Talk:British National Party/Archive 5

It seems
the user talk has quietened down, no doubt because the page itself has little problems with it anymore. reading it..it seems to me to be almost all NPOV..(aside from calling it far right..which it is admittedly..but it isnt economic right..but thats a minor niggle that has been sorted out in an earlier discussion) thought id say..well done to you all who improved the page:) Fethroesforia 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done for supporting the BNP, but surely far-right would be parties such as the Nazis and the like. From James a true Brit a Welshman.

These aren't that far removed from the Nazis Ajuk 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will just respond to that..highly uneducated comment with an equally uneducated answer:

LOL Fethroesforia 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking your talk page, seems it was me who has removed VANDALISM from this very article from YOU in the past..tut tut Fethroesforia 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct descendants on the British side of the family. Emeraude 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

UAF/Searchlight
Can someone please explain to me with out the use of the political spectrum why these are notworthy enough to beplaced in the introduction as denouncing the BNP, becuase if they are there it is justifiable to add Spearhead magasine as the otherside of the coin.--Lucy-marie 12:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Spearhead isn't independent of the BNP. One Night In Hackney 12:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of that but the statement is like saying the far left opposes the far right which in my personal opinion is unecessary. If it is to be included it should be included later on in the article in the opposition to the BNP section and not the intorduction. Also it could be argued that UAF and Searchlight have a vested intrest in denouncing the BNP. Which makes having them in the introduction less noteworthy and less important. If something like all major newspapers dedicate the bulk of the articles to denouncing the BNP the maybe that would have some justification, but I personally cannot see the pount of the statement where it is.--Lucy-marie 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You find nothing notable about the fact that the BNP is the primary target of anti-fascist organizations? -- WGee 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No I don't. I view it the same way as saying that the pressure group migrationwatch is mainly focused on reducing immigrants or that the ACLU is opposed to restrictions of civil liberties or the NRA is opposed to restrictions on gun onwership. I think the statement is stating the blindigly obvious and is in my opinion not completly neutral, as i have said i think it belongs in the opposition to the BNP section and not the introduvtion if it belongs at all.--Lucy-marie 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are ther objections to the removal of the statement and moving it to the oppositoin section?--Lucy-marie 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object. At present the article has a brief introduction to the opposition to the BNP which is wholly appropriate, which is further expanded upon in detail in the relevant section. One Night In Hackney 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The brief opposition to the BNP is covered by the politicans and i think that having the UAF section is unecessary and is linked to the below discussion and is slight over kill. If we allow this then we surly need a support of the BNP as well.--Lucy-marie 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would we need a support of the BNP section? The opposition to the BNP far, far outweighs the support they have. One Night In Hackney 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * not a whole section just the otherside of the coin in relation to the UAF sentence.--Lucy-marie 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok are we going to finish talking aboput what to do with this sentence. I propose that the sentence should be moved from its currnt position to a more apropriate position in the opposition to the BNP section or removed entirley.--Lucy-marie 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Lucy-marie has a valid point. The intro appears to suggest that the BNP are substanitally opposed by Searchlight and the AFL. Whereas they are, in fact, substantially opposed by most of the electorate, the media, Searchlight and the likes of the AFL as well as the entire political establishment.  So somehow that bit of the intro needs rewriting to show just how opposed the BNP are by the vast majority of the British populace rather than implying they are opposed by just left wing groups and organisations. It doesnt do this at the moment.  Marcus22 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The references to Searchlight and the AFL indicate the BNP's connections to fascism, and they represent a common criticism that the BNP has not abandoned its fascist roots and is merely window-dressing. -- WGee 07:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so you support the retention of the most pov statement in the planet then? this is because you cannot say without concrete proof the comments above. It is also overkilling the introduction with faschsim and racism when the bnp is more than just anti immigration.--Lucy-marie 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. well the BNP certainly are more than just anti-immigration; they have policies to "encourage" women to stay at home rather than take up jobs; they plan to reintroduce compulsory national service for all men and - incredibly - allow all men who complete national service to keep an armalite and live ammunition in their home. As if that was not enough, they also plan to "re-unite" with the Republic of Ireland. I'm not sure the Irish would want the same thing....  So Lucy-marie does have a point: one needs to be wary of portraying the BNP as "just" anti-immigrant when they are actually far more dangerous than that!  Marcus22 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hear! Hear! Emeraude 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So how do we acomplish this then?--Lucy-marie 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing out some overkill
This article is not at all bad and is the kind article that is very hard to reach agreement on. So I dont want to knock it wholesale as I think a lot of good and tricky work has been done but... it is too long, there is too much repetition and there is a lot of unnecessary stuff. (For example, the policies list which I have reduced in size was - or is, depending on reverts - far too long. It overfocusses on one or two issues and tries to hide away others.  (Why 'bang on' about immigration in this section? If anyone has read the article this far, they should have gathered that the BNP are kind of opposed to immigration. Better that issues such as compulsory national service are made more apparent). Ditto the intro., the version I have reduced needlessly repeats itself and is/was kind of illegible.  The shorter version reads better and makes the relevant point without repetition). Well, anyway, as an outsider to the article I'd like to think that some of the other stuff can be carefully removed - the history section is too long, the many sections at the end of the article are too long - without previous editors being too offended? Marcus22 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Im for any edits as long as they improve the flow of the article, keep it as NPOV as it has become and dont remove any useful information Fethroesforia 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * thought id fly this by..you seem to be making edits..which is what wikipedia is about after all. but almost all of this page has been agreed on consensus and even i agree the page is almost as good as it can get (me being highly critical originally). Your edits seem to be leading to an edit war, which may earn someone a warning on the talk page. I dont really care who is at fault, revert wars/edit wars are bad. I eagerly await discussion about how the article can be cleaned up Fethroesforia 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments and advice. I certainly dont want an edit war but its very depressing to see every edit one makes reverted wholesale without any aspect of any edit being kept.  (I dont agree that any/all edits need consensus either - which is the point that the other editor concerned seems insistent upon.  This is certainly NOT the way Wikipedia works).  But I'll take the time out to try to explain the reasoning beyond my changes rather than go around in cirlces with pointless reverts and perhaps the other editor concerned can respond:-

The article is OK. But it overstates, enormously, the role of anti-immigration policy in the BNP. This does neither justice to the BNP - as they have more policies than just anti-immigration policies. Nor does it do justice to anyone who may wish to highlight some of the other extremist ideas of this party. Thus my edit to the intro is to remove excessive references to the same issue - which are, in any case, totally unnecessary and add nothing but clutter to an otherwise good intro. And thus my edits to the BNP's list of policies: let that list focus on their other, IMHO cranky and dangerous ideas rather than, once again, overegg the anti-immigrant aspects. In any case, there is, surely, no need to list the BNP's anti-immigrationist policies in their list of policies? Anyone who has read that far into the article can gather that they have such policies to list them again is needless repetition and the article is already overly long.

