Talk:British National Party/Archive 24

Calming things down
Right, things are getting pretty fast and heavy here, and it's difficult for editors to follow the discussion. Can we take things a little slower? Firstly, can I ask that all editors read WP:RS and WP:V - and take away a couple of important facts:
 * 1) "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors." (WP:NEWSORG).
 * 2) "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."
 * 3) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.(WP:V).
 * 4) Verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Now, there are issues with this article, it is overlong, has a present bias and a tendency towards tittle-tattle, but if we are going to move forward with Consensus we need to focus. Now, can I suggest that all editors present state their agreement to the above basic principles of wikipedia, and then concentrate on one section at a time to achieve consensus.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * can you give a few specific examples of where these policies are breached?Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't spot any, but thought, in the light of discussions here, it would be good to remind people of these policies.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Eusebeus' Law of Contentious Content
Hi all, I came here from the WQA page where the increasing fractiousness of this talk page was brought to our attention. I took a quick look at the article and some of the back and forth, and it seems to me that this has become a prime example of what I call (immodestly) Eusebeus' Law. In general where there is hotly debated material, the endless back and forth, claim and counterclaim, source and countersource that wind their way into the article endup producing content that is FAR TOO LONG AND UNWIELDY for the average user to sift through. As a result, you have an article that preaches to the choir/counterchoir, and not much else. No average reader is going to wade through this as it stands, so you should at least be assuaged that as you battle it out, the actual impact on the typical wikipedia reader is slight, since the resulting product is so encumbered with the dispute that she is inevitably alienated. (Cf. the Israeli Palestine pages). Eusebeus (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day the intent is the message that page is to convey, not informing the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck is WQA? Is it another hangout for wikilawyers and wikisocial workers? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Truthprovails_and_others_on_Talk:British_National_Party is what the fuck we are talking abut.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No wonder I've never heard of it - defo a place for wikilawyers, not my sort of place at all. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Impending demise?
On 16 September Hopenothate & other sources reported that the BNP was facing "winding up" in 2 weeks if they did not find £45k & had little prospect of finding it. Since then it has all gone quiet. Whilst HopeNotHate/Searchlight is explicitly opposed tro the BNP their degree of dislike for the BNP leadership(Griffin)is surpassed only by proponents of the vicious internecine in fighting that has marred the face of this much-loved instituition (I for one nearly choked on my Marmite in shock )such Andrew Brons & Lee Barnes's own blogs. This seems to be the current live issue but the article does not adequately cover it. Perhaps we need to compose an impending obituary ? Streona (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no 'impending demise'. In fact the BNP is more active than ever. It just printed 1 million leaflets, announced their Mayor candidate for the 2012 Mayoral elections and also is standing in 3 or 4 by elections this month. Saxonshield (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They just printed 1 million leaflets, did they? What a waste of trees. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone please stop the above troll from posting here. Saxonshield (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on the articel, not other users, take this to thier talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Printed a million leaflets eh? Paid for them yet have they ? Streona (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What has any of this got to do with improving the articel?Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bcause if I google "BNP implodes" there are 1.5 million hits & this site is not one of them, which could suggest it is becoming out of touch with developing events Streona (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the first result I see is an article from 2010, hardly current news. This No results found for "BNP implodes" is what you get in google news, which also produces No results found for "BNP winding up”. By the way can you indent your replies please.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you google thr web you get more & first up on "BNP winding up" is

British National Party Ideas » BNP Threatened with Winding-Up Order 9 Sep 2011 ... The British National Party faces an urgent winding up order should Nick Griffin and Simon Darby fail to lodge £45000 with the appeal court ... bnpideas.com/?p=1979 Streona (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The BNP are not an RS. Also BNP ideas is not the BNP's iwn web site but a web site set up by Mr Brons to capeign against Mr Griffin thus is hardley an RS either. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate report bailiffs removing a Skoda car from outside Griffin's property due to £45k court costs not being paid but I do not want to use Hope Not Hate as a reference. They also report that Martin Wingfield is joining the growing band of BNP employee's (Mackenzie, Collett etc) suing them. I know that BNPideas is Brons anti-BNP site - which is a product of the internecine strife currently overwhelming the party. The problem is to find an RS to put in the article so perhaps we need the story to surface in the mainstream press (all of whom are explicitly opposed to the BNP anyway) The word is that BNP members are leaving in droves to join other organisations such as the English Democrats, EDL, Britain First. This looks like a party in terminal decline. Streona (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eventualy an RES must report this, when it does it will of course mean a major re-write of the page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Association with violence
This part of the article is completely biased, misleading and unbalanced. It makes no reference to the many violent attacks against BNP members, candidates and the party chairman. Particularly those attacks organised and carried out by the state-sponsored UAF. Some of these attacks have included serious assaults (including the vicious hammer attack on BNP member Tony Ward) and should be mentioned to give a more balanced picture. If anyone has more details concerning attacks on BNP private meetings, and the dart-throwing incident at Nick Griffin (available on YouTube) please contribute details to this section.

