LeGooberman007

Welcome to Wikipedia

Personally from -Chubbennaitor 

Hello, LeGooberman007! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. I am an adopter which means I can help you to get accustomed to Wikipedia. To get adopted put {{Adoptme}}. If you acknowledge me welcoming you please tell me on my talk page. Happy editing! Chubbennaitor 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image • Get adopted Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

British National Party

References 7-14 are used for the Fascist tag - those are all peer-reviewed journals/books by established academics who printing in mainstream academic journals of note. Can you please outline what is wrong *specifically* with each of those references? In terms of sourcing for wikipedia, peer reviewed mainstream academic journals are considered the highest level of sourcing. Can you outline why you don't consider those sources to be reputable?

Attempts to removed well sourced content without explaining what the issue with the sources is likely to be seen as vandalism and quickly reverted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Academics studying right-wing extremism argue that the organisation is still fascist and has strategically masked its core ideology behind the deployment of ‘moderate’ language"
• Article describing the party as neo-fascist
• "The neo-Nazi grimace continues to peer out menacingly from under the party’s telegenic neo-populist mask for anyone who takes the trouble to look closely"
• The BNP was not the first British fascist party to stand in elections.
• "Griffin's ideological revamp underpins the party's normalization in the eyes of the thousands of Britons who vote for it, making it even more difficult to pin the 'fascist' or 'Nazi' label on the well-groomed bespoke suits of Britain's latest generation of neo-fascist extremists."
• "First, there are neo-fascist parties such as Forza Nuova and Movimento Sociale Fiamma Tricolori in Italy, the German People’s Union (Deutsche Volksunion, DVU) and the British National Party which espouse fascist or neo-fascist ideology."
• "The threat of neo-fascist political groups such as the British National Party (BNP) or the National Front (NF) marching into Bradford sparked fury"

Verfication not truth

This should answer some of your questions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)