Having said all that, I'm quite prepared to reach consensus on any aspect of my edits which are controversial. (But is every edit I make really controversial? It may be so and I may well be wrong but it does seem unlikely). So.... over to One Night in Hackney to tell me how and why what I am saying is wrong and why each and every aspect of my edits must be reverted. Marcus22 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But it does say at the top of this page 'This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.' so whether i like it or not..I keep to what the box says.. Fethroesforia 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but what, specifically, is controverisal about shortening the intro by one statement which neither changes the sense of what is being said nor takes anything away from the intro, but merely makes it better to read? and what, specifically, is controversial about re-ordering the list of policies to  try a: to avoid repetition and b: to focus that list on policies other than immigration?   Please can this be explained?  If nothing is forthcoming then I can get on and make those edits.  I should add that I dont mind waiting a bit for an explanation, as I'm sure the editor concerned has other things to do than work on Wikipedia, but one has not been forthcoming so far and just to revert all edits on the grounds "discuss substantial changes there before making them" when a: they are not substantial and b: they are not being discussed is not good enough.  Wikipedia does not work like that.  Marcus22 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not for or against to consensus..and im not arguing either way..I know i knowingly edit things against consensus occasionally. Was just saying what i think other would say. I know the bnp is moe than about rulesof immigration..im a supporter of them. the other policies are overlooked and people say they only have one policy..which isnt true. As long as any edits are not removing potentially important information..then im okay with it. Im just thinking about what other editors would say :)

Fethroesforia 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you are saying. I'll leave it for a bit and see what is said.  I certainly feel the  whole 'BNP are against Immigrants' aspect of the article is overstated and people need to see what else they stand for.  (In my view, that would be to the rightful detriment of the BNP but, even were that not so, I feel it should be done).  regards Marcus22 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly I'd like to apologise to Marcus22 for my delay in replying, I've had little time for more than simple Wikignome tasks in the last coupe of days, and I wanted to give this the appropriate amount of time. The change to the lead doesn't seem too bad.  Reading it through it does flow better, and the objective of the BNP is still quite clear.  Regarding "the BNP has publicly become more moderate" - I'm not sure about the addition of publicly.  While it may well be true, the key is verifiability not truth.  For use to state "publicly" would mean we have to cite reliable sources that as a party (as opposed to any comments from individual members) their "private" standpoint is still the same.  After checking the BNP's site I think a thorough overhaul of the policy section is needed more than anything, and would welcome ongoing discussion rgearding this.  I haven't had chance to look through all the talk archives to see any relevant discussion regarding this, so someone feel free to point me in the right direction if possible please.  From what I can see the policy section seems largely comprised of select quotes pulled from the BNP's manifesto and policy page.  It looks like there's a reasonable balance of what could be seen as positive and negative (depending on your viewpoint) there, but there's plenty of other policies that might deserve a mention.  I'm not advocating a near copy of their entire manifesto, but I do think the section needs improving somewhat.  I'd ideally like to try and keep the policies in the same place if possible, so I'd prefer to keep the immigration policies in there.  If this means cutting down from other parts of the article that's not a problem, it's important to try and keep it balanced.  Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, and that looks fine by me. So I'll go ahead and change the intro, but drop the bit I added about 'publicly' and, agreed, we need to redo the policies section i; to give more emphasis to other policies and ii; to stop it reading like quotes from the BNP manifesto.  (For me, I would still drop the immigration issues from that section and cover it by saying something like "In addition to their policies on Immigration (see paragraphs above - always assuming those policies can be edited into those above) the BNP also propose the following policies" or something like that).  But if the references to immigration were reduced elsewhere in the article - and the article is overly large - then I would also be OK to see them left in the policy section.  Marcus22 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the "Griffin assumes leadership" section needs trimming down, and merging with the subsequent "Improved electoral performance and policy revamp" section. The first section seems to mostly deal with the "in-out-in-out" status of Tyndall and is adequately covered in Tyndall's article, although the articles do contradict each other over the exact dates. In the "Improved electoral performance and policy revamp" section I think this sentence should be removed "The party was accused, however, of exploiting the high tensions in areas that had recently undergone racially-motivated riots" The source provided is just a brief history of the BNP, and does not provide an adequate citation.

Is the "Run-up to the UK 2006 local election" section necessary? It seems to mostly state that support for the BNP and/or its policies was increasing according to polls, which is supported by the subsequent "The UK 2006 local election results" section. But do we need both? Obviously if there's anything in the first section that needs to be kept it could easily be merged into a "The UK 2006 local elections" section.

The "Local government" section repeats a lot of information that is in the article already, so that can be removed (or from the earlier sections obviously) to trim the article down slightly.

That's as far as I got through the article before getting tired of thinking, more comment to follow but there's some things for discussion at least. One Night In Hackney 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you can make any/all of those edits. I'll try to remove some from the local government and history sections now.. Marcus22 11:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have had a go at these and the policy section. It looks quite different now but is not - I hope - changed in a substantive manner. Shant do any more until I get feedback - just in case... Marcus22 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)  (Oh-oh, in making the above edits I have (temporarily) lost the bit about the BNP being 'not-exactly-right-wing' in terms of economics.  This does need putting back in but I'm not sure quite where.  But please note that I havent edited it away for reasons of censorship or anything like that!) Marcus22 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that information doesn't need to be reinserted. We should not give undue weight to the opinion of a washed-up politician who likes to associate the far-right with the far-left for his own political purposes.  Lord Tebbit is not an authority on political science and has his own political agenda.  According to mainstream academic sourcebooks, policies of distributive justice are integral components of populism, both right-wing and left-wing.  Thus, the populist Far Right typically promotes "left-wing" economic policies; there is nothing notable or contradictory about it. -- WGee 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afarid it does need reinserting you may dislike the statement WGee but that statement give the other side of the coin. you may dislike the otherside of the coin but it does not mean you can reject it.--Lucy-marie 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ITS
Can it be said that since the BNP has endorsed the new 'identity tradition sovereignity' group in the European Parliament on its website, that their 'European Affiliation' in the infobox is now the ITS, rather than Euronat?