The list of BNP members with criminal convictions has no relevance on this article. I'd hardly call it "extensive" either. It pales into comparison when you look at the list of convicted criminals within Labour and the Conservatives. And those are not convictions of party members, they're convictions of elected officials, with convictions for theft, fraud, rape and child molestation and child pornography. Are those shown on either the Labour or Conservative Party wikipedia pages? So why is the BNP being singled out? There's a few bad apples in every party, but this is a clear attempt to smear the party and portray it as a violent criminal organisation, when it is not. No currently serving staff members within the BNP have been convicted of any recent criminal activity. The BNP has never been involved in any large scale or party organised violence, the same of which cannot be said of the UAF, Labour and Conservative Parties.

I propose this section be considerably reduced in size or better still, removed altogether.

I have added a section Violence against the BNP to give a more balanced view showing that the violence is almost entirely one-sided against the BNP.

Truthprovails (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're so right - the violence is almost entirely one-sided against the BNP. Why, at one public meeting I once saw an Indian girl of four viciously hit her head against a metal chair which was being wielded by a nice, peaceful BNP member. I later had the pleasure of giving evidence against him and his pacifist colleagues in Court. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a valid point, if we have a section about the BNP and vionplence it should also be about being targets of violence. This is not saying they are peacefull, or that the violence is one sided. Also please mdo not engange in OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I ,for one, would be particularly gratified to learn of examples of violence against the BNP as I am sure would many others Streona (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is one example, although the case was dropped due to "lack of evidence". TFD (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good photo too.Streona (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's an original research problem with creating some section to try and "balance" it though. Various sources have detailed the BNP's violence and criminality as a whole (there's been various others by other people over the years, I know there's one or two in the Newsback archive), such as this. If you start going down the road of "here's a news report about a BNP member being attacked", and "here's another" then you run the risk of suddenly the existing section expanding by a significant degree as people hunt down other incidents of violent behaviour by BNP members, and indeed their opponents. I've nothing against a reliably sourced sentence or two stating that BNP members have also been attacked, but I'd suggest it's from some book source that covers the BNP's history as that's more likely to have made the type of statement that covers BNP members being attacked over the course of its history.  2 lines of K 303  12:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not set preconditions as to what sources are RS, If an RS claims the BNP are targeted for violent attacks then we could include it, it does not matter if its a book.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. One, or even three or four, news articles about attacks on BNP members proves nothing. I could probably find you four articles about Tories being attacked, it still can't be presented as part of any pattern. I said book for a reason, which I also said, because a book is more likely to have made the type of statement you're going to need. If you can find a news article that says it then that's not a problem, but a book is a more likely place to find such a statement.  2 lines of K 303  13:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalist trolling again
For those who know this page will know that the user 'multiculturalist' has a long history of vandalism/trolling this page. This is not a personal attack, his today's 'contibutions' are smears and personal attacks:


 * They just printed 1 million leaflets, did they? What a waste of trees. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * at one public meeting I once saw an Indian girl of four viciously hit her head against a metal chair which was being wielded by a nice, peaceful BNP member. I later had the pleasure of giving evidence against him and his pacifist colleagues in Court. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He then always posts personal attacks accusing anyone who wants to improve the article as pro-BNP:


 * You're clearly a BNP supporter with a biased agenda. You shouldn't even be editing this article. Multiculturalist (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mods NEVER ban this user though, despite the fact he only comes here to insult/attack the BNP. I would also point out look at his name - is someone with the username 'multiculturalist' going to be non-biased towards the BNP? It's a troll name. Saxonshield (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem, you can take it to the Admin notice boards, but it is good wikiquette to give people warning first. I have asked the user on their talk page to modify their behaviour, so lets see where we go from there.  Please recall that the 'admins' are not "in charge" here, we all are, and we all bear responsibility for upholding the codes of conduct on wikipedia.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How do i run/open a sockpuppet investigation? Multiculturalist is a sock account. How do you open up a sock investigation? Saxonshield (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case but a word of warniing, be very sure of this. It may backfire.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reported Multiculturalist to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, but if there is no help with this, I will report it to AN/I. –  Richard  BB  12:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Multiculturalist Saxonshield (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have replies both there, and on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks to those who exposed the allegation of me being a sockpuppet for what it is. The claim might have sounded more convincing had my accuser not included in his list at least one user who rarely agrees with me on anything. I'm also leaving this message to test if I'm still blocked, as for some reason yesterday a message came up telling me I was blocked until September 2012 and I was only able to edit my talk page. Happy days! Multiculturalist (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its all over now, so lets get bac kto more traditional arguments on this page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bizarrely I found that Saxonshield's user page is suspended as s/he is in a fact a sockpuppet. You couldn't make it up, could you? Also I was a suspect according to the sockpuppet investigation log Streona (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)82.45.152.152 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fascists?
Is it really fair to say the BNP is a fascist party?? I cant stand them, but to say that they are fascist is a bit far; Nick Griffin and any other BNP figure would strongly oppose this claim, and their policies, whilst racist, are not really any more fascist than those of UKIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.147.71 (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We base our information on reliable sources, and the fascist ideology is sufficiently backed up by verifiable sources. It's not up to us to decide what political position they are -- it's merely up to us to present all sides of the argument. –  Richard  BB  00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Source call it fascist and we would need sources that contradict them.  TFD (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

