Talk:British National Party/Archive 20

Dead link
The link to the 2010 manifesto is dead. Can someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.241.177 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The BNP seem to be running a post-election placeholder over their site. I've changed the link to a hosted version by Scribd, though when they have a proper website again it may be worth switching back to avoid third-party bias. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The BNP website was taken down by its designer during the election campaign, part of an internal squabble going on within the party. (see The Guardian, "BNP faces new legal threat amid claims its rules are still unlawful", 10 May 2010, p16). Emeraude (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources and numbers
Firstly, and most importantly, there is a edit war going on about the number of local seats the BNP currently has. The editor changin it to 28 is correct. The BBC source is misleading since it only includes the seats which were contested at the recent elections, not seats that were already held. However, a more reliable source is needed to confirm this. Until then, I suggest just stopping the edit war.

Secondly, there's disagreement within the article over how many parliamentary candidates were fielded. We have one unreliable source (a blog) which says 338 and an unsourced table which says 339.

We need to go looking for sources before doing any more editing about the election results, people! GDallimore (Talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To show that the BBC source is misleading, here's the same table for the 2009 elections. The BNP gained three seats, giving them three total. Now we all know that the BNP held more than three seats coming into the current round of local elections. These tables only take account of contested seats, and do not give an overall picture.
 * Basically, I still can't confirm how many local seats the BNP hold after the latest round of elections, but it definitely isn't 19. GDallimore (Talk) 23:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this says 28 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-councillors.php.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Re general election. 338 is correct (see British National Party election results for sourced listings). Emeraude (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The source used in that article is the same as the one used here: a blog, ergo not reliable - even if it is correct. GDallimore (Talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering this page stated that the BNP had 58 local seats before the recent elections and that they lost 26 of them afterwards, then - 58-26=32 seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.213.103 (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Political Tendencies section
This section is a biased, one sided collection of opinions. Simply being printed in a newspaper or magazine does not make something a fact. Often times things published in newspapers and magazines are nothing but opinion. So much of the rest of the article talks about the condemnation of BNP by various individuals and groups, why has a supposedly neutral encyclopedia included this section that adds no value whatsoever? I'm tagging this article as highly questionable on NPOV. No soapbox preaching here! If I can't do it, then neither can you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.49.70 (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP articles are based on mainstream sources and are not the place to Right great wrongs. TFD (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In fairness then, you should have a set of opinions on the other side of the issue. Encyclopedias are not the place to espouse politcal likes and dislikes, as this article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.49.70 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please bring forward any reliable, independent sources that support the other side of the issue. GDallimore (Talk) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

HQ
A post ofice box is a postal adress only. This needs chagning.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The SNP page is the same just a postal address. The one I put in for the BNP is the main address given on their webpage i.e. no road/street given. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not the same, the SNP have a full address not a PO box. The BNP) address is purley a postal address, it is not a physical HQ.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only address available. The address on their election leaflet and their address for Scotland are also P.O. boxes. (Probably to avoid trouble from protesters.) Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that is whhat the info Box should say. Either contact address or leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the BNP would publicise an actual real headquarters like a less controversial party would. It is common on the far right to use postal addresses, mailboxes etc. and then run operations from the safety of a private location. This is all just a feeling that I get from reading online, but I would not necessarily expect to be able to put up an actual party office address because such a place may not actually exist. 81.98.246.139 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New Statesman article being misrepresented
I have removed the following sentence According to left-wing New Statesman however, "the BNP is not a traditional fascist party or Nazi organisation". This directly followed various other sources that said the BNP differed from traditional fascists. The sentence itself has only one meaning. If they had meant the BNP is not fascist or Nazi it would have said "the BNP is not a traditional fascist party or Nazi organisation". It did not, it added the word "traditional" to show the BNP differs from historial ones. This means the New Statesman were agreeing with the sources before it, not disagreeing as the word "however" would misleadingly imply. Since there are already two sources making the same point, I don't see why we need the New Statesman especially as it will only lead to the typing bitching from the usual suspects about left wing people being cited. 2 lines of K 303  13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.239.71.235, 1 July 2010
Considering the BNP is against Fascism, it would be more fair to call them 'Anti-Fascist' rather than 'Fascist', as it is listed under their ideologies.

Read the definition of Fascism, and the BNP's stance on the political violence used by its opponents.

92.239.71.235 (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Fascism label is well sourced and therefore will not be removed. This is explained in the FAQ template at the top of this talk page.