Many parties who were in Euronat are now in the ITS, and this is the group the BNP would join should they get MEP's elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.3.65 (talk • contribs)

In a way, it's academic, because, as stated, they are not represented in the European Parliament and therefore not part of ITS which is, as noted in the Wikipedia article ITS "a political group in the European Parliament". It's interesting that the French Front National article gives ITS as their European Affiliation but has no subtitle for European Parliament Group at all. Some confusion here, but it's probably too soon to be definitive about Euronat/ITS (the former a grouping independent of the Parliament, the latter a group of members within it.) Emeraude 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Radical right populism
Instead of referring to the British National Party as simply "far-right"&mdash;which a rather imprecise term used mainly by the media&mdash;we should describe it as "radical right populist," as per many academic sources. Before anyone gasps in horror at describing the BNP as "radical," one must note that the term is more or less synonomous with "anti-establishment" as used by scholars. In addition to being placed in the lead section, the term needs to be expounded in a separate section entitled "Radical right populism." Since it is increasingly used by academics to classify the BNP and other European far-right parties, there is no reason not to mention it somewhere in the article. -- WGee 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, i think its best to keep them 'far right', we all know the bnp is reather economically centre nleft but the left-right positioning in populat culture is based on the parties view of immigration (or so i find). Im for mentioning it, but the term far right is widely accepted (however incorrect) by just about the whole world,removing it is..not wrong..just a bit..unusual. To be honest im not fussed either way, the term far right is accepted, the extreme minority who argue otherwise (myself..lol) can see past it..:)Fethroesforia 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Radical right populist" is not exactly definitive either, in fact, it is more vague than you think 'far right' is. I'm guessing that just about everyone knows what 'far right' means - on the right, and further on the right than mainstream parties such as, in the UK scene, the Conservatives. Exactly where you pin it down on a sprectrum is vague, of course; these things always are because there is inevitably a good deal of overlap in politics and political positions, but the average reader does understand the term. So what does the average reader get from 'radical right populist'? Well, firstly, they will probably need to look up radical as used in this sense. Then populist. And then they could conclude that the modern day Conservative party is radical right populist! It is not the case that the 'far right' term is used mainly by the media either, although the BNP and its supporters like to pretend that this is so because it supports their argument that 'the establishment' is ganging up against them. Leave it as it is (though personally I would prefer extreme right or, to be honest, neo-fascist). Emeraude 09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Radical right populist" is definitely more specific than "far-right." Whereas "far-right" and "extreme right" simply denote positions on the political spectrum, "radical right populist" denotes that the BNP is anti-Establishment and populist.  I understand that most readers cannot immediately grasp the meaning of the term, but that is not an excuse not to use it.  Not only are encyclopedias supposed to introduce readers to new information, but I also said that the term (as a whole, not in its individual parts) would be elucidated in its own section, dispelling any confusion.  Regardless of whether or not readers like the classification or agree with it, the fact remains that it is widely recognized in academia and should not be ignored.


 * As for the term "far-right" being used mainly in the media, that is true. Rarely will you come across an oft-cited scholarly essay that describes political parties solely by their position on the political spectrum.  I'm not saying that the media is incorrect in referring to the BNP as "far-right," but among academics more precise and objective terms are favoured. -- WGee 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We had a similar debate on the UKIP page. For 'Political position' I wanted to use the term "Right Wing" and someone else wanted to use the term "Libertarian Right".  In fact it seems to me that there are clearly two different headings here - and maybe that should be reflected in articles on political parties - namely, i: where a party stands, in popular parlance, on the Left-Centre-Right spectrum (thus the BNP are "far right") and ii: what a party's ideological position is. (In this case, "radical right populist").  Would having these two headers not resolve this point?  Marcus22 11:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to go along with Marcus22 on this. If it needs changing (I'm not convinced), how about something along the lines of describing the BNP as a far right party and its policies as radical right populist? Emeraude 11:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The two terms are certainly not "clearly different": the far-right is intimately intertwined with radical populism. In any case, since you are concerned about the obscurity of the term among laymen, we can keep the term "far-right" in the lead section but still maintain a section for "radical right populism."  Moreover, "radical right-wing populism" does not refer only to policies, but also to political strategy.  That said, if there is any confusion about the term and whether it is merited, I suggest you read this (pp. 2–4).  Unfortunately, though, Google doesn't offer access to the chapter on the BNP. -- WGee 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely spot on WGee, Far Right parties are indeed, typically, both radical and populist. But I didnt mean to imply that that was where the "clear difference" lay.  All that I meant was that a 'position' is clearly something different from a 'policy'.  (eg. we can all understand what we mean by a position being Left or Right, Up or Down or whatever - but what position is 'Radical' or 'Populist'?) In short what I meant to say was that your and Emeraude's views are not mutually exclusive.  You are both properly describing (different) aspects of the BNP. They are Far Right (in terms of Position) but Radical Populists (in terms of much of their policies). Marcus22 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revrsing the tide statement.
I think it is a form of overkill as it is giving undue weight to just one policy and that is there immigration stance. The BNP is more than just anti immigration. As is was said it in the UAF discussion. So if it can be justfied as not being overkill on immigration policy it can stay but I think it needs to go as it is overkill.--Lucy-marie 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The issue is the one for the which the BNP is best known, the statement is a quote from the BNP, and this early on in the article (starting line 7) how can it possibly be overkill? Emeraude 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thought id say..the anti-immigration is indeed, what the bnp is most known for..and as much as it pains me to say so..it seems that it deserves a long chunk of the page dedicated to that (like..on a communist page, you would have a large section on state control..or on a nazi page you would have a large section on the holocaust). Though the bnp does have many other policies..some of which are pro-immigration, Griffin himself has admitted a bit of immigration is good. Though I believe he wants some sort of immigration co-operation with certain areas i believe. Anyway, if anything, the article deserves a larger section on anti-immigration as this is what the bnp is most well known for and has got it the majority of its supporters. Fethroesforia 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UAF
Why do UAF a pressure group opposed to the bnp keep on cropping up in the article. Its like having migrationwatch crop up ina pro-immigration article pointless, pov and bias. I do not care what they say they are allways going to say the same BNP bad, BNP wrong, destroy BNP. It is just a covert way of promoting the far left in a far right article in my opinion. What next we say the conservative manifesto contained unworkable and racist policies on immigration. whlie quoting the green party website. If that was added it would be remved instantly but because this is a fringe far-right party, the quality of the article suffers due to people either knowingly or unknowingly being prejudiced, in my opinion agains them.---Lucy-marie 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * true..but then its like searchlight being in there..its like quoting the redwatch website in the communist wiki article!!!! its bound to say anti-commie things so its pointless. also..notice the following = 'It also includes faith and community leaders and politicians from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, RESPECT, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party' says who? ive bought this up before but people said it doesnt need sourcing! when it clearly does! Fethroesforia 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholey agree I just usd the UAF as they were the first that I came across. I mean the article quality neds as much refrencing as possible. Especially on the controversial issues such as immigration. I also think the slant of the article is anti-BNP with a large opposition to the BNP section. You don't see an opposition to the Labour party section or an opposition the Conservative party section, so why is there one needed here. I admit they are not the most likable party but in some people's eyes the Conservatuve party are still 'the nasty party' that was run by a 'vampire'(micheal howard), but it isn't brandished all over the article like the BNP's anti-immigration stance is. Also why are pressure groups cited in this article and not as close as possible independent sources (I would classify the BBC as a neutral source, even though they did the documentary they never said that this was anything but a representation of their recordings). Can we please not use pressure groups it is what is holding back this article.--Lucy-marie 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Id do some myself, but im busy doing last minute revision (I have my chemistry and modern history A level exams tomorrow and human biology on wednesday). I agree with you all the way lucy-marie:) Fethroesforia 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would start to make some changes right now to the article, but I am almost certian they will be reverted by the morning.--Lucy-marie 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isnt okay for us to make any changes..yet it is okay for others to make drastic edits or reversions of the article without prior warning! seems unfair. It seems wrong for names and sources being thrown in. Lets think of a well hated political party..the tories..like you proposed. checking their article...i see no criticism or anti tory material. yet the tories are widely hated..up north here they are hated anyway..(vile creatures they are). Cameron makes me feel ill..anyway..to the subject..im always reading criticism of the tories or any other political party, usually by obvious sources (red watch on commies and lib dems.. the daily mail on labour, the morning star on the tories) it seems..wrong..plain wrong for it to be included. though i agree lucy-marie, everything i wrote will fall on very deaf ears, check their contribution list, i know at least one has a history of vandalising or hasty editing of right wing articles and is very left wing in their views....so they will make real fair edits? hmmmm Fethroesforia 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I claim to be neither left wing nor right wing just objective. I also woulld like to see the removal of any slant weather it be pro or anti-BNP. I think the section is far too big on the oppostion and the policies are hardly givven an adequate chance of being explianed coherantly. I found one edit particulally infuriating when It quoted a qoute from an article this can hardly be a good thing where the rest of the article was opposed to that quote. So can we plase just try for once to remove all politics from our edits and be objective. (I know for some this will be especially difficult for them to see their anti-BNP platform dissapear).--Lucy-marie 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, i try to be as NPOV as i can and i can point a few fingers are people i dont think do NPOV. good luck with the editing (is off to sleep and think of chemistry related thoughts for exam..with a burnt tongue (long story..hot pasty..burnt tastebuds..ow))