YOU base your inforation on unreliable source since the source themself is biased against the political BNP party. so no they are not reliable source. and the fascist idelogy by wikis own definition does not fit the one that is sourced. until then you would be as fascist as Labor and the conservatives was during their support for the fuhrer by your own definition 109.225.101.92 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is circular: any source that calls the BNP fascist is anti-BNP, therefore unreliable, therefore any source that calls the BNP fascist is unreliable.  TFD (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that is what the IP said.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We only use sources that are considered reliable. –  Richard  BB  13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just think I should mention, whilst we're on the topic of "Reliable Sources" then why the hell hasn't anyone thought about using the MOST reliable source and reading the British National Party Manifesto from the 2010 General Election? The electorate is supposed to be intelligent but seems to me that everyone here (apart from a few) is only out to be biased against the British National Party 94.0.196.17 (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The truth is that their manifesto isn't a reliable source. First of all, it's considered a primary source: we aim to use secondary sources. Additionally, their claims may not be true, and may be interpreted differently by others. Take the whole debate about fascism: they claim they're not fascist, yet several experts have displayed how they are. –  Richard  BB  02:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They are not facists, even if certain people have caled them "facist" Many people call other parties such as the SNP or even the labour party as facsist, doesnt nessarially mean its true. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 13:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Many people call other parties such as the SNP or even the labour party as facsist, doesnt nessarially mean its true." Absolutely correct, but totally irrelevant because the BNP is fascist and the SNP and Labour are not. As has been repeated on this page ad nauseam, the reliable sources say consistently that the BNP is fascist and that is what counts. It matters not one iota what you or I or "certain people" say. For more information, go back into the archives of this page where this has been thrashed out again and again and again...... Emeraude (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of words which simply bring in negative emotions and links should not allowed. It is a like saying Jackie Chan is a Bruce Lee. It is against basic intelligence. Fascism has certain definite political ideologies. It belongs to a particular party. Currently it is seen as a negative political ideology all over the world, even though I doubt if many people know for sure what it really was, other than common notion. Using such a word, commonly identified with something sinister to describe another party is, at the best, an evil deed.

As to BNP being a Racist party also, is a very easily understandable thing, for the word racist has been taught all over the world to connect to issue of Whites (mainly English speakers and may be Dutch) having seen the need to keep social aloofness from others. Well, actually this type of repulsion is there in most Asian/African social systems, and languages. But then, no one complains. For, everyone understands their social position carefully. Only in the English world do they get the liberal atmosphere to swarm into any social area without any qualms. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read my comment above and refer to the archives where you will sees that "fascism" for the BNP has been agreed to be well-sourced and accurate. As to "Use of words which simply bring in negative emotions and links should not allowed." This is clearly not the case with BNP (or other fascist groups). It is not used to 'simply bring in negatice emotions'. It is used because reliable peer-reviewed journals say it is right. That some people use a word inaccurately is no justification at all for banning its use, thoug it behoes us to use it accurately. As to your remarks on 'racist', all of the preceding applies. Emeraude (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I must have missed the policy that says we're not allowed to use any words that portray the subject described in a negative light. Does this mean we have to use nice, cuddly, fluffy words to describe everything?  2 lines of K 303  11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The BNP are not Right-Wing Populist.
The BNP are too Far Right to be Right Wing Populist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.P. Davies (talk • contribs) 00:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We base ourselves on verifiable, reliable sources, of which there are two for that particular ideology. –  Richard  BB  13:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources claim they are an RPP and there is nothing in the definition that excludes parties for being too right-wing. TFD (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Party Political Broadcast At Wikipedia
The article is way to big and also lacks balance. There are is no mention of the recent scandal regarding the funds and the Brons proposal to form a movement outside the BNP to create opposition to Griffin, whilst Brons states his intention to take over. Press reports also state many BNP members are moving over to English Democrats. Even if these facts are included the article is 90% propaganda and needs cutting right down. --88.110.240.2 (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of the paragraphs end with a statement from Griffin giving his particular spin, but as this is often at odds with the stated facts this is put in context. Since the General Election the BNP has suffered repeated disasters, for which Griffin has been blamed, causing challenges to his leadership which he has tried to supress. There have been an accumulation of Court cases and associated costs - Mackenzie, Thomas, Sadie Graham & the "Decemberists" in addition to the Equalities Commission case, plus "Marmitegate". This has resulted in a membership fall from 13000 to 2000 & defections to other right wing groups. And the allegations of fraud from Panorama. Brons BNPideas website proposes to form a parallel party collecting subs to be "held on trust" until the Griffin BNP entirely collapses, which Brons foresees as being quite soon. He also lists recent council bye- elections in Lonmdon where the BNP have polled 0.8%

All this needs to be brought together in one summary to give an up to date picture of the state the BNP is now in and how it has declined since those heady days, now receding dimly into the fading memory of ageing former party activists- a tiny briny tear dropping onto the Marmite on toast of once proud sturmbanfuhrers of the Iron Dream - the crazed, drunken outpourings of urine stained non-beverage alcohol addicts "Ah yoused te be somebody ye know - I was a Councillor in Barking, son. Gissa price of a cuppa tea mate...no, don't walk away...I coulda been a contender...Ah coulda been up there wi' Richard Barnbrook an'Nick Bloody Griffin...daon' you walk away from me..."