 * '''Q Is the BNP a far-right party? Is the BNP a fascist party?
 * A In almost all academic literature, including that leading up to the present day, the BNP's policies are classified as far-right, and its ideologies as fascist or neo-fascist. The BNP do deny aspects of both of these labels – they consider themselves opposed to right-wing capitalism as well as left-wing socialism, and they point to their rejection of certain tenets of fascism such as the single-party state. These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article, but appropriate weight should be assigned to the fact that many academics find these to be the most suitable labels to use even when taking the BNP's response to them into account.
 * So it has to remain sorry, there has been long debates on this before in the archives if you wish to take a look. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. As stated by BritsihWatcher this has already been discussed a lot - for example large chunks of the most recent archive discuss this. Dpmuk (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Historians in the Guardian
Under the political tendencies section, this is one part:
 * In an interview with the Guardian, historian Richard Overy said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." Historian David Stevenson said that "the BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s," adding that though they do not wear uniforms they still count "bully boys" among their membership.[179]

I however, in an edit somewhat expanded the section, to:
 * In an interview with the Guardian, historian Michael Burleigh noted, concerning the BNP, that "The left has a vested interest in playing up the threat of fascism. It uses it to reoxygenate itself: Margaret Hodge has been doing this for years, and Labour was doing it again before this election.", also that "I don't like all these stupid historical analogies - this is not a re-run of the 1930s". Historian Richard Overy also said that "Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now." Historian David Stevenson said that "the BNP is different in style and structure from fascism in the 1930s," adding that though they do not wear uniforms they still count "bully boys" among their membership. He suggested the success of the BNP to be more of a parallel to the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France in the 1980s rather than the rise of fascism in the 1930s.[179]

This edit was twice reverted by user Verbal, on the claim that I should "discuss on talk". So, I cannot believe that my edit should not be legit, but I was anyway forced to place it here on talk. My edit as one can see, puts in more rather vital, and relevant info. -TheG (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it improves the the article and how it is relevant to that section, which is discussing fascism. Verbal chat  17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, bear in mind that these are statements by highly respected historians. That is not the case with much of the rest of the section, which is mostly a collection of random quotes by tabloids and politicians. There should never be any doubt on Wikipedia that the statements by historians should be less weighted than those of tabloids and politicans. Anyway, the statements of these historians in my edit are clearly relevant, seeing that they discuss from the outside both the contemporary political game (first edit), as well as comparative political history (second edit) - both in regards of the BNP/fascism-issue. As I see it, it is not merely relevant to the article, but actually vital. -TheG (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about the BNP and the simple fact that they are fascist. Its not about reasons why other groups might oppose them or about changes in fascism since the 1930s.  Also we need to be careful here.  Burleigh has a political agenda, Stevenson specialises in WW1 which is a pre-fascist period, Overy's reputation is WWII and its origins, their commentary is obviously relevant to something, but not to this section.  Overy is interesting, but a position that fascism is no longer a political phenomena is controversial to say the least, and that material would belong elsewhere.  There may be a case for some words around differences between the 1930s and now, but that seems to relate to uniform not to the point that they are fascist.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of material by eight historians in that article. Why have two quotes been cherry-picked and taken out of context so as to suggest that historians do something other than overwhelmingly draw a direct line between groups like the BNP and historical fascism? Just curious. --FormerIP (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Becasue they were asked about the BNP and fascism, and the section is about teh accusation that the BNP are fascist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a good excuse for cherry-picking quotes and presenting them out of context, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They cwew used to demonstrate that not all historians agree that the BNP are facicst in the context of historical fasicsm, they were not used (and the text does not claim) that this represents a rejection that most historians view the BNP as fasicst just that some do not wholey agree with that). Now if they have been cheery puicked (and I disagree on tha tscore, no more then any other quote i this arti9cel) thenj provide the context by expandin it (which oddly seems to have been rejhected).Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit did look like it cherry-picked some quotes to put the BNP in a positive light. However, I think due consideration should also be given to whether the quotes that are already in the article are equally cherry-picked in the opposite direction. Rather than quoting individual things, is there some overall summary that could be used or can something be written to give the gist of what was said. Quoting short passages from lengthy discussions on complicated topics is always bad practice in my view. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, ignoring any of these particular historians writing in the guardian article on the personal view that their ideas are controversial is gross OR and POV-pushing. (for similar reasons, complaints that the guardian or indy are leftist should be ignored as well). If the viewpoints are that controversial, another source giving the counterpoint should be found and if enough sources are found which show the alleged controversial idea is not widely accepted then it can be removed as a fringe idea, not otherwise. GDallimore (Talk) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point that the Guardian article was reporting on multiple opinions rather than a considered article by any of those historians. However the main issue here is the relevance of the motivations of those who oppose the BNP to a section about the BNP and fascism where there is no question that the literature clearly establishes their nature.-- Snowded  TALK  20:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite astonishing actually, how one is in the first place demanded to find good sources if something is to be added/changed in this article – and when the sources are found – or in this case it has even been in the article all along(!) – the row of endless excuses and jibberish talking around the issue starts. Although I have earlier been able to see some sort of point in your claims, it is now starting to look as nothing more than a plain parody of your alleged openness to change. -TheG (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 1968rt, 13 July 2010
editsemiprotected

Please change "overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that it says existed prior to 1948" to "overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948". There can be no doubt that the revised version is a statement of fact, but the current wording suggests that this may not be true.