good luck with it..i hope it isnt hastily reverted in the morning by revert happy commies Fethroesforia 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the existence of the likes of UAF a defining point of the BNP? In the end there are no groups (that I know of) who go around actively protesting at Labour Party meetings, just because they're the labour party? I don't think any other British political party has any groups who so vhemently oppose it. --Robdurbar 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good points here. It is true that the article has to be as NPOV as one can make it and I too am unhappy at the coverage given to other policies and believe the "opposition" section is too large and rather unwieldy. But let's not get carried away. An article on the BNP has to reflect i: the existence of the likes of UAF (for the reasons just given by Rob above) and ii: the enormous extent of the opposition to the BNP. Why? Because the BNP are not just opposed like the Conservatives or Labour they are completely and utterly reviled by a substantial part of the populace - not only in the UK but elsewhere - and this has to be reflected in an article on them. As has, to some degree, but to a lesser degree than is currently the case, the reasons for this opposition. Marcus22 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i see where you are coming from but certain publications which are going to be biased against the BNP surly cannot be quoted or even mentioned outside of an opposition section. I had never heard of UAF or Searchlight before reading this article, so giving undue weight to a minor publication which only appeals to a minority of the public surly cannot be good in the article.--Lucy-marie 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the following necessary oin the introduction, I think it belongs in a more apropriate section such as criticism of BNP policies or something similar.

The BNP is often described as racist.[3][4] The party denies this, however, stating that they are merely standing up for the white British working class and claiming that racism is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".[5]

The BNP is marginalised by the political mainstream. Conservative Party leader David Cameron, for example, has called on voters to "back anyone but the BNP,"[6] while Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has criticized "the politics of race hate peddled by the BNP."[7]

Anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party. --Lucy-marie 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a newe introduction after the bit on thier electoral performance: According to its 2005 manifesto The BNP is commited to reintroduce compulsory national service, re-unify the UK with the Republic of Ireland, reuce and eventually reverse the number of non-white immigrants to the uk prohibit the seeking of asylum, encourage women to stay at home and raise families rather than work and reintroduce corporal and capital punishment. --Lucy-marie 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad - but I think you'd be in danger of underplaying the immigration issue then. I've rejigged the intro to reduce the paras. you mention - I think it looks better now. Immigration and racism is still prominent. But some other policies are also more obvious. I'm still not sure/not happy about the Searchlight bit though... Marcus22 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction should be just that a basic introduvtion and should outline the BNP and although immigration is a major issue it should be in a dedicated section and please can we get rid of the UAF bit at the very end of the introduction?--Lucy-marie 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the revised intor the word also is used, reading it now makes it fell as if these policies are secondary and gives more wight to the immigration policy which we need to avoid i think.--Lucy-marie 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this. Let's consider some FACTS. The BNP grew from the old National Front. The NF was exposed long ago (right from its founding in 1967) as a neo-Nazi organisation, led by neo-Nazis with a history of the vilest anti-semitism, racism and other fascist creeds. Some of its leaders were jailed for organising secret armies. They were getting nowhere politically and that's why they formed the NF, trying to keep the fascism out of the public view, though not very successfully. After a period of growth during the 1970s, they went into decline, got into a bout of infighting (because everyone wanted to be Fuehrer - a common enough issue in post-war British fascism). Eventually the BNP was set up by John Tyndall (one of those jailed and one of those who wore Nazi uniforms) and his cronies, including Nick Griffin who far from being a mainstream political innocent was a member of the NF's HQ staff. This is all fact.

Now consider this: The BNP, whatever its other policies are, is almost solely known for its anti-immigrant stance. It's a fair bet that most of its voters could not list any other issue associated with the party; they are attracted because of its racism. The same was true of the NF in the 70s. The BNP has been more successful, not because it has significantly shifted its policies - it hasn't, and I can reproduce NF election addresses from 1974 if anyone wants to see. It has been successful to the degree it has because Griffin has been more successful at hiding its true nature than was the NF.

As to opposition. Searchlight is not anti-BNP. It is anti-fascist, whenever and wherever it sees it. It is a respected and well-researched magazine publishing articles from academics and others covering all of Europe and the rest of the world. If it "opposes" the BNP it is because it is fascist. It's nothing personal! (And it would be a good gesture if those who accuse Searchlight of having a vendetta against the BNP actually read a few issues, just as those who accuse the BNP of fascism have read the BNP's publications, and those of Tyndall, Griffin and the like. Argue from knowledge, not prejudice.)