I'll give it a try. Streona (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

From a BNP supporter and activist, i can tell you everything Streona has posted above is lies - and therefore ask politely for a mod to move it, thanks. Streona knows nothing about our party, they are just spouting smears or outright nonsense. Briefly to correct their lies:


 * Streona's claim about our membership falling to 2000 is an outright lie. Less than 10 members defected to the English Democrats (who's membership stands at only 800). Our membership stands around 9,000, yes, a drop in what it was a few years or so back, but more members are coming back, and new members sign up everyday.


 * Streona's claim about recent council by-elections is a clear distortion. A recent by election in Eccles, Salford we polled a respectable 6.6% in a ward never before contested beating the Liberal Democrats. On the 3rd of November (only 3 weeks back) in Syston Ridgeway, Leicestershire, in a County Council by-election we polled an impressive 14.82%, again beating the Liberal Democrats. I wonder why Sterona didn't mention those?


 * Streona's claim about finance or debt. In reality it was the Equality Commission who owed the BNP money, they lost their case and owe the BNP a huge chunk of money. AlbionIsle (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So the fact you're a BNP activist qualifies you to contribute to the article in an impartial way, does it? LOL! Multiculturalist (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lay of the personal comments. Talk about the article not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Er.... but it was AlbionIsle who initiated the personal comments and started talking about the user........ Emeraude (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Er...did I name any user?Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No you didn't but then your comment was immediately after mine.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AGFSlatersteven (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

May I point out that the BNP are no longer 'White Nationalists'?
Due to recent events in the party they are not 'White Nationalists', they have ethnic 'minorities' in the party and they are increasingly supporting 'settled' immigration, they are fielding a South American in the GLA Elections, you could say they are becoming more like UKIP.

The term 'White Nationalism' is a 'Americanism' mainly because Whites in America can't get Native status, 'White Nationalism' is essentially Globalism but for only whites.

Also 'Fascism' is just Corporatism, Big state and corps working together for the benefit for the state and the majesty of the state while Nationalism is where the State works for the people, there's a difference.

Sources:

Knowledge through speaking to the innerworkings of the British National Party, General Research. Zultra2 (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)] comment added by Zultra2 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS and WP:OR. This has been discussed ad nauseam here and you are not a reliable source. Valenciano (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have spoken to many credible figures in British Nationalism and they all agree that the BNP are not 'White Nationalists', have many of these scholars actually spoken to any real Nationalists? Have they actually Studied the subject in depth without bias? I don't think so, it's pretty much like the Frankfurt school's doctrine of Entryism. Zultra2 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)]


 * "Have they actually Studied the subject in depth without bias? I don't think so..." is an unwarrantd slur on the integerity of highly respected academic researchers published in peer reviewed journals. Think carefully before making such comments. As it happens, the BNP members I've spoken to are amongst the most pernicious people I've ever met, but that's my opinion and I am not a reliable source. Neither are you. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead part 857,410,532
I see has attempted to change the lead for the third time without discussion. Would everyone like to say the following (part of a) sentence out loud just to really hammer it home? "The British National Party is a British nationalist political party". Can anyone else spot the problem with that, or is it just me?  2 lines of K 303  11:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The British National Party is a British nationalist party? I bet nobody can work that out for themselves. Mo ainm  ~Talk  12:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Manifestos
Who the hell has deleted the manifestos? We need them to understand for what the BNP has stood in the past! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.31.251 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias BNP article
I would just like to point out that Wikipedia asks users to keep a neutral and unbias opinion when adding information to Wikipedia articles, so whoever has claimed the BNP are 'Fascist' under the category 'Ideologies' should withdraw it. By the way, using sources from liberal, politically-correct websites is in every form bias and is an attempt to manipulate the minds of the readers of Wikipedia. This entire article about the BNP has been created by users who oppose the BNP. Not at all bias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsurfer123 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're neutral then. Emeraude (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Netsurfer, but I would like to point out that they never said they were neutral. They simply stated that the article is obviously biased. So what if they are pro-BNP? They pointed out bias in the article, and are not promoting the party so much as they are seeking out bias.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Membership figure
Is this figure correct? I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm not saying I don't and I'm more inclined to the latter. According to the BNP, membership lasts for 1 year upon application. The source now provided states the figure is 4,200; yet the BNP's website states the membership figure for that year has surpassed the 14,000 mark. I was strongly tempted to replace this figure provided with the one from the BNP's own website, but I'm sure that in response I'd get the usual self-pleasing rhetoric that their website isn't reliable.

I'm sure most people (who are capable of being impartial) will agree that had this claim by the BNP been false and it would have been ridiculed and dismissed by the media.