1968rt (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a paraphrase of the BNP's manifesto which does accurately reflect what it says. TFD (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Right-Wing Populism
Could somebody please add Category:Right-wing populism? --红卫兵 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Current Crisis
The BNP is currently in crisis. Butler's bid to oust Griffin has failed. The use of a Marmite pot in the broadcast cost them £170K, Michaela McKenzie sued for wrongful dismissal which they can't pay. Griffin is threatened with imprisonment by the HRC. Barnbrook has resigned the whip. Darby has resigned as deputy leader. 12 staff have been laid off & are considering if there is any money worth suing for. Even Lee Barnes has jacked it in & is attacking Griffin. Edmonds is suspended, but none of this is reflected in the article. I can do it myself if I get references other than anti-fascist sources, but I might be crying into my beer...--Streona (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the membership figures of 14,000, although a recernt figure, may have to be radically altered downwards as well. Griffin has suspended large numbers who had supported Eddy Butler's challenge, many members are not renewing and the legal freeze on new members is not replacing them. --Streona (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure it should be in the articel yet as its not resolved. It might be best to wait and see how it pans out.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All reliable sources are anti-fascist, with the exception that the BNP may be a reliable source under some circumstances for itself. TFD (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a reliable source here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/debts-lawsuits-and-internal-feuding-cast-doubt-on-future-of-bnp-2064009.html Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Marmite source http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/sectors/industry/government-news/marmite-brings-british-national-party-to-its-knees/3016002.article 92.29.63.53 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnbrook's expulsion today and a bit on the current crisis. Valenciano (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BNP back in Court 8-9 November 2010 -kristallnacht. It has also been widely announced that the BNP owe £700,000 and that Griffin may be personally bankrupted and so expelled from the European Parliament. I think an update will then be due.--Streona (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Source on the British National Party at the British Library website
http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpsubject/socsci/topbib/bnp/bnptimeline.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernadette Hayes (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

not far right
the BNP is not at all far right (which means deregulated financial markets)

it is a national socialist or fascist party (mussolini, nazi party)

these parties support the redistribution of wealth, big government, and can in no way be considered "right wing".

it is an authoritarian centrist party (ie fascism), or given its position on big government and wealth redistribution a leftist or socialist party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, we have multiple sources that identify it as a "far right" group. We have to go with the sources, not with our own analysis.   Will Beback    talk    10:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your political compass is broken – or maybe it's just a model that is not approved for international use. See Right-wing politics. Hans Adler 11:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They are a far right party, they just also have some far left economic policies. But the main policy areas people vote for them on are deemed right wing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At then end of the day they are called far right by most (maybe all) of the RS we will find. They may not be, but we can only say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "far right" is generally used to describe these groups. In fact when such groups formed a European party, called the Technical Group of the European Right, they were seated on the far right, just as the Nazis were in their time.  Also, studies of political parties showed that the parliamentarians belonging to these parties were generally more pro-free market than members from other parties.  TFD (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Socialists aren´t pro-free market. A50000 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article on the Far Right to which these debate properly belongs. According to that article the BNP are far-right.- Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.198.5 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Given their stance on nationalisation, republicanism, protectionism and so on and forth there is overwhelming evidence that the British National Party is by any standard a National Socialist, far-left organisation. I can gain some honest sources which attest to this if wished for? Of course, there is more (incorrectly) stating "far-right", which is simply because the term has become a buzz-term in the UK for "bad guys" on the ever-running crusade against libertarian right-wing politics, but that's a different discussion all together. Should it not be the case that perhaps both Far-Left and Far-Right be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.217.153 (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would sugest you provide the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "by any standard a National Socialist, far-left organisation" ??? Some confusion there, what? Emeraude (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your confusion Emeraude; the political compass of left and right has lost all real meaning in the mainstream media nowadays; "far rigt" is now simply a by-word for "bad guys" - but the truth is not something the mainstream media seem to care much of when it comes to this. National Socialism, as in the case of Communism, is a far-Left ideology: protectionism, statism, nationalization, state-legislated censorship, these are all key factors in defining what is "Far-Left" and no doubt the BNP, just like National Socialism and just like Communism, ticks all these boxes. But again, "far-Right" is a buzz-term used by the elite class and socialists to demonize right-wing politics of libertarianism and anything which promotes smaller government and more people-power essentially. The BNP are by the very deinition of the term a far-Left, racist, protectionist organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.160.36 (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Total and utter nonsense. There is no confusion in my mind nor of any other political scientist/philosopher. National Socialism is about as far left as Hitler's right thumb! And, for the record, the Nazis were not in favour of nationalisation, protectionism is more likely with rightist government (the far left tends towards internationalism). If, as you say, "the BNP are by the very deinition of the term a far-Left" party, then I expect you to provide a massive list of references to support this view from the relevant academic journals and texts. But I'm not holding my breath.... Emeraude (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, also for the record, "far-Right" is NOT "a buzz-term used by the elite class and socialists to demonize" anything which you seem to support. It has clear meaning and is used as such in political science. But, even if some people do misuse the term, encyclopaedists are capable of using it accurately and precisely. Emeraude (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see reliable sources. The descriptions are based on scholarly consensus.  TFD (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system -. Plus please show me this scholorly consensus! It seems PREPOSTEROUS, that such words as fascism should be on Wikipedia to describe a highly debated topic such as the BNP. To call them "Fascist" as part of their ideology, is completely ignoring their own views, and the views of millions of citizens who I might add, simply want to see proper reporting, and not such immature biases as this! SORT IT OUT ! This quite clear dismissal of NPOV has really angered me. I treasure this site, don't let us down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 November 2010
 * Find one RS that says they are not facist. I have found one ow two but not many, it certainly looks like its a consensus amoung political commentators that they are factist. My own views on this matter are irrelevant we can only repeat what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if this is the case, then why Jobbik hasn't been assigned the tag "fascist" in their article, when it's clearer that they are much more militant and extreme in their actions. Whilst they most likely share the same beliefs as the BNP, they're more like the UAF in how they deal with things they don't agree with. Any chance we can get some continuity amongst the articles on Extreme right wing parties. It's clear that parties like the FN, and Partij voor de Vreigheid aren't intrinsically fascist, but I would argue that other Slavic and eastern European parties like Jobbik are iff the BNP has been assigned this term. Also, would it be possible to remove a couple of the sources in the "ideologies box" and just keep one or two of the most important ones, 7 seems unnecessary and spoils the layout. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortcomings of one article can't be used to criticise another. Take it up on the discussion page for Jobbik. As to why there are so many citations for "fascist" in the BNP article, I would suggest you look back through the archives of this discussion page. To any political scientist or informed observer the question is self-evident, and a single citation ought therefore to suffice. But, over months and years, apologists for the BNP have complained variously that there was only one reference, or they are biased, or wrong, or can only be read at some expense, or aren't on the Internet (and one person said he wasn't even going to read the sources!). That's why there are so many - what no one has done, despite being challenged, is come up with a single reliable source that says that the BNP is NOT fascist. Sad it may be, but without that number of citations the argument goes on and on and on and on..... Emeraude (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

