Talk:British National Party/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Article too long?

This looks like a very good article: I found out what I wanted to know. But perhaps people should think about whether it is too long, and should be split up. I make it about 9000 words, and the level of detail seems to me too great for an overview article. See Wikipedia:Article_size for guidance. 131.111.8.98 11:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Radical?

What is the definition if the word in this context. The use of the word also adds a POV slant in my opinion to the Info Box. Please can somebody explain the necessity of the word in the infobox, by stating what differs them from standard populism.--Jjamesj 17:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources in the article, or any other source on radical right-wing populism for that matter. Also read the Wikipedia article on radical right-wing populism. After completing each of these tasks, you should discover that many scholars use the term radical right-wing populism objectively to classify parties that rail against the political establishment (hence radical) and appeal to the frustrations of the "common people" (hence populism). -- WGee 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail too see how you can use Radical in this sense It creates an air of absolute negativity towards the party. The use of right wing is also not needed as it is mentioned again in the infobox under political position. Yes I have read the articles and think just the populism label is enough for the infobox maybe the other can be inserted in the main body of the text somewhere?--Lucy-marie 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are unable to separate a connotation from a denotation, that's too bad. You must not bastardize the opinions of the sources just because you do not understand them. -- WGee 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not belittle my intelligence. I have read the sources and interpreted them differently to the way you have do not attack me comment on content not the user.

I don't see how 'radical' makes the party look bad. It is demonstrably radical, a BNP government would no doubt change the entire structure of society. 'Extreme' might be considered an epiphet I suppose, but the BNP is at the extreme of the British political spectrum. Personally I view myself as a radical (I'm a Liberal Democrat by party affliation) it is a fairly neutral term IMO, in that all it does is identify that the beliefs are not small-c conservative, IE that they're opposed to change. 'Radical right-wing populism' is an unwieldy term, but it is the best one we have. --CTerry 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's worth noting that many moderate, centrist groups refer to themselves as radicals - see radical middle. Cordless Larry 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be more acurate to just label them populist and then also put reformist. I know some people might have problems labeling them populist on account of how they're racial but just because you're a populist or socialist doesn't necessarily mean you're an eglatitarianist.

Fascism

If they're really Fascist then how is it that openly fascist groups like the BFP state that they're too soft and actively dislike them. Also, how can a book be considered a reference for something this significant when there is no way to verify this online. Many of you are just pseudo-intellects that are endeavoring to make the party look bad and "dangerous", using the Hitler analogy as a weapon of fear-mongering.

I removed the fascism template. As I recall the BNP don't identify themselves with as fascist. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to describe any political party in the way that the party wishes to be described, but to present factual detail. If the BNP is fascist, it should be described as such. If it's not, it shouldn't be. But refraining from using descriptions because the party does not use them about itself is totally unencyclopaedic.Emeraude 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

so let's see objective evidence that they are facist, wikipedia is also not here to describe political parties in the way that the popular public opinion wishes to see them described --Speed Air Man 09:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Talk Archive 6 link at the top of the page. Neo-fascism was discussed in depth and eventually removed as a descriptor for the party. JRDarby 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The template should be here. Whether or not the BNP is fascist is not the point. The template refers to the ARTICLE, not the party, and this article is one that is of interest to WikiProject Fascism. Emeraude 10:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

but having the template here, no matter how well meaning the project is, will may give the impression that the BNP is facist, or is this an attempt to have a POV statement by stealth? --Speed Air Man 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Give the impression to who? You ought to have a higher regard for the intelligence of Wikipedia users. Anyone reading the article should be quite capable for deciding for themselves whether or not the BNP is fascist. (And, incidentally, removing the tag is in itself open to accusations of POV by stealth, if you want to go down that line, though I would not make it myself.) Emeraude 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Speed Air Man, please take the time to read the disclaimer on the template: "The presence of this talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject." It does not imply anything else. Feel free to ignore the disclaimer, but do not expect other editors to ignore it along with you. -- WGee 23:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