Can someone find a more reliable source than the one used by the media? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote from first contribution above: "According to the BNP, membership lasts for 1 year upon application." This is odd, because in the BNP's latest submission to the Electoral Commission there are life members! More importantly, for this topic, that document claims that on 31 December 2009 there were 12,632 members. (See: British National Party Statement of Accounts Year ended 31 December 2009, page 10.) However, the veracity of the BNP's return to the Commission is questionable, and it should be noted that no return has yet been submitted for 2010, a clear breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Further, returns for 2009, 2008 and 2006 were submitted late, also in breach. Given the well-documented desertions and defections of members over the last few years, it is likely that the Independent's estimate was not unreasonable. Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked through the discussion history of this page, it seems that anything even remotely attempting to show the BNP in a positive light in the eyes of editors on this page will be 'questionable'. This article alone - let alone this one - leads me to believe most 'references' upon this page are themselves 'questionable' to say the least. (I could provide a few more.) Seeing that, literally for years, this page has been biased and will continue to remain so despite efforts by many editors, I see no further reason to try and bring unbiased, neureal info. to this page, although I am tempted. This article needs to be almost completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So essentially any journalist in the UK is automatically biased against the BNP, and if we accept what other people say anyone who writes anything negative about the BNP is automatically biased against them too. For the sake of argument, whas sources do you propose for this "unbiased, neureal" you talk about?


 * BNP MEP Andrew Brons not a good enough source either when he says "The British National Party claims still to have between 3,000 and 4,000 members, including 1,000 life members—from a total of 14,500 members in 2010" I take it?  2 lines of K 303  10:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do seem to recall that at RSN it was decided that the BNP or its leaders were not RS for facts about the party.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the IP is arguing everyone else is biased and the only reliable source are the BNP themselves. That's why pointed out what a senior BNP member is currently saying.  2 lines of K 303  10:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where am I arguing that the BNP are reliable as a source? Who are you trying to fool other than possibily yourself here? This a convenient mindset on your part and I suppose I shouldn't be suprised. I do believe I harked to the extensive and downright blatant bias as to what is 'reliable' and what isn't despite many editors' efforts to bring a little neutrality to this article. Not everyone is biased (the efforts by numerous editors over the YEARS to bring neutrality to this article prove this). However the consensus of what can and cannot be 'reliable' on this particle proves my point and it's all clear to see if you look through the archives.
 * The article itself is a mish-mash of negativity and I'm sure you will be aware of this. Of course the history of what can and cannot be added to the article attests to this. It seems that more and more negative 'approved by consensus' stories will be added and this is why the article reads like a cut and paste myriad of biased negativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.233.178 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Source Bias