British National Party 1992 Manifesto
I have here the 1992 General election manifesto although I am unable to add into the External links:
 * Fight Back! 1992 Manifesto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * not sure exatly what value tis has now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not allow that I edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.15.1 (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What edit do you wish to make?Slatersteven (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Under the external links which have the links of manifestos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not explained what value this has to the article, as it’s over 10 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With the article covering the history of the party as well as its present state, surely manifestos from the past are going to be of interest to some readers, as they show the extent to which policies have changed or remained constant. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as we can prove that this is the BNP manifesto (although I'm not too sure even then). I don't see what the evolution of the party has to do with anything. We note what they belive today, what they belived 10 years ago is no more relevant then what the Tories beleived 10 years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Their past beliefs may or may not be relevant to their current beliefs, but they are still of historical interest. By the logic of your argument we would have to dump the whole History section on the grounds that the events described are not current. Barnabypage (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a all, the history section tells us the history of the party how it evolved and changed over the years. But what we do not need to know is what platforms they stood for in elections that are a decade or more old. If they have (for example) had a major shift in eccomomic policy it might be valuable to know this (though I'm not sure that changes this old are relevant), but such materail should be in the artciel already. Thats my problom, if this were only a few yeasrs old it might help demonstrate the changes the party has undergone but this old it frankly talks about things (Thathcer for example) that really have no bearing on todays politics and are very much issues of the late 80's early 90's. If its going to be major issue put it in, but I really don't see any value to it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The past is as relevant as the present. The aim of the article is to inform the reader about the subject of the British National Party in its entirety and that includes its history - which in the case of any political party is inseparable from its major policies. I agree, if there have been major shifts of policy the main text of the article needs to make that clear too, as they would be an important part of the history. If your concern is that the reader is going to look at a 1992 manifesto and believe that that represents the current position of the BNP - well, I don't think we can tailor everything to the dumbest potential reader; nearly everyone will realise that things can change dramatically over two decades. Barnabypage (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we were talking about the constitution I might agree, but we are not we are talking about an election manifesto, which does not reflect what the party believes but what it needs to say to get elected (the cynic in me tells me). Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is that. :) Let's see if anyone else has any views on this, anyway - even if the consensus turns out to be in favour of inclusion, it's obviously not a hugely pressing matter. Barnabypage (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1992 Manifesto is very important as the BNP was very small in the days of 1992 and it received a lot of bad publicity such as "anti-Semitic" or "Nazi" but if you read the manifesto, it will explain that it is no anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi either. It also shows how the party's manifestos has differed in the past. Most of everything it has written in the 1992 Manifesto is still relevant today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(Deindent) Definitely relevant and some of the policies in it should be quoted in the article. For a party that claims not to be fascist some of the stuff was simply mind boggling, the bits about having an elected dictator and a single national trade union for example. Think I've heard that before somewhere! Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And its not been answerd yet whether or not this is the BNP manifesto. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It did not mentiond about having an elected dictator, it mentioned having an elected prime minister. A National Trade Union works better because it ends the class war that far-left Trade Unions like to incite.