Where am I going with this? Well, it seems to me that there were things wrong with this article. It was confused, perhaps inevitably when written by several contributors over a long period, with sections almost randomly placed. It contained much that was contentious, again perhaps inevitable. It contained some assertions that were not fully backed up. But, what the hell, isn't that what editors are for? Most of these issues have now been addressed and the article reads much better. The one thing that is still wrong, in my opinion, is that it does not go far enough in explaining that the BNP, underneath it all, is a neo-fascist group and always will be. It is no good trying to play down its anti-immigration stance by listing all of its other policies. It is no good striving for 'balance' every time a criticism is raised by saying "but the BNP deny this" or some such. In short, stop trying to do a revisionist job on the BNP by portraying them as innocent players up against a cabal of opponents, a cabal that includes every mainstream party, politician, newspaper, journal and magazine in the country. Leave it alone. Emeraude 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound nuts here but it sounds as if you want an article which is basically a soap box and a collection of media reoporting of the BNP. The article must avoid both of these. You cannot claim that the "truth is they are hiding being fascist", because unless we start mind reading we cannot prove it. The article as it stands is basically portraying yhe BNP as a single issue party which upon reading the manifesto is untrue so can we plaes all get of our pre-formed views and try and write an article whihc is not written like a member of a far left group or someone with a vested intrest. As for UAF regardless of how respected they are it is like quoting Greenpeace in the exxon mobil article, biased as they are inherantly slanted against them.--Lucy-marie 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Lucy-marie
 * Lucy-marie, I assume your comments above are a reply to my comments immediately before. If so, you clearly have not read what I wrote.  Some extra comments:  1 There is no way in which anyone can interpret what I said as wanting "an article which is basically a soap box and a collection of media reoporting".  And we don't have that at the moment.  There are links to press articles to substantiate parts of the article - that's proper citing of sources.  If I want a soap box to condemn the BNP I can think of much better ways to go about it than through Wikipedia.  2 As to your quote of mine: 'the "truth is they are hiding being fascist"' - I didn't write it.  Read me again.  I didn't write it.  Read the whole of this section again - no one has written that.  I object to this most strongly.  (As it happens, they are hiding being fascist as I and many other contributors to this discussion page and just about everyone who comments on the BNP, including politicians, press and academics has made clear since its foundation and before in the case of its predecessors.  You may not like it, but that's the case.) 3 The article is most definitely NOT "portraying yhe BNP as a single issue party" and several editors in recent weeks have gone to great trouble to provide clarity on this. 4 You say: "can we plaes all get of our pre-formed views ".  Good advice, and I feel you should take it.  You have said, I believe, that you support the BNP and I have to say (and I'm sure that other editors will back me up here) that your comments in this discussion most clearly reflect your pre-formed views.  I defy you to say which, if any, political party I support.  Similarly, I would not be able to assign Marcus22, Robdurbar ,WGee, One Night In Hackney  etc to a party.  I have argued always from fact, not the position of who I may or may not support.  I make no secret of my opposition to the BNP - but why should I, this a forum for opinions - but it does not cloud my view of whether this is a good article or not. 5 The article does not read like it is "written like a member of a far left group". (I presume you meant by a member). It is so balanced that I think anyone on the left, never mind far left, would regard it as more than generous to the BNP.  6 I'm not sure what you mean by "someone with a vested intrest" in this context. 7 You say "As for UAF regardless of how respected they are..."  Are you misquoting me again?  I never said UAF was respected, though I'm sure they are.  8.  Why shouldn't Greenpeace be quoted in an article about Exxon?  I've read neither article, but could easily see that if the article refers to a massively disastrous oil spill you would need someone with an environmental background to be included. Are you suggesting that only Exxon should be quoted in an Exxon article?  Surely not.  Are you suggesting that only the BNP should be quoted in a BNP article?  I'm afraid it's beginning to look that way.   Emeraude 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I expected better than that from your Emeraude. The bnp is not racist, if its members are..oh well..shame. I support the bnp..but im not racist..i like the bnp because of OTHER policies (nhs being one, capital punishment, longer jail sentences etc. And whether you like it or not Emeraude, we cant all go around throwing our opinions everywhere can we? Thats called vandalism of articles. If you think the bnp are racist, then fine..thats nice..but we should stick to the matter in hand (example..we all know the invasion in iraq was purely for oil..but i have no proof..which is why i wont make the invasion of iraq sound like a resonating anti-bush speech)

If you want to include anti patriotic, anti bnp qoutes then go right ahead, but if they are unsources, others (including NPOV people) will remove them. Fethroesforia 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Fethroesforia
 * I'm sorry, Fethroesforia, I don't understand what better you expected from me. Where did I go wrong? Anyway, the issue of whether the BNP is racist was more than adequately covered in a previous discussion here when WGee explained absolutely clearly that the BNP is racist and the evidence for this.  You took part in the discussion, so I'm sure you remember it, but for other readers it is archived at Talk:British National Party/Archive 4.  I genuinely feel sorry for you.  You say that you are not racist and have said before that you're not a thick skinhead thug - I'm not doubting you.  But I feel sorry for you because the party you support IS racist and yet you still support them.  You said that "we cant all go around throwing our opinions everywhere can we? Thats called vandalism of articles".  Well, actually we can go around giving opinions and its called discussion or debate or argument.  To put opinions into articles is not vandalism either; it is wrong, it shouldn't happen and it would soon be picked up, but it is not vandalism. (By the way, have a look and see how many time I have removed vandalism from the BNP article.)  It doesn't matter if I thnk the BNP is racist (I think its fascist actually, with racism included); if everyone else that has studied it thinks it's racist, why should I be different.  You say "If you want to include anti patriotic, anti bnp qoutes then go right ahead," but I have not said I want to include anything so what's the point of your comment?  In any case, anti-BNP does not equal anti-patriotic (a ridiculous suggestion that sounds like it came straight from a BNP publication) and insulting to all the patriots who fought against fascism in WWII.  Finally, your use of the phrase "others (including NPOV people)" implies that I am a POV person.  Well, yes I am and so are you and so is everyone I have ever met.  Wouldn't life be dull if no one had a point of view?  Are you implying that my edits to articles have been contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality?  If so, please provide the evidence but I fear you will search in vain for any.  I do have very strong opinions on a wide range of subjects but I know when to express personal opinions (e.g. in a debate or on a talk page) and when not to (e.g. in the front of a classroom or in an encyclopaedia article).
 * [PS: Good luck with your exams]Emeraude 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to EmeraudeThose are my opinions and I am entitled to them. I am sorry if you feel misquoted in places but I have only directly quoted you in one place and I think I may have made a mistake there, so I apolagise. As for you saying that I need to remove my pre-formed views i try my best to, I admit I may go against the grain, but I truly believe that what I do is correct and an enhancement to the article. I also would not try and label anybody as being a member of a political party unless they branded somehwere a party they were a member of such as Fethroesforia who is openly a member supporter of the BNP. When i said the soap box stuff it was my opinion and i was not asserting it as fact. I think that you should net be able to give such prominanceto a pressure group we. letsuse exxon as the example again. Lets insert this in to the introduction Exon mobil are strongly and contiuosly denounced by Greenpeace. It is completly unecesary and would proberbly be instantly removed. I just want to be able to have an article whihc does not do the following things:1 Shout from the roof tops (my opinion) the anti immigration policy and the media coverage of the anti immigartion policy of the BNP,2 Not give prominance to pressure groups in the article wheather it be Spearhead or UAF. When you say we should only quote the BNP as what I want as refrencing this is utterly rediculous as i have asserted that i think media outlets are an acceptable refrencre and any publication would be acceptableas long as on the more controversial sections there was more than one refrence. I thank you for you time you have put in to give such a detailed reply to myself, I welcome this healthy debate of ideas becuase without them a nutcase party such as the BNP will eventually win through ignorance.--Lucy-marie 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not "feel misquoted". I was misquoted, but thanks for the apology. You say: "Fethroesforia who is openly a member of the BNP" - he's not - he is a supporter, so you owe him an apology too.  Your facts are wrong.  Spearhead is NOT a pressure group; it is a publication, it was John Tyndall's magazine and is virulently right wing. Perhaps you meant Searchlight - a careless error we can forgive.