 * Could you quote the relevant sentences from source #4 that have led you to draw your conclusions? I've taken the liberty of correcting your numbering. Thanks.  2 lines of K 303  10:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Patterns of Prejudice provides a forum for exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other. It probes the language and construction of ’race’, nation, colour, and ethnicity, as well as the linkages between these categories. It encourages discussion of issues at the top of the public policy agenda, such as asylum, immigration, hate crimes and citizenship. As none of these issues are confined to any one region, Patterns of Prejudice maintains a global optic, at the same time as scrutinizing intensely the history and development of intolerance and chauvinism in the United States and Europe, both East and West. -- I don't see a problem with the key-word links on the article, we wouldn't worry about an article tagged "Anti-crime" in the Journal of Criminal studies cited for evidence that an individual was a criminal, for example.; Renton's other publications are listed here ; Copsey is cited twice, I suspect because the claim was repeatedly made that the citations were out of date, and he published a later article.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Bias
This preposterous nonsense is groundless, and does not meet in any way the proper and standard criteria of a factual and unbiased Wikipedia article. I am not here to express support and favor for the party, however; I am here to suggest an end to the obvious opposition to the party by whoever wrote this article. One can hardly keep from laughing when reading this pathetic drivel disguised as unbiased and factual. It contains a myriad of biased statements the likes of which being seen on a į article is simply appalling- by merely checking the ideology listed on the article one gets the idea that this is a neo-nazi party. "Fascist" is listed as an ideology- the BNP haven't acknowledged that they are fascists, so if this is not downright false, it is at least disputed. "far-right"- such nonsense adds to the insanity of the politically-charged ranting excuse for an article. The "source" (if one can call it that) claiming they are fascists comes from those who are biased against the BNP.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I count four sources next to the fascism label. Do you have any actual evidence all of them are biased against the BNP? Or will you go for the circular argument of "they call the BNP fascist therefore they are biased against the BNP"?  2 lines of K 303  12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "That's funny"- Honestly, take your sarcasm off of here. This is Wikipedia. If you wish to start a fight or attack someone, you are welcome to take it to an online forum or somewhere other than here. I prefer to engage in professional dialog, as this is a fairly large and major online encyclopedia, and I will not condescend to such a nonsensical, sophomoric standard of contretemps with you. Hostilities aside (if you so decide), the British National Party actually uses the word "fascist" as an insult (directed at the Labour party) on their website. And no; still I've yet to display any exemplification of the "circular logic" of which you accuse me. Anyone who actually understands the use of proper logic and rational discourse would be cognizant of the verity of the disputation- That is, if the British National Party does not straightforwardly acknowledge that they fit the standard label of a "fascist", and one accuses them of being fascists, the label is thus disputed. Therefore, anyone who edits a major encyclopedia that already struggles to effectuate total neutrality and labels them as fascist is being biased against them in doing so. And yes, the sources are biased. They are most definitely from the point of view of an individual or group of individuals arguing their perspective.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not appear to be interpreting Wikipedia's policy on neutrality correctly. It does not require articles to reflect subjects in a neutral manner but to provide proper weight to different opinions.  The claims of any political party do not have equal weight to academic consensus.  It may be that the universities and the media are biased and this article reflects that bias.  That however would be clearly in  line with policy.  TFD (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that political groups do not have the same weight- there appears to be some kind of miscommunication. The sources have a political agenda. One can clearly tell by the manner and presentation that they are more than simple research papers, and they are written by individuals who probably have a position on the issue themselves. I am not saying that they are outright political activists, yet they do show some support for certain points, although maybe not political groups.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The individuals who write these papers do have a position and it is our responsibility to provide appropriate weight to their opinions in the article. I have yet to see any academic papers that are supportive of the BNP.  Can you think of any?  TFD (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: "if the British National Party does not straightforwardly acknowledge that they fit the standard label of a "fascist", and one accuses them of being fascists, the label is thus disputed." So, by this logic, if I say I'm handsome, but everyone who looks at me says I'm ugly, I'm not ugly!! And if I call the most handsome man in the world ugly, I'm not ugly! To be honest, other people's views are better in this respect than mine. And where the evidence is from respected academically moderated journals, it is unimpeachable. (I'm actually quite attractive. Oops. POV, OR and COI.) Emeraude (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I believe you're simply not interpreting the logic applied correctly. If everyone says you're ugly, and you say you're not, it connotes that the question as to whether you are ugly or not is disputed, not answered one way or the other.--UkrainianAmerican (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What is beyond dispute is that most BNP members are ugly.Multiculturalist (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it, any RS for that?Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Councillors in infobox
Is this correct? 8 seems a bit low, even for the BNP. I seem to recall it was possibly three figures at one stage.  2 lines of K 303  14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eight does seem low, but may be correct. I also seem to remember a higher figure, but I think it was only in the fifties. A number defected or threw in the towel a couple of years ago, and with the partial crumbling of the BNP in the last year or two it is, I suppose, quite possible that 8 is correct. Emeraude (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, looking at the cited sources, the BBC says 19, down from 46 (but that was in 2010) and the other source says 9 (updated in 2012 and including the 2011 elections), though reliability is not guaranteed. So, 8 or 9 seems reasonable. Emeraude (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They've often claimed to have over 100 councillors but that figure was made up of parish councillors. The peak was 54 councillors in 2009, since then they've been wiped out in Barking (12 seats) and Stoke (9 seats) as well as losing seats and having councillors quit the party. 2 of their councillors in Bradford for example (the Cromies) quit the party in summer 2011. Valenciano (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"white nationalism"
"White nationalism" is a colonial term. If that sort of thing is going to be mentioned I reckon it should be "ethnic nationalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Contact the authors of the sources with your argument and ask them to amend their work. Until you do, that won't be changed. Given that "white nationalism" is a type of "ethnic nationalism" anyway, I doubt they'll change it.  2 lines of K 303  10:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant sources given on this page are secondary sources... It's not the BNP who call themselves this, because again it's a colonial term... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the BNP calls itself; in Wikipedia (and any other encyclopaedia worth the salt) we deal in what is verifiable from reliable sources. The three sources cited are impeccable in this respect, all being from peer-reviewed journals - the absolute gold standard. User:Emeraude (talk)10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