NOW WILL SOMEONE PLEASE UNLOCK THE EXTERNAL LINKS IN ORDER TO ADD THE MANIFESTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 14:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not shout, we know what you have asked. But a key question has still not been answerd.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why is Wikipedia not allowing anyone to edit this page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Past vandalism by IP accounts.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no one has yet demonstrated that this site, is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC) OK it seems it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JackPlatts, 13 November 2010
JackPlatts (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your edit request?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideologies of the Party in main box description
Have removed two definitions of the party's "Ideology" as the sources were biased or in the case of one completely unsourced. If you wish to make a case for the BNP being "Fascist" then outline an argument in a relevant section of the article. Please take note of the French Version of this article for definition of impartiality. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre8 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The case is made in this section. Rodhull  andemu  18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New logo
They've got a new logo: http://www.newsonnews.net/politics/6223-british-national-party-unveils-new-party-logo.html Someone should update it at some point. I don't know how. Jonchapple (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked so only someone with the authority to edit can update the logo. The Party also announced that they will no longer use the acronym "BNP" and instead will be referred to at all times as the "British National Party", so I would suggest any references to "BNP" be updated accordingly also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.66.86 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't follow the BNP's lead simply because they discontinue the use of an acronym. It's widely, widely used and is far more clear than the potentially ambiguous "party", so to maintain consistency we'll stick with BNP thanks. 2 lines of K  303  11:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BNP should stay for acronym unless there is a shift in Media reporting. It's 100% more practical with such a long party name. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong information
"The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests" -- This is simply wrong and shouldn't be there. The party has a clear line, and it's not "white" per se, but the ethnic people of the British Isles. This should be changed unless you support wrong information. "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 which reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them"   -- This clearly doesn't incorporate other White Europeans. I will make the change shortly unless a good reason can be made as to why not. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The second part of the line is supported by the source, the first part is not. As to the rest (what you says) it should be mentione dthjat the BNP (assuming you have sources) draw a distiction between British and non-British whites.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just re-read the entire article and I regret to say that this is one of the only articles I've read on wikipedia that is a complete lost cause. I'm not inclined to bother making minor adjustments to the above identified problem when I can see 10 others throughout the article. It's very depressing to think that some people are too selfish to write an unbiased and simply informative article with the necessary critisms left to the relevant boxes. This article reads like a peace of anti BNP propaganda written, and I can see from the original writers, by left wingers. Sure I don't vote BNP, but I shouldn't even have to write this in order to get a fair treatment. A BNP member could say the same as me and still be telling the truth. I suggest a certain good Samaritan come along and change the disgusting bias on this article for good and for all. Shame on you and your so called freedom of expression. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I susgest that you raise each of the lines here to get responses. Giving up is never the answer to a problom page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave out media bias please?
I am by no stretch of the imagination a BNP supporter, but can we stick to the facts with this article and stop falling into immature media bias? The BNP are not ideologically "fascist" (a term I take some exception to nowadays since it's been rendered meaningless by the media).

The BNP policies of nationalism and republicanism and protectionism are all very much of the far-Left, not the far-Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.71.141 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The BNP policies of nationalism and republicanism and protectionism are all very much of the far-Left, not the far-Right" That is biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard!! 1) No, the BNP is not a republican party, it is deeply pro-monarchist and nowhere has it ever intended to abolish the monarchy. 2) Protectionism is not what the far-Left advocate, the far-Left is internationalist like the centre-"Right"; protectionism was originally the policy of the Conservatives with their imperial preference policy. My my, this is just right-wing libertarian mumbo-jumbo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see reliable sources. The descriptions are based on scholarly consensus.  TFD (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system -. Plus please show me this scholorly consensus! It seems PREPOSTEROUS, that such words as fascism should be on Wikipedia to describe a highly debated topic such as the BNP. To call them "Fascist" as part of their ideology, is completely ignoring their own views, and the views of millions of citizens who I might add, simply want to see proper reporting, and not such immature biases as this! SORT IT OUT ! This quite clear dismissal of NPOV has really angered me. I treasure this site, don't let us down! Alexandre8 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to remember that the people who argued for the labelling don't want you to make up your own opinion about the party. They simple want you to have to forced down your throat. Again, I don't need to state that these people are also fascists without you seeing it for yourself, so no need to label the BNP fascists either. Alexandre8 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unitll we can decide on a community mwide citeria for labaling in info boxes and leads (self applied or jnust very widely accused) I susgst a nuetraility is debated tag.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest not, see the bottom section I've just added. 2 lines of K  303  14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The nuetraility of the articel has been questioned, partialy on grounds (sources 10 years old) that I partialy agree withSlatersteven (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering there are no "media" sources being used to describe the BNP's ideology as fascist, the argument being presented here is specious. If you want to challenge the reliability of the references go ahead and ask at WP:RSN, I could do with a good laugh! On a vaguely related note, I've reverted the removal of two references by a SPA, since sources make it clear the BNP's fascist ideology hasn't changed it doesn't matter if they are 10 years or more old. 2 lines of K 303  14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the user thinks these fail RS he shuld take it to the notice board. I I agree with hte remover that sources 10 xyears old can hardley be used to represent what the BNP thinks now. If sources make it clear they have not changed then use those sou8rces rather then the old ones. Then the argument ends (at least for now). Have they been reported as an SPA?Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
There seems to be an awful lot of bias in this article. Firstly the ideology section. I am aware that there are various sources stating they are fascist, but surely the weight they are given is undue. Of course it would be ridiculous not to mention it. But often the sources don't state they are facsist but merely "have characteristics of fascism".