 * I do not see where you think the article is "shouting from the rooftops" - it is a fact (please don't ask me to cite sources here) that the BNP is first and foremost a racist anti-immigrant party; it's other policies are mentioned sufficiently in the article. Besides, if you look at the BNP's full list of policies, remove the racist stuff and see what's left there's really nothing that makes it any different in total from the right wing of the Conservative Party with other odd bits thrown in. (OK - a bit hard to be certain now with Cameron conjuring up new policies all the time, but you see the point.)  It is the race issue that defines the BNP.  I was not saying "we should only quote the BNP" (far from it) - the point I was making was that the logical outcome of what you seemed to be saying would be that.  I'm sure that's not what you intended, but it is the way you came over.  I thank you for your final sentence.  It is clear to me that you have thought about and understood what I have been saying.


 * However, and this is nothing to do with the article, do not think that the BNP is, as you put it, a "nutcase party" - its leaders are very smart and know exactly what they are doing. They need to be treated seriously.  Emeraude 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So is there a way foreward which addresses my concerns about the use of pressure groups. Also is there a way forewards about addresesing my concerns that the article is to heavily slanted in an anti-immigration fashion and doesnot portray adequatly the other policies of the BNP. I am going to request that as UAF and Searchlight are pressure roups their statement in the introduction be removed from the introduction.--Lucy-marie 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, your concerns really are groundless. Firstly, as I have said before, Searchlight is not a pressure group, it's a publication and a perfectly reasonable citable source that has been around for more than 30 years. Secondly, the UAF, as others have noted, is an umbrella group bringing together such a wide range of political and social groups that it has not political stance of its own (which is not to say it is non-political but that it is non-partisan).  Thirdly, the BNP is that is so WIDELY opposed, in a way that no other party is, as to make this opposition significant; so it must be mentioned early.  Fourthly, I'm guessing you meant to say that the article gives undue emphasis to the BNP's anti-immigration policies and not that the article is anti-immigration.  This is simply not true.  Check the article carefully and you will see that whole chunks of it are not about policy at all (history, leadership, organisation, controversy, opposition etc.)  Quite correctly so.  As I and others have regularly said, the anti-immigration stance of the BNP is its main claim to fame and must therefore receive the emphasis of the article. It would be ridiculous to give equal space to every policy area and we wouldn't, for example, think about doing that for any other party.  No, we would highlight those policies that define the party and say that the party also wants to...... . We have a good article here now which you must imagine being read by someone with no previous knowledge, say a young person in Canada or South Africa.  The article gives a good description of the subject, provides both internal and external links to further information and explains the controversies. The balance of topic coverage is about right.  Other editors have put a lot of work in the last couple of weeks into revising, and I think it's time to leave things be for now let their work speak for itself.  Emeraude 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I hadn't before noticed Fethroesforia's comments in the "Revrsing the tide statement." section above. He makes the same point as me, as a supporter of the BNP. Emeraude 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the BNP - reduced list
Marcus22 is correct in reducing this list for the reason he gave with his edit, though it might be argued that those who have separate Wikipedia articles should be put back. However, in the case of two, John Bean and Martin Wingfield, I think there is a very strong argument for them appearing given their long history in far-right politics and that they are editors of BNP publications and not mere administrators. I've taken the liberty of adding them back in - it's still a short enough list. Emeraude 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh..seems i made [another] hasty message on this talk page. apoligies. exams and my university application plus my ocd and anorexia and all the rest have confused me as of late, not that they are an excuse. i actually think i forgot what i was supposed to be arguing about (in my last message). anyway..I still cant remember what my original point was. *hangs head in shame* (lol) Fethroesforia 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to see those names back if you feel they are required. Perhaps some of the other 'red' links could be removed?  (In all honesty I have no idea who the main players in the party are.)  But it definitely read a little long beforehand and I half-expected to see the BNP's dog listed there too!  Looks better now.  Marcus22 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your comments. Thanks. (I wonder what kind of dog it would be?) Emeraude 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

lol..me thinks..a pink toy poodle;) lol Fethroesforia 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to the BNP
I think that the opposition to the BNP section should be made into a seperate artical, as it is VAST and makes the whole artical unwealdy! This post was by User:Boris Johnson VC who forgot to sign.


 * Not sure i agree..but im willing to go along with it for the pure fact you have the best ever politician in living history as your username..lol Fethroesforia 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Not sure that I agree though. Needs thinking about. Emeraude

I think it is a very interesting idea, but may difficult to impliment, but I would support its creation.--Lucy-marie 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See Criticism for a discussion of handling critical perspectives. Some topics have separate "criticism" articles but it isn't encouraged. -Will Beback · † · 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That was the conclusion I was coming to; it's positively discouraged in Wikipedia. I think after reflection it would serve no useful purpose, so leave things as they are.  Emeraude 09:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Policies section
I have finally worked out where i think the most work on the article need to be done. That is expanding the policies section. It is currently a small section, but is basically what the BNP are and not what they are portrayed as being. An ideal size would be the same as the opposition section to give them equal weight in the article.--Lucy-marie 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Policies section is about right as it stands. It is easy to read, balanced and, more importantly, concise. It gives an accurate overview of the BNP's stated policies without going into so much detail that readers without background knowledge will get lost; links are provided in the article so that one can find out more if required; it does not read like a BNP platform. I would be very wary of saying that Opposition to the BNP and BNP policies should have the same space. (Actually, if you ignore the picture in Opposition, they are remarkably close in length anyway.) They are not opposite sides of the same coin: opponents of the BNP may not oppose all of their policies e.g. support for the NHS which no party in Britain today will oppose. The oposition is based in philosophy, not policies i.e. the BNP is opposed because of what it IS, not what it SAYS. Be aware that, even if one is trying to achieve balance between two issues (and as I said, I don't think it applies in this instance), it is not necessary to give equal space. Emeraude 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations
I was looking at this section, and I think it could do with trimming down slightly. At times it seems like guilt by assocation especially with Roberto Fiore and William Pierce, and the allegations of involvement of or being the inspiration for terrorist activities.