the point I'm making is that not some people may not see the disclaimer, text is easy to miss (just like I did with the template) when your attention is drawn to something else (i.e. in this case the word facism). I thought that people see that was what I was getting at before the rush to patronise and belittle me, nevermind, I'm forgetting that I'm new here and haven't learned my place.--Speed Air Man 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with speed air man here the way the new user was dealt with was inconsiderate and rude at the time. I think that the point of view raised is a valid one and the only reason for the nature of that response was to provoke a reaction. I think that is wrong and the debate on facshism as either a template or a label was exhausted in a previous discussion in archive six. There it was concluded that it be scrapped. Also no body has to find a 'place' on wikipedia it is just some users try to use bully tactics on certian pages which they have strong views on. (Please note I am not the first person to make these observations and these comments are not personal atacks they are merley opinions drawn from observations.)--Lucy-marie 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a brief point - there was no consensus either way in the previous discussion over the "neo-fascism" label. I'm not saying it should be re-added, but that debate could certainly be re-opened, and I wouldn't want it to be shut down with a claim that consensus has already been reached.VoluntarySlave 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Speed AIr Man: Sorry if you feel you have been patronised or belittled; I can't see it myself. You are right of course, some people may not see a disclaimer. That in itself though is no reason for something not to be there but it is a good argument for redesigning the template. Emeraude 12:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The BNP aren't "neo-fascist", and anyone labelling them as such is just trying to smear or sideline them. Nowadays the party has real democratic leader and internal policy votes, readily denounces fascism and promises to continue British democracy. If you want to describe the BNP as it is currently, drop the fascist rubbish 86.146.242.233 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Get real! No political party in Britain is ever going to publicly describe itself as fascit because everyone remembers history up to 1945. Read the references cited. The BNP is a fascist party whether it admits it or not, and they would much prefer that people apologise for them than having to do it themselves. Again, read the refrences. Emeraude 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Hitler and the Nazis were elected to office via the German democratic system. They knew how to use democracy, and so did all of the post-war British fascist groups from the earlier BNP, the NSM, the GBM, the NF, the BM etc etc to the modern BNP. Emeraude 20:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The BNP is and always was a fascist group, and the template should be inserted.--padraig3uk 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The original party may well have been fascist, but the current one doesn't even come close! Just because something starts out as one thing, it doesn't mean it cannot change. After all - the original Labour party was socialist! ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no evidence that the BNP today is any less fascist than when it was established, except possibly in how it presents itself. If such evidence exists, is independent, reliable and veriable, please post it here. Incidentally, the Labour Party was never socialist in the proper sense of the word; social democrat at best. Emeraude 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the onus not be to prove that the BNP (as it is today) IS fascist? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The fascist nature of the BNP is well documented, it should be for those that claim otherwise to prove their position, and backup their claims with references.--padraig3uk 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting viewpoint. Given that I can't find any citable evidence that the UK government aren't green-skinned aliens wearing human suits, can I put an entry on their article to say that they are? ;-) I guess "innocent until proven guilty" isn't the Wiki way! LOL! ;-) More seriously - I read through their manifesto (which was a struggle!) and couldn't find any real evidence of fascism. I think it would be hard to find any citable evidence for them not being fascist, as the UK media won't publish anything about the party unless it's derogatory, under the "no platform" policy. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia way is Verifiability nothing can be included unless a reputable/citable source claims it - a 3rd party source claiming the BNP isn't fascist could be used to make that claim, if sources are in dispute then we need to negoiae that. Try for example Dr. Crippen - suppose he maintained all high life he wasn't a murderer, and we could cite *him* endlessly on that, but we have the court documents, the journalistic reports and eye witness testimony that says he was a murderer - would we remove mentions of myuderousness from his page, or would we say that he was a murderer, and then report his claim of innocence?--Red Deathy 15:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a new visitor to the page, and someone with a clearly indicated political POV - could I suggest the correct wiki[pedian solution is to go with what the BNP stats is it's political affiliation, and then state that otehrs consider it to be fascist. In the info-box we could simply put Fascism (alleged) or some such qualifier. There are two objkective facts, the BNP officially claim not to be fascistic, and observers and critics say it is - that's what Wikipedia should record. IMNSHO. --Red Deathy 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's the best compromise that can be hoped for here. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I just looked up a dictionary definition of fascism, and it included "suppression of the opposition through censorship". I guess this means that most UK parties are fascist, given the "no platform" agenda! ;-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Red Deathy Firstly, welcome to the page. What you suggest is not that simple. In Wikipedia, quite rightly, statements need to be backed up from reliable, independent sources. Clearly, anything the BNP says about itself (or anyone says about themselves) cannot be independent. (Your Crippen analogy was quite good.) This issue was discussed at some length with much passion some months ago and a consensus was reached which is broadly reflected in the article now. A number of changes were made at that time. The BNP is quoted, and observers (more important than critics in my view) are quoted. It may be an objective fact that the BNP denies it's fascist, but there is no evidence presented so far that what it says matches with the objective reality of its true position. If such independent, reliable and veriable evidence can be presented in this page, I'm sure people will take it up and test it. I added the 'fascist' references in the infobox - they are reliable. Incidentally, it's worth noting that in the text of the article it does say that the BNP denies it is fascist. (What's IMNSHO?) Emeraude 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In My Not So Humble Opinion - sadly I have experience of contentious pages, and usually find that unhappy comprimises are the most stable. (usually I'm the unhappy one). Anyway, for the record, though I don't think we should overly rely on dictionaries, once again the OED is a bastion of good sense "One of a body of Italian nationalists, which was organized in 1919 to oppose communism in Italy, and, as the partito nazionale fascista, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), controlled that country from 1922 to 1943; also transf. applied to the members of similar organizations in other countries. Also, a person having Fascist sympathies or convictions; (loosely) a person of right-wing authoritarian views. Hence as adj., of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Fascism or Fascists."--Red Deathy 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to JediLofty And what else did your dictionary say? Emeraude 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascism -

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Any allegations from the SPLC and ADL (the main contributors for the definition of BNP as neofascist) seem dubious at best. Furthermore, the BNP seems too populist to be outright fascist; even still, I acknowledge that popular support is a desired but not necessarily condition of fascist rule. I would deem it a very fair thing to maintain the "alleged" modifier adjacent to the fascist accusation (or whatever word would be necessary in place of alleged; I recall someone saying alleged is only used as a legal term or some such). JRDarby 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We currently don't use the SPLC or ADL as sources for the description of the BNP as fascist, not that I think there would be anything wrong with them as sources; the article currently three books published by mainstream presses (or rather, one mainstream press, Palgrave Macmillan). Besides which, adding the word "alleged" strikes me as meaningless; everything on the page is "alleged" by somebody or other. The point is, are the allegations (or, to use a less tendentious word, statements) made by, and/or contested by, reliable sources, or not? If the consensus of reliable sources is that the BNP are fascist, that's what we should report. If there's significant disagreement on the matter, we probably shouldn't put "fascist" in the infobox, but rather address the debate in the body of the article. VoluntarySlave 05:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This comes from their constitution -Every party member has the right to express criticism or dissent on matters internal to the party and to work, within the framework of the Constitution,- This debunks the claim that they're Fascist, Fascist groups are vehemently authoritarian. (Unsigned comment by User:24.203.217.170 16:48, 24 June 2007)

'The chairman of the BNP has final say in all policy matters.'(from the article, cited). b. Oppressive, dictatorial control. (from the dictionary, quoted above.) Fascist? (Unsigned comment by User:81.103.22.124 23:59, 24 July 2007)

MEDITERRANEANS

Does the BNP consider Mediterraneans as `white'? If the answer is yes then this would seem ironic considering that there are Med elements among Pakistanis and Indo-Aryans. I Assume `Indiginous Caucasians' woulsd exclude Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who were British by ethnicity. By the way, why was Sharon Ebanks really sacked?

• If you follow the reference link to the BNP constitution you will find the following:

1) The British National Party represents the collective National, Environmental, Political,

Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined ‘racial group’ this being ‘Indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of

Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) 1 ALL ER 1062, HL.

2) The indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of ‘Indigenous

Caucasian’ consist of members of: i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic

groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them.

I think you can draw your own conclusions. Emeraude 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

At last years Red, White and Blue weekend, there were reports of a couple of multi-racial (black/white mixed) people attending it. I assume they were honorary guests or members of their `Ethnic Liason Office'?

-and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain- In my opinion it incinuates that they accept all Whites living in Britain and maybe some ethnics which they feel have a white mentality, although of course they probably view them as exceptions. Indo-Aryans refers to whites NOT to Indians, Pakistanis or Persians. These people are of mixed Aryan and local ancestry because Whites that conquered parts of Asia several thousand years ago mixed with the indigenous populations. Isn't there a member of the BNP out there who could clearly write what his party stands for?