Secondly the wording of the article seems somewhat non-neutral. Terms such as "extreme" and "spuriously" are used just frequently. It's almost impossible to ever use words such as "spuriously" without indicating bias so I have already removed it, but I'm not going to make any major changes without the opportunity for discussion first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedonologist (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added it back. The source cited says, and I quote, "following spurious allegations that a higher percentage of housing was going to black families in an area of poor housing provisions". If the BNP choose to make spurious allegations during elections and sources report that, then so can we. That is how neutral point-of-view works, it is neutral according to reliable sources not neutral according to BNP members/supporters/apologists. As your comments here give no real specific examples of what is wrong with the article and what can be done to fix it (apart from the flogged to death "the BNP aren't fascist" line) I've removed the tag, drive by tags can be removed at any time. 2 lines of K  303  11:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * see bellow.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Quit the bias people. People can form their own opinions. Quite frankly the wording in this article is at time disgusting and insulting. Telling people they can't make up their own opinions on an already overtly ethnically biased party is disgraceful. It's like this article is spoon-feeding 5 year olds verses of indoctrinating political rubbish. Yes you're not going to like this comment people, but it's how I, and a lot of people who don't even support the BNP, OBJECT to such wording. Spuriously may be quoted, but IN CONTEXT. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The only bias is when people leave things out because they don't like what they say. If a source said just "claimed" or "alleged" then it would be biased to add any qualifier to that. However on this occasion the source makes it quite clear the allegations were bogus, so you don't get to leave that out because you find the truth inconvenient. 2 lines of K  303  14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * NO we say that X says its false, not that it is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So did you do that? No! 2 lines of K  303  14:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Niether did you. So lets discuse the text before adding it shall we, thats how we are supposed to do things. Does the sources say the accusation was false, if so could we have a quote from the source ,supporting the edit,.?Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging
I've reverted yet another attempt at drive-by tagging. Vague comments along the lines of "The whole article is biased" are not a valid rationale for adding a template. There must be specific points about what is biased accompanied by what could be done to fix this, ideally with reliable sources quoted. You aren't going to get any outside help from anyone unless you do this, as there's nothing for anyone to work from. 2 lines of K 303  14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhps you should also discuse why you are making changes, especialy when you change long standing text. Also the TAg was not a drive by taging, you of all people shoujld be aware I have been editing this page for a while. A doubt has been expressd about teh paghes neutraility and we shouod discuse it. Not turn up after months of not editing a page and then just make changes wihtout discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited the page in the last few days, get your facts right. Why are you reverting to unsourced text when I amended it to add sources and put what the sources say? 2 lines of K  303  14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you want to maintain the tag please list specific examples of bias please -- Snowded TALK  14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Becasue you made mass reverts, so I reverted back to an older version. If you object to some text then do as you preach and discuse (and edit) individauly) not en block. If you have objections to say the tag explain why. ASs to its inclusion a useer has expressed dounts about the use of what they claim are out of date sources. They may have a point.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any objections which has been sustained after a response has been made. That means the tag should go-- Snowded  TALK  14:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its only been a day, at least give them time to respond to the claim that its still proven by recetn sources. I would also poitn out that the citations were used in the added material do not appear to work, so I cannot vefist what has been have inserted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure but it is normal practice to list objections when you tag, not just to leave it for a bit -- Snowded TALK  15:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very demoralising when wanting to make a clear cut article full of interesting and insightful information, when you have three of four people who are sort of edit bullies. They know full well that the article doesn't read like an unbiased encyclopaedic page, and yet still insist on examples being found. I can stand here hand on heart and say that if I wasted 30 minutes of my life compiling all the bits that are biased, the people who are more interested in making this page anti BNP propaganda would quote some wiki law, and write no more. You may think I'm being harsh, but when you make people not feel like editing then I find that pretty mean no?