But that wasn't my point. Why would an article about a British political party be written in American terminology? Last time I checked wikipedia wasn't just for Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You just said it was a colonial term, now you claim its an American term. In any case we report what reliable secondary sources say.  If you think they are wrong, then write to the authors.  TFD (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Or remove said sources if they are unreliable. American nationalism certainly isnt white nationalism and neither is japanese natioalism asian nationalism or yellow nationalism that makes no sense. Change said sources until it actually fits said description of the policy that an unbiased source can report on(since yes we can check what policy they have on their papers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.115 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutrality does not mean that we present organizations according to their own descriptions, but according to how they are normally described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD... I don't know if you are being serious. American are colonials. Maybe you think I was being offensive if you're a yank but I wasn't, it's a term we use to describe former settler colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Colonial" may refer to settlers but may also refer to terminology used to describe settlers. And for your information the American provinces ceased to be colonies in the 18th century, when they became states within an independent country, so if by colonial you meant American no one would understand what you are talking about.  I assumed you were talking about Rhodesia etc. that remained colonies into the late 20th century.  TFD (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fascism is not an accurate description of the BNP's policies
I don't see how the BNP is a fascist party as is claimed in the infobox. I don't seem to recall the BNP indicating anywhere that they want to create a totalitarian single-party state like all fascists have promoted. Strong support of nationalism alone does not make a fascist, if Wikipedia did regard strong nationalism as equalling fascism, then we would have to include Indian nationalist Mohandas Gandhi as a fascist which would be absurd. An accurate description is that it is a far-right nativist nationalist party that is xenophobic towards non-white people. Saying it is fascist, without evidence that it seeks to form a totalitarian single party state, is really stretching it here.--R-41 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We go by what sources say rather than determining whether they meet your personal definition of fascism.  They are btw the main successor party to the British Union of Fascists.  Why are you telling us that you are not a supporter?  TFD (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling people that I'm not a supporter because I suspected that the response to my statement that the BNP is not fascist would be angry users telling me "oh you are just some BNP nut defending them by saying they're not fascist", TFD don't you dare try to imply that I am a BNP supporter I take that as a personal insult, I deplore the BNP for its xenophobia and racism - Nick Griffin is a bigot of the absolute worst sort in my opinion. Still what real evidence is there that it collows fascist policies? TFD, you claim that it is "my definition" that the basic definition of fascism involves a totalitarian single-party state? Come on TFD, you know that multiple scholarly sources say that this is a key policy of fascism. Where is your evidence that the BNP is "the main successor party to the British Union of Fascists"? Furthermore TFD you claim "we go by what the sources say" - what about Marxist-Leninist sources that claim that social democracy is the so-called phenomenon of "social fascism" - would you seriously "go by what the sources say" for that and add in the infobox of all the social democratic parties' articles that they are all "social fascist"? We need reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We have them - peer reviewed academic sources are considered the gold standard on wikipedia. We have this conversation every couple of months and it never goes anywhere because, as you do, you simply want to go off your own view of what you think the BNP is - we rely on RS and have them. Unless you have sources you want to discuss, there is nowhere for this conversation to go. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Every definition of fascism by scholars on the topic of fascism says that fascism seeks to establish a totalitarian single-party state. If you have the "gold standard" of sources - then certainly you can find from those sources the evidence that the BNP at least covertly supports a totalitarian single-party state?--R-41 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * that's generic content that would be applied to this article via original research, the *specific* references from academics about the BNP are what is important. do you have an academic source that says the BNP is not a fascist organisation? If not, there is nothing to talk about. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, here is a source saying that it is not fascist but that it is extreme right: .--R-41 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't read it - what does it say? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Likewise, we shall see that contemporary movements, such as the British National Party and the French National Front, are certainly part of the extreme right, but are not fascist. Distinctions such as these might appear academic, but they are important because non-fascist extreme right movements do not have the same impact on the social and political system as fascist groups." (Kevin Passmore. Fascism a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.) --R-41 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You search Google books for "British National Party "not fascist"" and get one result that that supports your pre-conceived views. It is a tertiary source and despite what it says, hardly mentions the BNP again, and actually refers to them as "contemporary fascists" elsewhere in the book.  Try a Google books search for "British National Party fascist" and one gets Contemporary British fascism: the British National Party, New British Fascism: the rise of the British National Party, etc.  Your one party state theory is just original research and I don't want to be dragged into it, it is something better discussed on a blog.  While Hitler abolished other parties after he came to power, that took them by surprise.  We do not know what the BNP would do.  TFD (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41 claims that "Every definition of fascism by scholars on the topic of fascism says that fascism seeks to establish a totalitarian single-party state." This is simply not true, however much (s)he may wish it so. What scholars do say is that every time fascists get into power they form a one-party state; they rarely make this clear before achieving power, and certainly not to the electorate! Otherwise, Hitler, Mussolini etc were not fascist - they contested elections and achieved power quite legally and in this respect are no different to the BUF, the NF, the NSM, and a host of other British fascist groups including various iterations of the BNP. This discussion is as pointless as all the previous ones where apologists and supporters of the BNP attempt to have "fascism" removed from the article in the face of the evidence simply because they don't like it. See archives, ad nauseam. Emeraude (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This logic is so flawed I can't believe anybody could even think it. You could make this argument of every single political party of every single political ideology. If you don't trust anything they say about themselves and only rely on biased opinions of them, what are you left with to evaluate everything else? Say the conservative party, there are peer reviewed marxist articles which call the conservatives neo-imperialists but I don't see that on the conservative party page. And your views on this are just as much if not more based on preconceived notions (as shown by your inability to understand critiques of the current arrangement), don't try to fool yourself into thinking you are on the high ground here.

If you believe in any of the stuff you're spewing, why don't you go to the page of the lib-dems and lobby to have them labeled as totalitarian socialists. There is plenty of neo-liberal material out there making this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.52 (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to a peer-reviewed article that calls the Conservatives Neo-Imperialist? (whatever neo-imperialist is, not a term I've come across in marxisant discourse before) In any case, the other factor is due weight in the academic conversation, with the Tories there are many articles assessing their political ideology; very few assess (directly) the BNP, and overwhelming say fascist.  The one reference found by R-41 is from 2002, and later authors appear to be aware of it when making their assessments.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are most commonly describes as "conservative" and "liberal" respectively, and we use those descriptions. TFD (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm currently writing an article at War of Words (right-wing extremism) that deals with the academic debate surronding how to label these parties. Quickbeam44 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or at least I was until the deletionists stopped me. Article content is here if anyone is planning to have a stab at improving the far-right article soon Quickbeam44 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