First few paragraphs

I made a few changes to increase NPOV in the opening paragraphs. To the many militant liberals and communists (and anti fascists without an actual fascist party to complain about): please don't change it, because it is better than whatever came beforehand. 86.146.242.233 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views, and plenty of non-sequitors thrown in around the page. It's also lacking any structure at all. 86.146.242.233 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Identify yourself. You are clearly a supporter if not a member of the BNP and your comments above indicate that you would not recognise NPOV if it bit you. Emeraude 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You state in your profile you are interested in anti-fascism so please stop trolling the BNP article. "Identify" myself? Why, are only enemies of the BNP allowed to change the article? You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone. My edit to the intro not only made the piece a better NPOV, but it made it actually coherent. 86.146.242.233 22:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is going to get annoying. Quit the god damn reverting to an inferior introduction, you're not interested in the article - only pushing your little agenda. Would it help if I wrote how bad the BNP are instead of writing NPOV? Please tell me the exact points where my new intro strays into POV more than the current, because I can give you a hell of a lot to back up my side. 86.146.242.233 23:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous User:86.146.242.233 has made insulting comments on my and other editors' talk pages during his vandalism of this article, but we seem to have got off lightly compared to what he did to User: Mschel - see [1]. He was warned and has now been banned, having described Wikipedia as a "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Oh well. Emeraude 10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"No political party in Britain is ever going to publicly describe itself as fascit because everyone remembers history up to 1945." - Non sequitor. I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book, post the text or link here. "By the way, Hitler and the Nazis were elected to office via the German democratic system. They knew how to use democracy, and so did all of the post-war British fascist groups from the earlier BNP, the NSM, the GBM, the NF, the BM etc etc to the modern BNP." So what? You're saying that it's ok to draw parallels with the past to describe a parties idealogy? In that case, why not go and edit the USA Republican page to include fascism? Or the Labour page as imperialism? You can't say what a political parties idealogy is by what you THINK it is, or what it was in the past, because that isn't NPOV. By all means have a section devoted to slandering the BNP (I think the British media does a good job of that anyway) but you can't alter an article to say what you think they are REALLY are like because you don't happen to trust them. The debate has already happened and fascism was rejected. If you continue to add it in I'll just get you banned.

Evianmineralwater 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the rant, if you're "not buying a god damn book" go to a library. The books are books; they do not have links and I'm certainly not posting the full text of any books on here. Emeraude 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

---

Just because a few authors think the BNP are fascist 8 years ago doesn't mean they are fascist. If I wrote a book explaining the BNP weren't fascist, and two of my friends did, could I then remove the fascism idealogy? If you're ignoring my debate then you can't change the article. I'm willing to go toe to toe with you to prove that I am right.

"The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party in the United Kingdom. It has 56 councillors in local government, but is not represented in the national Parliament. In the 2005 general election, the British National Party received 0.7% of the popular vote, the 8th highest share for a British political party. good so far

According to its constitution,[10] 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." The party 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." Accordingly, the BNP proposes "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home,"[11] advocates the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and restricts party membership to "Indigenous Caucasians".[10]the second part about the methods when they get into power are superfluous, what matters is only what their goal is

The BNP is often described as racist and fascist.[12][13]this belongs in the last paragraph of the opening with other popular criticisms of the party The party states that it is representing the interests of the white British working class no, it says it represents all British people who want the end of or a decrease in multiculturalism, which it says is being oppressed by Britain's "quasi-Marxist multi-racial experiment". The BNP believes that there are significant biological differences among races that determine the behaviour and character of individuals. The party also asserts that racism is a part of human nature.i changed this part to read better and explain their position more clearly, as this is what this part of the intro is for[14]