This is what I'll say. The whole article has been crafted in a way that all that most if not all (I ahven't checked) of the citations are backed up with a source. Sure, but it seems that every line stating one thing neutral about the group is countered with a line like "but this group calls them fascists and uterlly rejects their nazi agenda" ok so not as extreme but you get my point. To correct this article needs the GOOD FAITH policy in the majority of cases, and since we are dealing with people who'd rather see the demise of the BNP and would like that shown on wikipedia, good faith shall never be found. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have specific objections please raise them. But please refrain from sermonsing. If I read you right you are saying that the artile os a NPOV mess. Fine then lets start discusing the isseus you think are probloms.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And a quick reminder Alexandre8 that you already have a warning re AGF failure -- Snowded  TALK  15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and ?I feel unwelcome. I can see your views as to freedom of expression very clearly now. It's a shame. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you fail to assume good faith then you will feel unwelcome. All editors here are bound by the same rules.  -- Snowded  TALK  15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex if you do not assume good faith, and continue to argue from a generalised objection rahter then commenting on or raiseing specific issues I will have no choice but to assume yoiu have no real objection other then arguing from a POV pushing stance. I have assumed up till now that you do have specific objectioons, now is the time to raise them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First isseu
Please put in your first objection for discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests""

One suggested text

"The Party retains the ethnicity "British" for anyone of is a native inhabitant of the British Isles, for those who have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens are "civically" British. Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests"2

Other text

"The BNP believes black and Asian Britons do not exist, regarding them as "racial foreignersThe BNP's ultimate aim is the "lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK". Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests"."

This one needs the sourcing sorted out.

Which do we think is the more NPOV in representing that the BNP say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK toi start the ball rolling it seems to be that the first passage has the most neutral language.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues raised by Alexandre8

 * Beharry was awarded his Victoria Cross in 2005 for action in Iraq, when he returned to his burning armoured personnel carrier three times, under sustained enemy fire, to lift out his wounded comrades from the vehicle.[112] The BNP has denied some of these allegations. Which allegations? The link is dead.


 * Removed as a dead link. Origionaly it had the BNP deny that the claims made about their statments about Mr Beharry VC were unture.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced this with material from an alternative source. Steven: This seems to me to be not identical but similar. I can't look at the original source any more than you can. I'd agree that there may be some ambiguity, but my guess is that "allegations" in the previous text referred to the alleged circumstances of the soldier's conduct, rather than allegations of any wrongdoing by the BNP or anyone else. Hence, I think, what we need is another source showing that the BNP disputed the circumstances, which is what I provided. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, well sourced and unbiased. Good modification. Alexandre8 (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The origional material (and the source) was the BNP saying that some of the statments attributed to them over this issue wer not true. Not some of the statments made about Mr Beharry VC were not true. Its why it was there the BNP attempted (n ot entierly succesfull) re-buttal.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? In any event, the new material is relevant, in and RS and seems uncontentious. --FormerIP (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the one that put it there. My objection was to (as you claimed, it would appear in innocence) that a rebuttal of an accusation was replaced wiht an admision of worngdoing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He claims that his core ideology is "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom". contradicts  “The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests". This is wrong, the source doesn't agree with what is written either. They have publicly said that they support the ethnic peoples of the British Isles, and only they could be "ethnically British", the word "civically British" has been reserved for everyone else, including slavs and hispanics who are also white.


 * I don;t see any contradiction in the first two lines. You can be concearnd about those who are ethnicly British whilst deny that non whites are British, nor does in contracidt the idea that non-bBriton will be protectd under British law (after all I am sure that non one would bleive tah tallowing mulsim womwen to be raped would i some way endanger the ethnicly Britisah). As to the rwst I am not too sure what you mean, I shall of course chekcthe soucre.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote from the source “Those non-Europeans who stay will have British passports and will be protected by our laws, but they will be regarded as permanent guests” So yes the source is accurately reflected.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This wasn't a great example, but the line "anyone who is non white" is wrong, as they say that they reserve "ethnically British" for the forementioned people, the word "civically British" has been reserved for everyone else, including slavs and hispanics who are also white. I repeat Alexandre8 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do yoou prefer this susgestion (rember it was sourced (I think the cite did not work)) "The BNP believes Black and Asian Britons do not exist, regarding them as "racial foreigners""?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that a simple statement of who they view to be ethnically and civicaly British is needed. Nothing more nothing less. "do not exist" seems to denote them to a "non" people status, which as far as I know the BNP don't openly believe. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In June 2009, the Royal British Legion wrote to Griffin privately to ask him to stop wearing their poppy symbol. After he refused and wore the badge at campaign events and the party's televised election broadcast, The Legion said in an open letter: "True valour deserves respect regardless of a person's ethnic origin, and everyone who serves or has served their country deserves nothing less ... our national chairman appealed to your sense of honour. But you have responded by continuing to wear the poppy. So now we're no longer asking you privately. Stop it, Mr Griffin. Just stop it."[306] Here has no mention of mr Griffin's response to the matter. He again publicly said that he would remove the poppy only when injured soldiers stopped paying for their t.v licence since prisoners were watching television for free.


