WhiteTiger86

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BNP article

I don't think you have provided any of the sources you say you have. You gave a link to an interview where Nick Griffin denies being a fascist (not a statement by or about the BNP as a party); you have provided a link to David Renton's web site, in which he mentions various political views, but not anything that calls his scholarly work into question; you have provided a link to various books by Cronin (who is not even cited in the article except as an editor of a collection) on Irish Republicanism which you interpret as meaning that he holds some opinions that are in contrast to the BNP's policies, but nothing that shows that he is an opponent of the BNP, or that calls his scholarly work into question; you have provided a link to a review of a book by Thurlow, but it's a different book from the one used in the article, so it doesn't support your claim that the book is outdated. Your attempt to challenge the sources for the claim that the BNP are fascist simply have not been sufficient so far; your criticisms of the sources are based on interpretations of your own (e.g. that Renton is not a reliable source because he is left wing, or that Cronin is not a reliable source because he supports Irish Republicanism). What you need to provide is reliable sources that state the positions you want included in the article; say, reviews of Renton's work from scholarly journals or the mainstream press that criticize the work on the basis of his left-wing politics. VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided an interview where Nick Griffin, the leader of the party, clearly states how he rejects Fascism and that he opposes the promotion of the Fascist ideology within his party. As for the work, there is no proof that they are scholarly, if so please show me their qualifications and I have proven that they are from biased backgrounds which makes them no more reliable than the statement of the BNP that they are not Fascist.While the other book is the same as the one in the reference. It has the same title and the same author and was published in 1988 --WhiteTiger86 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a source that Nick Griffin isn't himself a fascist, which isn't the same as the BNP rejecting the characterization "fascist" (I imagine that the BNP do indeed deny that they are a fascist party, but we still need a source). As for the sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Renton's book is published by Pluto, a "respected publishing house." Copsey's articles are in a book published by MacMillan, also a respected publishing house, and Patterns of Prejudice, a peer-reviewed journal. These are all reliable sources. The book by Thurlow referenced in the article is Fascism in Modern Britain, published in 2000 by Sutton. The book published in 1987, and reissued in 1998, is Fascism in Britain: From Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts to the National Front, published by I.B. Tauris. They're not the same book, despite the similar titles. All of these fit Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, which I quoted to you above. Your opinion of the authors is not relevant here - Wikipedia's criteria are formal (was this published by a mainstream, reliable publisher), not substantive (is this guy an expert, is the book accurate, etc).VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to BNP and racial stuff

I've written a reply at my own discussion page. Please take a look. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)