The BNP is marginalised by mainstream political parties, having been strongly criticised by Conservative Party leader David Cameron, Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[15][16][17] Anti-fascist organisations such as Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party.this part is fine" Evianmineralwater 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind? Evianmineralwater 17:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. My references are impeccable. If you are not prepared to read any books that's your problem. I have provided references from three books by respected academic authors and can provide more. I canalso provide articles form learned academic journals. If you can provide similar independent, reliable sources to say the BNP is not fascist then do so here and there can be a debate, but until then you are destroying an article that has been built up by consensus over the months. In answer to your question above, if you write a book on the BNP it would be original research and not admissible. Fascism as a descriptor of the BNP has NOT been refused. The discussion ended without conclusion, with the need for references to be provided before it was added. That I have done. I suspect (I may be wrong) that you are the same person who was banned for vandalism yesterday. Emeraude 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your comment with edit that "Emaraude will not even acknowledge my debate on the discussion page and only cares about spinning a negative light on the whole article" is inaccurate (I have responded) and a personal attack. Please desist. Emeraude 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the BNP manifesto? Your sources aren't reliable at all if they state the BNP are fascist, please explain why they are. Evianmineralwater 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other editors please note: User:Evianmineralwater has been blocked. Emeraude 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For having a brand name in my username, nothing to do with any edits I have made to articles Mineralwaterisgreat 21:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with getting into revert wars is that they achieve nothing. Cut it out please. Perhaps you could leave the start of the article as it was and just work on the other changes for a bit? The start of the article will still be there tomorrow after all. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps we just use my intro as the only person with a problem is the anti-fascist without a cause?Mineralwaterisgreat 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see this place just wants to make the article worse, so I will help you. I'll be demonising the BNP wherever possible while adding 'proof' in the form of bigoted references. I'm sure you won't mind. Thankyou Mineralwaterisgreat 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mineralwaterisgreat asked: "How about the BNP manifesto? Your sources aren't reliable at all if they state the BNP are fascist, please explain why they are." The BNP manifesto, constitution, website and other BNP sources are actually quoted extensively in the article to back up what the BNP says - 35 times at least. Indeed, I have personally corrected some points where there were inaccuracies in the quotes. But they are not independent sources about the BNP because they are written by the BNP. The three sources I cited (out of many more) are books by recognised experts in the field, all university academics. They and their books are themselves cited in other sources. You cannot say they are not reliable just because you don't agree with them. Emeraude 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So why are we relying on outside sources (that are easily corrupt in some way, overtly anti-BNP literature is a dime a dozen) and not on what the BNP says to determine their idealogy? This shows quite clearly that you don't trust the BNP and this is reflected in EVERY edit you make. When we write what their idealogy is, we write what their stated idealogy is, and how they work in actual practice (the BNP aren't doing anything outside of the confines of ethno-nationalism), nothing else. Mineralwaterisgreat 19:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we use independent sources to describe them, per policy WP:NPOV. We don't describe the BNP how they or their supporters would like them to be described, although we do give their views due weight. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"this is reflected in EVERY edit you make" That's just not true. If you look at the history of edits to this page, you will see quite clearly that I mostly worked at two types of editing on this page. 1: reverting vandalism of the 'BNP are wankers' variety. Check this - it's true. 2: Correcting misquotes and false allusions to what was stated to be in the BNP constitution/manifesto. Check this - it's true. I can't recall making any edits to the substance of the article, though I have taken part in debates on this page.

The one exception to this was me adding 'fascist' to the infobox. This followed discussion here about a month ago when it was agreed that this could not be done unless sources were provided. I've just got round to finding the sources, so they are there.

We rely on outside sources, because that's what we in Wikipedia (and in academia generally). Emeraude 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"We don't describe the BNP how they or their supporters would like them to be described" - But it's fine to describe the BNP on how their detractors would like them to be described, because this appears 'critical' and 'balanced', right? Can I find any old book strongly critical of the Labour party and add that information in without harm? For anyone describing the BNP as fascist, what are they relying on to make that judgement? Their own opinion and their conspiracy theories, NOT consulting the actual party or recognising how it works in reality, and thus the sources are defunct. And Emeraude, you're not stupid enough to resort to leaving in vandalism to debase the BNP, you'd rather try and make your views appear valid. Also, the sources you have given were written at and before the turn of the century, and a lot has changed since then. Mineralwaterisgreat 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what detractors are you talking about? Searchlight? UAF? Antifa? None of those are being used to describe the BNP as "far right", "fascist", "white nationalist" or "radical right wing populist". We are presenting the majority view, per WP:NPOV. Don't like the majority view? Take it up with the BNP, as they are responsible for how they are viewed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does the majority view also happen to be the NPOV? Most people in this world believe in a Creator of some sort, does this make it true? Most people used to think the world was flat, did that make it true? The BNP are NOT responsible for how they are viewed, the media that portrays them is, and this includes Wikipedia. The research on the BNP's political stance happens very conveniently to completely bypass any first hand sources from the BNP. Also, why are you reverting my edits that include the fascism template and include fascism with far-right in the first paragraph? If they really are fascist and have a lot to do with Mussolini's doctrine of fascism, why are you taking those edits out? Mineralwaterisgreat 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On the creator point, if that is what most people think then that is what wiki should report with appropriate citations - just as editors to this article are doing. Valenciano 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if something more up-to-date is required, how about