The Fiore link looks particularly tenuous. Is there any evidence to prove he is actually linked to the BNP? An unsourced claim he was a close associate of Griffin back in his NF days doesn't really cut it in my opinion.

The Timothy McVeigh reference in the William Pierce paragraph is a bit troubling as well. It's an alleged claim, and one best covered in articles about McVeigh, Pierce or the book itself, not the BNP article which hasn't got any link to McVeigh to the best of my knowledge.

Redwatch was set up by an ex-BNP member according to the article, and the article states the BNP has warned its members not to use the site. So again the inclusion of this is tenuous at best.

The Copeland inclusion is slightly tenuous as well. I can see why it's included, but can the BNP be held reponsible or linked to the actions of every former member of the party? One Night In Hackney 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisley I have been trying to say that last line for ages. Please clean up that section.--Lucy-marie 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to, I'm just waiting for other editors to comment. One Night In Hackney 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A few off-the-top-of-my-head comments:


 * "Guilt by asociation"? Only if you think having links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations is a crime. Remember the title of the section: "Links to...", which of course, means 'association'.


 * Fiore: Important to include this.  Griffin, his predecessors and associates have maintained links with European fascists while denying they are fascists themselves.  The title of this section is, after all, "Links to neo-Nazis....." and here is one.
 * para 3, 1st sentence: No need to mention Tyndall was still leader; article says so elsewhere. Simplify this sentence as:
 * "The BNP's 1995 national rally was addressed by Dr. William Pierce, then head of the US National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries which allegedly inspired Timothy McVeigh, the Oklohoma bomber."

(McVeigh, I think needs to be mentioned to give context to why the link to Pierce himself is important, but this wording makes it clear that BNP and McVeigh are not linked. Otherwise, the connection with Pierce himself seems less significant.)


 * Redwatch:  Sheppard was expelled because he got arrested - embarrassing for the BNP - but there is no suggestion this was for political differences, so his inclusion here is relevant.  Besides, it also says the BNP repudiates Redwatch, which is fair enough, even if no one believes there are no links.


 * Copeland: His political "career" is not unusual - the BNP is a recruiting ground for more extremist organisations.  He was not just a member of course, but a 'steward', i.e., a party thug, and the article on him is clear that he learned his 'skills' while in the BNP.

Emeraude 12:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, once again remember that this section is entitled "Links..... " and that is what is covered here. It's a shame that there is not more on links to other organisations at the moment, which would make for an interesting expansion of the section.  (I'll work on that if I get time.)


 * Guilt by association. The point I was making there was that we're making a tenuous link between the BNP and Fiore, then mentioning a 1980 terrorist attack that Fiore isn't specifically linked to, only the organization he was a member of.  I'm also confused by the article stating Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari were alleged to have carried out the offence, as far as I'm aware two members were convicted of the bombing there's nothing alleged about it.  But there's nothing to link Fiore to it, and at present nothing to link Fiore to the BNP only Griffin pre-BNP.


 * McVeigh. Why him?  Are we picking the most notorious Nazi terrorist possible?  Why not Robert Jay Mathews and The Order?  I'm not sure of the exact time line on this, so there's a chance there is a very good reason for McVeigh's inclusion.  According to Pierce's article he first came to public attention following the Oklahoma bombing.  How soon after the bombing isn't mentioned, but if it was before the rally he attended I'd say that's very significant.  Anyone know the dates involved?


 * Redwatch. Do we have an actual source for Sheppard setting up the website?  Kevin Watmough recently claimed he set it up.


 * Copeland. I've not got any objection to him being there, I was just trying to make a broader point that the BNP shouldn't be linked to the actions of every former member. One Night In Hackney 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The section clearly needs a clean up as it has caused gross ambiguity in two editors interpritation.--Lucy-marie 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No it hasn't. Emeraude 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not had much time to follow up things, but I have got some more info on links between Fiore, the German NDP and Griffin both before and after becoming leader. Sorry it's a bit sloppy:


 * Sources:
 * Daily Mirror 30 March 2005
 * Searchlight, May 2005


 * Billed to speak on Britain’s “Struggle between Cultures” at rally “Germany will live – National Awakening in the 21st Century”. Other speakers were Franz Schönhuber (NPD media adviser and Waffen SS veteran)  and Harald Neubauer, former MEP and member of the nazi NSDAP-AO and co-publisher of the SS-founded Nation & Europa.  BNP told Daily Mirror: "Nick was invited to a conference of the NPD, who we don’t believe are Nazis, but was too busy to go''."


 * He had attended previous NDP events, sharing platforms with NDP leader Udo Voigt and two convicted terrorists, Horst Mahler and Roberto Fiore. In Aug 2002, Griffin attended the NDP’s newspaper Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) festival; was photographed there with Voigt and ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Also in Aug 2002, attended NPD summer school with Mahler and Voigt. May 2003: scheduled to speak alongside Voigt, Fiore and NPD’s lawyer Jürgen Rieger, but didn't turn up.


 * While exiled in Britain, Fiore helped Griffin build his Political Soldiers group following its split from the National Front.


 * Perhaps you're right about McVeigh. Just thought it explained more about the book, but perhaps we don't need to mention that either.  So, 1st sentence of para 3 could now read: "The BNP's 1995 national rally was addressed by Dr. William Pierce, then head of the US National Alliance." but this does seem rather tame, forcing readers to search through other articles for context.


 * Redwatch: There's an article somewhere I read recently (Searchlight archives I think) that covers this.  Regardless,no one doubts it is run by people including BNP members, however clandestinely (because, of course, they are inciting to criminal acts). Will try to get more. Emeraude 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It still needs a clean up for the points raised. Also it has caused gross ambiguity as Two diffrent editors have read exactly the same text and interpited the content diffrently (a lot).--Lucy-marie 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with Fiore being there now, as it's been adequately demonstrated that Griffin is prepared to share a platform with a convicted member of a terrorist organization. Obviously a quick re-write to document the ongoing association is needed, and possibly remove details of the train station bombing?