 * If you have a source for this we can see about its inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If he said that I would have no objection to including a quote -- Snowded TALK  16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok will get right on that. Alexandre8 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't have time to find sources right now, but I believe that Griffin refused to respect the wishes of the British Legion because soldiers were charged to watch TV in hospitals receiving funding from the British Legion. However, Griffin's claim turned out to be false - no military hospital in the UK charges soldiers to watch TV. --FormerIP (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources, I doubt he'd make up something like that, he may be dislikeable but he's not a complete moron. Alexandre8 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On that particular point, we'll see. I'm pretty confident that's the full story and I'll Google for a source tomorrow. --FormerIP (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the sub-heading "Poppy row". --FormerIP (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok nice find Alexandre8 (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The BNP was criticised over a list on their website titled, "Liars, buggers and thieves", which grouped several gay politicians in with convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles. The compiler of the list, BNP local councillor for Redbridge, Julian Leppert, defended it and said that the reason why gay MPs were included was because, "it fits in with the headline, the bugger part, I guess", and stated that the BNP are "a family party with family values".[164][165] –     One source doesn’t work, the other is from the “pink news”. By the way I’m gay and still that newspaper doesn’t cut for me.


 * removed the dead link, as to pink news, this should be taken up oon RSN if you feel is a dubious sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pink news falls under the category of any online newspaper. It's just not got the weight behind it needed. Also a gay paper writing on a gay issue is unlikely to be impartial. Seeing that the Pink news is the only source I could find on this matter I doubt the relevancy of its inclusion Alexandre8 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Online newspapers can be considerd RS. But the issue of undue is msomething else. I would ask that more sources are found for this mto be rtetained.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't ahve time to write more for the moment, goodday Alexandre8 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC) How do I get rid of these silly boxes? Alexandre8 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright so let's get some of this stuff changed? Alexandre8 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is curious that Alexandre8's user page lists "ensuring impartiality on Wikipedia" as one of his interests. People who do not always assume good faith might mistakenly interpret his contributions to the BNP, English Defence League and Enoch Powell articles as being rather sympathetic to the respective subject matters. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And any one reading this and looking at your user name might think you are trying to avoid sanction by making a personal attack thinly disguised as random conjecture. We do not attac kusers no matter how iindorectly, comment on the issue not him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Er... "These are the subjects in which the greatest amount of bias tend to appear." Says who? Alexandre8? And "political opponents " Opponents of who exactly? Alexandre8? Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection?
has voiced a concern on my talkpage that this article does not need to be locked from editing at this point. If there is general agreement that disputes can be worked out here without edit warring, please request unprotection at Requests for page protection. I will check back here over the course of the day, but anyone should feel free to unprotect the article if you judge that it is not necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just warning people to abide by WP:BRD would do it -- Snowded TALK  17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I have unprotected the article. Please remember to discuss potentially controversial changes and avoid edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

White Nationalism as an ideology
Do the Party still qualify as "white nationalist"? Maybe they did back in the days of john tyndall, but Wouldn't "ethnic nationalism" be a more appropriate as an ideology? They state themselves as "ethnic nationalists" and don't wish to define a nation is terms of race as white nationalists do. Instead they wish to define it around ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.76.66 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which, in their view, basically amounts to the same thing. For the BNP, the British race is white. It must be remembered that the BNP since its modern inception has attempted to portray itself a party which obeys the law; hence, its constitution referred to membership eligibility in term of ethnicities - to do so in terms of colour would have been a blatant discrimination under the Race Relations Act. However, it was held in court that that was precisely what its constitution did, so they had to amend it, were found to still be discriminatory and had to change it again. Nowhere in this process has it been suggested by the BNP or anyone else that the changes to the constitution reflect any meaningful change in the party's philosophy, views or position, so it is fair to say that the BNP today is essentially, ideologically, what it always was.
 * However, I've never personally been happy with the description of the BNP as white nationalist (though it certainly contains a large number of people who would describe themselves as such). The phrase suggests that there is seen to be a commonality of interests between all white peoples; it is pretty obvious that BNP members do not regard white French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, Americans etc etc as being on a par with white British. Their "British nationalism" really has nothing to do with race or ethnicity - it is simple racism. Emeraude (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. But its hard to think of a temr that does cover them all.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * you have just contradicted yourself there, firstly you state that "BNP members do not regard white French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, Americans etc etc as being on a par with white British" which suggests that they adhere to ethnic nationalism as opposed to white nationalism. But then you say "Their "British nationalism" really has nothing to do with race or ethnicity - it is simple racism." Surely if they were white nationalists, they would have no problem with immigration from the predominately white EU countries such as Poland. Even if White Nationalism has to stay, shouldn't Ethnic nationalism be included as well. [[Special:Contributions/92

.12.76.66|92.12.76.66]] (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source (from a third party not the BNP) which says they are noe ethnic nationalists rather than white nationalists? If not then there is no point in discussing this.