Copsey, N. and Renton, D. (eds) British Fascism, the Labour Movement and the State (2005)

Sykes, A. The Radical Right in Britain: From Social Imperialism to the British National Party (2005)

Renton, D. "A day to make history’? The 2004 elections and the British National Party" in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005

Hussain, Y. and Bagguley P. "Citizenship, ethnicity and identity" in Sociology 2005; 39; p413

Reilly, D "Contemporary British Fascism: the British National Party and the quest for legitimacy" in Race & Class, 2006: 48; p104

Or, the Daily Mail from 30 Dec 2006: "When one of the country's principal ballerinas, a 36-year-old woman who spent much of her recent working life as the Sugar Plum Fairy, decides to join the British neo-fascists, there is an argument that something has gone badly wrong with democratic British politics." Emeraude 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Those sources aren't NPOV, so why are we interested in them? Mineralwaterisgreat 01:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mineralwaterisgreat, might I suggest as a start you read the flat earth page, to get a real idea of what NPOV looks like. If you can find a reputable non-BNP source stating they are not fascist, we will have to accomodate that. Likewise, citations from the BNP claiming not to be fascist, that will be useful. But, look, the Militant Tendency used to claim they were not an organised faction - just a newspaper and a network of salespersons, if we had been writing a Wikipedia article at the time, we would have had to describe them using the various authorities that did state they were an organised political faction within the Labour party. Verifiability is teh bed rock of Wikipedia, and NPOV doesn't mean we take everything as true, because we must be selective of what facts we select and teh sources we select to support them, but it does mean giving due weight to the various voices available. OK, try this - a man is 4'8", he swears blind he is not short, but everyone but him thinks he is - would we be justified in calling him short on Wikipedia?--Red Deathy 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going to be hard to find any mainstream references that will verify that the BNP are no longer fascists for the simple reason that the media in the UK will simply not publish anything that paints them as anything other than jack-booted thugs and Hitlerphiles. Given the furore that occurred when Simone Clarke (the "BNP Ballerina") announced that she was a supporter (not even a member) of the BNP I can understand why people might be reticent about publishing anything that might be construed as supporting them. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User it dioesn't have to be mainstream, a heterodox academic would do (so long as their work was properly cited, peer reviewed, etc.) - our concern isn't the specific content of the source, but its reliability. A single academic study saying the BNP doesn't fit the model of fascism would do (and I ciould see why, if there was any doubt, an academic may publish such a document even without supporting the BNP.) Seek and ye shall find.--Red Deathy 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/BNP.html there we go, a left wing source denying that the BNP are Nazi's or fascists. Now, coupled with a first hand source from the BNP we can remove the fascist tag, and I think we should replace "white-nationalism" with "ethno-nationalism" as the BNP have never described themselves as WN and the difference is more negligable than being fascist or not (but misleading if left in, as being white nationalist implies a lot of things that the BNP are not). Mineralwaterisgreat 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Jedilofty - Actually, you're wrong. Clarke did say she was member, not a supporter.

Comment to Mineralwateris great - It has come to something when a BNP member can only produce a link to an opinion piece from an obscure far left cult.

Mineralwaterisgreat nice try, it's an argument peice (a short one, short on facts) and which is replied to in the same journal with two articles arguing the contrary. At most we can say the bulk of discourse leans in favour of describing the BNP as fascist, while they dispute it (which is all McKibben's article really amounts to).--Red Deathy 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many nationalists get to edit articles relating to Marxism? And I wonder what they would look like if they did? Probably as bad as the BNP article

I think you'll find that ring-wing critics of marxsm do criticise it on those pages, frequently - and you could too, if you apply the rules of Wikipedia - what is your precise criticism of this article, saying you don't like it helps no-one, we need to know what points to address to find consensus.--Red Deathy 06:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have, read the discussion... 86.152.117.26 10:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion, and you make comments about liberals and vague bias, but don't state what specific sentences and phrases give cause for concern...--Red Deathy 06:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Far right

This party is such a blend of characteristics from the left and right that I suggest we label them as independent. They're anti-egalitarianist, which is rightist, but simultaneously oppose free-market capitalism, which is leftist.--posted by 24.203.217.170

