans and newspapers. As far as I'm aware (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) we're using a representative set of quotes that show that this feeling goes across all the main political parties from left to right. Simply saying "X and Y said it" doesn't show the true depth of the feeling. One Night In Hackney 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if they are or not..Im not getting involved in an arguement over the version used, as long as the word racist has some sources (doesnt matter who..though a broad range would help..like the daily mail (rightist), labour (centrist..ish) and lib dems {left..ish) I wont have any reason to argue. Im actually looking for direct quotes containg 'racist'..i think i found a daily mail one. Anyone object to me sourcing it to the accusation of racist? Fethroesforia 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, red Ken and the conservative party could hardly be further away on the political spectrum. but i agree an cenrist point of view is also needed.--Lucy-marie 19:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok..ill go source later. But doing this is equivelent to putting a link on Bush's page calling him a money hungry warmongerer (well known throughout the world..and english papers..does that mean i can put it on his page? its well known..common knowledge) Meh..the inequalities of articles..never mind.. ill source it..:) (ps..dont get me start on Ken 'im not a communist..im just far left' livingstone..lol) Fethroesforia 19:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well some one tried to sya in my interpritation that red Kenn and the conservatives were the same (clearly not). Can we also get rid of the UAF searchlight quote its anti-climatic and is basicaly saying the far left oppose the far right, pointless? I think so. Anyway i think the intro is marginally better now as racist is clarified as peoples opiniopn but i still think it should be in an opposition to the BNP section not the intro. Someone also put leftist next to Ken Livingstone please dont its pov like the word liberal In the guardian infi;tration section. We are trying to remove pov here not "peddle" it.--Lucy-marie 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If its obvious and should be removed..then go ahead..if you think it might cause controversy deleting it, mention it here in advance..or at least thats what im doing.

I NEED SOME HELP PLEASE i am looking for non bias (or as close as i possibly can) websites calling the bnp racist (example..lib dem speech calling them racist is ok..but a speech from searchlight or UAF is just silly and inapporpriate. Im looking for (ideally) a Lib dem one and a labour one, covering the non far ends of the political spectrum (with daily mail sovering the right) any help well appreciated:) Fethroesforia 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the best Lib dem one i could find http://www.libdems.org.uk/community/story.html?id=10064 It hast this Quote "Please vote agiainst the BNP".--Lucy-marie 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats perfect:) (it says 'It is a racist organisation') Its the word 'racist' im looking to quantify..many thanks lucy-marie:) Fethroesforia 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the information about anti-fascist organizations is unnotable. As I have already said, "that British anti-fascist organizations dedicate the bulk of their efforts to denouncing the BNP is quite notable, as it is not the case with any other party. Perhaps no other party in recent times has created such a furor among politicians and non-governmental organizations as the BNP." Thus, do not ignorantly say that the statement's notablity has not been justified, and do not presuppose that an agreement between you and Fethroesforia gives you the mandate to boldly edit the introduction. -- WGee 05:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, statements from politicians (no matter how "centrist" they are) are not appropraite sources in this case. If we are to assert something as a fact, then that assertion must be supported by politically independent secondary sources, perferrably essays by political scientists or reports from mainstream news agencies. Any source that would not be acceptable to use in a term paper should not be used here. -- WGee 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The following academic sources would be appropriate:

• "the BNP’s stance on immigration and its inherent racism suggests its days are numbered. . ." [19]
• "Advocacy of repatriation (usually ‘compulsory’) had previously been a major policy plank of fringe racist groups like the British National Party." [20]
• "the racist British National Party (BNP) gained a higher share of the vote. . ." [21]

-- WGee 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally reasonable points. I'd support the version that was up overnight, with WGee's modifications. The anti-fascist thing is a minor point we can work on, if we can get the rest sorted first? --Robdurbar 09:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok WGee you are very opinionated but i have brought up in previuos comments the UAF statement and it has been unanswered. Also why state the far left oppose the far right what next we say spearhead magasine dedicates the bulk of its publications to supporting the BNP I doubt it so If the UAF statement stays then I could argue for adding the spearhead comment. I think you would have a go at me if i added it right now but can you see my point? Also before I had read this page i had never heard of UAF or Searchlight so outside of thier core they are hardly the most notable publications in my opinion. THe Academics are good sources of information as long as it not used to justify sweeping statements like all BNP members are racist or the BNP is Rasict and violent to the core. This is because i was reading about one academic who was a professor at leeds who said "The BNP are a bit too socalist for my liking." So not every academic opposes them this one thinks the are too liberal. So well done on finally finding them but use them apropriatly and responsibly.--Lucy-marie 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found some sources for the Leeds lecturer [22], [23], [24]. These some of the first i could find.--Lucy-marie 12:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WGee do you have something against good grammar and want concensus over ever gramtical change made to the page? Those edits were madi in good faith to ensure the article read more smootly and removed possible ambiguaties and conformed the manual of style so when the word "its" is used it a poor wordong it is like using a persons first name in a page such as Noel rather than Edmonds when talking about Noel Edmonds. This is only a small thing so why open up another can of worms by reverting good faith edits of small things such as grammar.--Lucy-marie 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> OK, I think that was probably just lazyness on WGee's part and I'm sure he'll apologise. BTW, WGee, your first source appears to be no more than an undergraduate essay, so I suggest we shouldn't include that. The other two seem fine though if we could find a free one it would obviously be better. I still, then, propose having the intro as it is now, but with WGee's second two sources (initally; perhaps better could be found) instead of Lib Dem/Daily Mail. If we could all agree on that THEN go on to discuss that final sentence? Robdurbar 13:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not have all four as refrences? then the statment would not easily be removed or modified by anybody and would settle the major talking point so far. But the statement cannot be sweeping it must be clarified and highly objective.--Lucy-marie 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, yep. --Robdurbar 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing every instance of "its" (or similar) to "the BNP" is not necessarily good grammar. You brought up Noel Edmonds as an example, let's use a sentence from his article to demonstrate this.

In September 2006 Edmonds admitted to mens' magazine Loaded that he had travelled at up to 186 mph in the car back in the mid-1980s on the Tring Bypass in Hertfordshire and to having sex in the back of a Range Rover.

Now let's replace the "he" with "Edmonds".

In September 2006 Edmonds admitted to mens' magazine Loaded that Edmonds had travelled at up to 186 mph in the car back in the mid-1980s on the Tring Bypass in Hertfordshire and to having sex in the back of a Range Rover.

See what I mean? One Night In Hackney 07:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But for the majority of the Edits THE BNP reads better and clarifies some situation like its instead of THE BNP where thefering to the constitution. Thus however is just my opinion.--Lucy-marie 11:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the majority you may be correct. However one that you changed now reads worse:

According to The BNP's constitution, the BNP...

The previous version was pefectly clear, and better English:

According to its constitution, the BNP...

It's not necessary to have "the BNP" twice, it's poor grammar One Night In Hackney 12:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok im wrong on this one se lets try this wordiing The constitution of the BNP states: The BNP is... or words to that effect. Im just floating ideas here.--Lucy-marie 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WGee

I did live appropriate time..and surely adding sources to a controversial statement is common sense. Though if you can add sources to it being called racist..then i will be very grateful..having a slur without sources is just plain silly if not un-encyclopedic. Im not getting involved in the other quote. Im not bothered either way that one goes. As longas the 'bnp denies it is racist' is re-worded as it sounds like half a sentence..it needs 'such and such accuse the bnp of being racist' and then some sources to back that up..I think what you were referring to earlier was to my edits..if not..i apoligise Fethroesforia 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)