BNP councillors as of May 2012
The BNP lost all their seats they hold that were contested, however a mistake has led people into think the BNP don't now hold council seats having looked at the BBC etc pages. The stats on such pages don't include the seats the BNP hold but that were not being contested. In 2011 two BNP councillors were re-elected, one in Queensbury, West Yorkshire, and the other in Charnwood, Leicestershire. So the BNP currently has 2 remaining councillors as of May 2012. They have their seats until 2015 local elections (4 years). 109.144.129.77 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the official website, Cllr Cromie is an independent (other sites say he used to be BNP, and left). Cllr Duffy on Charnwood is indeed BNP, so that's 1, not 2. --Saalstin (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They've three councillors left. Sharon Wilkinson on Lancashire County Council who was elected in 2009 and is presumably up for re-election next year. One in Pendle held by Brian Parker and Duffy on Charnwood as mentioned above. See also here and here. Valenciano (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, nicely found - I didn't want to do the update off what I had since it only disproved one claim, rather than showing what the full figure was --Saalstin (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's true, the figure is 3. The reason i thought it was two is because Sharon lost her seat, but she had two. She is/was both an elected district and borough councillor, though they lost one of their positions, retaining the other. 109.144.166.182 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian' today (print version) also says three, which agrees with the other sources I have seen. Emeraude (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal welfare
I removed the section on animal welfare because the reference used to support this claim - "The party says it supports animal welfare (a guise to promote the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering)" does nothing of the kind, and the remaining comments in the section, together with the reference, do not support anything. I suggest that if an editor wishes to reinsert material about the BNP's policy on animal welfare he should refer to a reliable source such as a policy document from the BNP. Van Speijk (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Size of article, is far BIG
There is to much information in depth for this kind of project, the level of details and also the points of view in the article make it long winded and full of opinion. There seems to be little focus on facts and rather a lot of focus on opposition opinions. The article needs chopping right back down and it should come down to plain fact, nothing more. The article attempts to make up the mind of the reader, rather than let the reader decide. The article needs a lot of cuts and certainly no-more additions.--Pennine rambler (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the context of your message I will say don't bother wasting your time even attempting to effect a change. Many have tried but none have succeeded. I honestly do not think even the editors who consistently patrol this page continue with the pretence (to themselves) that they are either neutral or impartial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.160.103 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * see my edits, i;ve made tables for the results and party structure which has made the page shorter. I will probably clean up some more stuff when i get the time. OrangeGremlin (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

start of an edit war
OK lets discuse these changes, Snowded why are the membership figures a problom, would we not want the most up to date figures?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We would normally want a source other than the BNP for that. Snowded TALK 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The source appears to be the ellectorial commision.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the Electoral Commisiion is not an original source - it merely repeats what it is told by the BNP and other political parties. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that this is fraudulent, if not then the electoral commission have accepted it as accurate. And as a tird party have reported it, are you saying that the electoral commissionare not RS for this information?Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its just the registered accounts as far as I can see. I don't think those are checked and given the past record of the BNP their own self-reporting cannot really be trusted Snowded  TALK 14:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Past history (and what are you refering to) is not current practice (in realtion to membership number or accounts), but I have taken this to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good ideaSnowded TALK 15:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Electoral Commission posts parties' returns on its website. It does not edit them. It does not guarantee their accuracy. It does not check them, unless there is a suspicion of fraud, and even then, it will be only be able to carry out a minimal forensic audit of finances. Given the thousands of organisations that are registered, it is not feasible for the EC to check every detail of a party's return; it relies on the responsible party official to file honestly. Emeraude (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to add that at the RS notice board <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 16:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone called "snowded" just vandalised the page removing all my edits, accusing me of "BNP apologia". This is despite the fact all I did was put the existent material in tables and update info from the 2011 submitted accounts. The other source I have quoted is Nigel Copsey 2012. OrangeGremlin (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign, you also deleted material on election performance and generally took the line from BNP published material rather than third party sources. Please don't mislead.  <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 13:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OrangeGremlin, please don't mislabel things as vandalism when they're clearly not. Even if you disagree with Snowded's edits, they're clearly good faith edits. –  Richard  BB  13:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowded now writes on my talk page accusing me of "BNP apologia". WTF? All I did was put the election figures into tables to shorten the page. The info about membership is data from the electoral commission. The rest is from Nigel Copsey, 2012. lol. how are these sources "BNP apologia". I agree with a comment above that there are users on this board who are not partial, accusing anyone of being "BNP" or "BNP apologia" if they edit the page and upload neutral sources from the electoral commission. This place is a joke. OrangeGremlin (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the tables lost much of the value of the previous narrative. And I stand by my comments on some of the stuff about the accounts which take a partisan viewpoint.  But lets see what other editors think <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. OrangeGremlin's edits were without merit and were made without attempting to seek any consensus from other editors. It would be as well to look back through the archives of this talk page to understand the issues, then suggest changes here before barging straight in. It saves time and effort in the long run. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)