I reverted the edit that put their political position as Independent rather then Far Right.--padraig3uk 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why or was that just an act of vandalism? --posted by 24.203.217.170

Would you care to explain how you think they are Independent in regards to their political position, Independent in a political sense refers to those that don't belong to any political party or organised grouping. Also read WP:AGF, and sign your posts as well, you do this by putting ~~~~ at the end of your post.--padraig3uk 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to free-market capitalism is one of the central features of the far right. It isn't by itself a left-wing position (defenders of the feudal system, for instance, were opposed to capitalism, but pretty much by definition were not on the left). I think this has been discussed before - check the talk page archives. VoluntarySlave 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent is something that cannot be categorized. The right is where you favor NO government intervention, that is clearly not their case. If my old "friend" Spylab is seeing this, yes it's me. I know you had me blocked several times on a technicality because I can discredit what you want to believe in your little grid. I'm also a Nazi and if you want to make cheap shots at me we can have a discussion on Youtube where I keep on getting banned too but where it's easy to come back. Right now I'm proudAryan6.--posted by 24.203.217.170

• First, far right does not mean you favour no government intervention. Second, you were banned from editing Wikipedia for breaking the rules, not due to a "technicality." You can't discredit anything. All you have is your uncited neo-Nazi personal opinions, not sourced facts.Spylab 01:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Learn a bit about economics before asserting things. The scale between the left and the right means that on the right you believe in self-sufficiency and on the left you believe in the concept that everyone should be taken care of. The BNP doesn't share the egalitarianist stance of the left but doesn't support the laissez-faire, free-market capitalism of the right either. You had me banned on the technicality of excessive edits. When I reverted your childish vandalism I didn't click on the past edit but rather edited again. You had me banned on this basis and this basis alone. The article Nazi-Skinhead we were waring over actually doesn't have everything you wanted in it which means the administrators felt that I may have had a point in spite of your obnoxious propaganda. You also didn't want to admit that we are revolutionary, because it goes against your little grid of reality. -Also, this comes from their manifesto -We recognise that Finance exists to serve the Nation and its industries rather than the other way around.- Does this sound like something Bush or any other conservatives would say? The party's political position cannot be accurately categorized as leftist or rightist. Until you or a Pseudo-intellect like you can refute this I think it is the appropriate course of action in-line with the standards of an encyclopedia to label the party's political position as independent.

As you seem to be the only person here disputing the characterization of the BNP as far-right, I think the onus is on you to provide sources for your understanding of right and left; there are numerous sources describing the BNP as far right (including almost all newspaper articles that mention the party). Furthermore, even if (counterfactually) the BNP aren't on the far right, "independent" seems like the wrong term, because it usually refers to independence from political parties, not independence from the left/right spectrum. VoluntarySlave 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent is written next to political position, I think it's rather clear what independent is referring to. What I'm saying is what's taught to students in high school. I hope atleast some of you finished high school.

Stop changing Far Right to Independent, they are not independent.--padraig3uk 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How so, would you care to atleast give a concise justification of your statement or is it just an empty assertion coming from a pseudo-intellect?

The BNP oppose laissez-faire capitalism on traditionalist and nationalist grounds. These are standard positions of the far right. Look at this list of far-right parties - none of them advocate unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism. Your claim that left/right only refers to opposition to or support for laissez faire is simply incorrect.VoluntarySlave 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On economic and political grounds that is the criteria, on ideological grounds it is not. The reason why they oppose it is irrelevant to their economic and political position. It seems to me that is why there is a separate box for ideology and political position. In ideology they're rightist but in political and economic contexts they are not.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Their ideology is precisely what gives them the political position they have. Please, let us know where you are getting this bizarre definition of "far right" from.VoluntarySlave 22:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

24.203.217.170, you are in breach of WP:3RR, with your repeated revertion on the issue of far right or independent.--padraig3uk 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Nazis and Mussolini's Fascists also opposed free-market capitalism (indeed, Mussolini's Corporatism is one of the defining features of his rule), they are usually considered to be far-right. The idea that only those who support laissez-faire capitalism is bunkum. --CTerry 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini was not Far Right but Independent as well. The BNP is a party which not only opposes Capitalism but has many other positions which are closer to the middle-left than the middle-right, for one thing they favor environmentalism and Centralization. Nick Griffin was even one of the founders of the ITP which deliberately defined their views in a way that would distingish them from this limited categorization of left or right. If someone here disagrees with me I would like that person to explain why and to concisely define to me what exactly are the characteristics of right-wing groups.--AryeitskiySaldat 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Too moderate

Someone put citation needed next to where I wrote that openly National Socialist groups dislike the BNP. This link is probably not admissable to wikipedia but proves that what I wrote is true. http://www.heretical.org/British/bnpfun.html

I flagged the statement as needing a citation, and I'm not sure that site qualifies as a valid site to cite (if that makes sense). In any case, you should add the citation to the article using the ref tag, rather than just removing the "fact" tag. Have a look at WP:CITE for more information. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Given the absence of meaningful and specific criticisms of the article, I'll remove the NPOV tag tomorrow (in line with policy) - it's been there long enough. I won't do this if specific criticisms with suggestions for changes are put forward before then.--Red Deathy 08:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank god you've managed to clean it up. I did try myself but my edits got reverted. Need to keep an eye on this, it could easily slip back. --Triedandtested 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(non-white) and (culturally assimilated)

This refers to the introduction to the article, second paragraph. A couple of editors have persisted in adding the above phrases to quotations from original BNP source material. One has said that he placed (non-white) in the sentence to give clarity. Maybe, but it still appears to be part of the genuine quotation. As to 'culturally assimilated', whether in brackets or not, this phrase nowehere appears in the BNP Consitution so its use is pure editorialising, not editing, and should be removed. I have restored the article, in this respect, to its previous agreed and accepted form. It may be that some explanation for readers of the article is needed, but it cannot be done by adding words, even in parentheses, to quotations. If it is felt that such explanation is needed (and personally I doubt it, but could be persuaded), then a more suitable method ought to be suggested here first. Emeraude 16:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Im back..sort of. anyway i read through the article, I cant see why anyone would have much wrong with it (nice to see the picture is updated). There will always be the far right saying its anti bnp and the far left who want to trash it or claim is pro-bnp or something, but for the mainstream its correct. Example is..bnp is far right to all but a few..therefore the statement is correct. Same thing about Hitler being dead to all but a few...theres a few who believe he is alive and well in some country but to most he is dead, and that he is called. Anyway in reply to what you posted in not sure who has been posting (ive been away), I will look at the article and see what..if anything i have a problem with (i doubt theres anything) :) Fethroesforia 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask a serious question?

Why is this article longer than Conservative Party (UK)?

86.158.84.187 12:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because more volunteers worked on this article than the other one. You are welcome to find sources and contribute/expand any article you so desire. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it not slightly disturbing that more people are willing to work on the BNP article than the Conservative one? Are the people contributing to this article BNP supporters? 86.158.84.187 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not disturbing at all. And your second question is ludicrous. Lurker (said · done) 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ludicrous? The people who know enough about the BNP to write such a detailed article on them, is it unfair to assume they have something to do with the BNP? And why are they more willing to work on this article than that of a normal political party?

• Think about it a bit mate. You've got a fair point in my mind that the article is too long. I think it is too. But there's no reason why someone should i/ be a BNP member to know about the BNP (after all a Historian might know about Hitler but that doesnt make him a Nazi) and ii/ maybe this one isnt too long but other articles are too short? All the best. Marcus22 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think actually its more likely to be influenced by people campaigning against the BNP (and I say that as someone who can't stand the party). The reason why its so long is probably twofold. 1. People are more interested in the BNP, they can search for it and try to decide for themselves on questions like "Is the BNP racist?" etc. There's more of a casual interest there, whereas the only reasons you'd look up the Conservative Party history, really, is either A: You need information on the Tories for some reason, or B: You're really rather interested. --CTerry 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It also needs to be long because its controversial, and has to be scrupulously neutral, so I's are dotted and T's crossed.--Red Deathy 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

perception of the BNP from the Far Right or Fascist realm

I think it is appropriate to put that the National Socialist British People Party, which bases its policies on the doctrine of Hitler's party and wishes to create a parallel in Britian, as well as a skinhead group in B&H and an orthodox NS or Nazi group in the N9S consider them too moderate. The last paragraph of the introduction refers to how the rest of British society views seem and it is worth not only noting what those to the "left" of them think but also what those to the "right" do.

Please sign your comments. Marcus22 19:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive

Not sure how to do that, can someone please archive this page and open a fresh one? This page is already 81kb long. Marcus22 10:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)