 * We could actually include a quick note about The Order with Pierce. Some members (I forget which, I'd need to find my copy of The Silent Brotherhood) were recruited from the National Alliance so there is a direct link between Pierce and terrorist/paramilitary groups. One Night In Hackney 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Lucy-marie, but I think you're wrong there. User:One Night In Hackney and I have discussed what is in or should be in the article; I don't see any evidence that we have interpreted anything that is in the article differently, (though perhaps I shouldn't speak for Hackney) so no ambiguity there. It seems to me that the two of us are reaching a level of understanding that could be described as consensus, excpet there's only two of us! Emeraude 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on about the original statement before the discussions took place.--Lucy-marie 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any ambiguity there. My concerns were predominantly with Fiore and Pierce, and that we were mentioning terrorist attacks that strictly speaking weren't directly connected to either of them.  For example I wouldn't recommend mentioning the Milltown Cemetery attack in the paragraph that mentions the BNP's connections to loyalism. I think we're better off trying to focus on the stronger links, rather than the more tenuous ones. One Night In Hackney 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to make any comment on the actual examples cited - as I know nothing about the names or events mentioned in this section - I don't think I find it confusing or ambiguous. Perhaps any ambiguty could be explicitly stated here to make it apparent? Marcus22 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try and break it down.


 * Roberto Fiore is connected to Griffin, and has a relationship with him dating back to the 80s. An organization Fiore was a member of was responsible for the Bologna massacre.  There's no real direction connection between Fiore and the bombing, he's never been convicted of it.  Rather than repeat what's in those articles, a quick read will outline what happened.


 * William Luther Pierce was a leading American Neo-Nazi, who wrote a book called The Turner Diaries. The FBI allege that this book was the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh.  I've not seen any evidence of a direct link between Pierce and McVeigh.


 * As I said above, we're not mentioning any details of terrorist attacks carried out by Loyalist paramilitaries when mentioning the BNP's links to them, so I don't think it's appropriate to mention terrorist attacks that weren't even committed by the people who are actually linked to the BNP. However I believe it is appropriate to mention Fiore and Pierce's links to the BNP and their significance in the far right movement. One Night In Hackney 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Redwatch: "Although the BNP claimed to have put such activities behind it, the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight revealed that prominent BNP members, including candidates Tony Wentworth, Adrian Marsden, Nick Cass, Mike Lester, Trevor Agnew and Mark Collett, had all written for this site." ('A day to make history'? The 2004 elections and the British National Party', Author: Renton David, Source: Patterns of Prejudice, Volume 39, Number 1, March 2005, pp. 25-45(21). The article in Searchlight referred to is ‘The BNP leaders linked to Redwatch’, Searchlight, November 2003, 9.  Emeraude 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that's more than good enough for me. I'm slightly concerned about the Copeland entry though, for slightly different reasons now.  In the "Violence and criminal behaviour" section we've got details of Robert Cottage, who wasn't a member at the time of his arrest.  His membership was reported to have "lapsed", although the source provided does describe him as a former member.  For the sake of consistency should we have Copeland in the same section as him? One Night In Hackney 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, interesting one that. If his membership had lapsed, it was by less than 5 months at most, since he had been a BNP candidate for the local council in May. Seems strange that someone dedicated enough to be a candidate should let his membership lapse. The unattributed phrase in the newspaper article is "it is understood his membership had lapsed", followed by a BNP spokesman saying it again, so there is no real evidence that it had or had not. This needs to be followed up, but for now I would suggest leaving things as they are until we can find out. Emeraude 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, a few sources other than the one in the article:
 * Burnley Citizen (4 Oct 2006)  gives details of the second person arrested,  David Bolus Jackson


 * Pendle Today (6 Oct 2006), says that in Jackson's home police found "rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit."


 * Searchlight (Nov 2006) says that "The BNP was quick to distance itself from Cottage, falsely claiming that he was no longer a party member. While Searchlight is unable to reveal more information at this stage we are confident that the BNP’s lies and cover-up will return to haunt the party after the trial. "

The trial has been listed for 12 Feb 2007 at Manchester Crown Court. Emeraude 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with taking just Searchlight's word for it, as they aren't really an unbiased source. With the upcoming court case more facts will soon be available anyway, so a wait and see approach is probably for the best.  I wasn't going to take any action without further discussion though, you should know by now that I usually discuss these things before making substantial changes anyway. One Night In Hackney 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to suggest leaving things and see what comes out at the trial. It may be that one of the sources I've given above would be more appropriate (and up to date) than the one in the article. As for Searchlight, biased it may be but rarely inaccurate. It's an intriguing little quote though, isn't it? Emeraude 12:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Local government section
I've removed this sentence, which was flagged for a source;

"However, the BNP's consistent good polling in some areas has led some to question this analysis."

What does good mean? Good compared to what? Which areas? Who has questioned the analysis? It's about as vague as it gets, so hopefully nobody objects to its removal? One Night In Hackney 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Im going to look through the article later, but i wouldnt call the bnp's results consistent, more like erratic. some of their vote count depends on the feeling at the time. im for removing it. (if it hasnt been already) Fethroesforia 12:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a valid statement to make in the article - the BNP thinks this is true - and it is certainly a view I have read in articles in the press, though personally I would not subscribe to it. However, sources not being to hand...... Emeraude 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't valid, just it was unsourced and full of weasel words. I've nothing against a properly sourced version with context being added.  One Night In Hackney 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said: needs sources, but at this stage who's going to find them? Emeraude 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * After further review I'm unhappy with the sentence before that as well;


 * "Many researchers have put the electoral successes of the BNP down to voters' casting a 'protest vote' against the perceived incompetence of local councils, and disillusionment with the mainstream parties, rather than as positive support for the BNP's policies"


 * The only people that seem to be making the claim are Nick Lowles, and to a lesser extent the author of the article. The author also cites other people who don't see it is a protest vote. I'm definitely not seeing "many researchers". One Night In Hackney 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's undoubtedly truth in the suggestion that there is a protest vote that benefits the BNP (sources: well, tons of press article, but don't ask me to list them, I don't have access or time). So how do we keep this idea in? (I will look through Politics journals, but I suspect it's too recent for any papers to have been submitted and published just yet ). I don't like the phrase "perceived incompetence of local councils" - perhaps this whole sentence should be put in quotes. Emeraude 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Just noticed that this part of the article is set in 2004 or earlier, so there should be journal articles. Give me a day or two to search. Emeraude 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt there's truth in the claim, I just think we need more sources. I found this article from The Times regarding a report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, that's definitely a good start I think. One Night In Hackney 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done. The actual Rowntree report is here. Will do a quick check of journals later. Emeraude 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BNP's electoral successes (sic) are largely down to a herd mentality and/or misplaced patriotism. They do well when the shepherding-press 'bang on' about immigration - rather as UKIP do better when the press 'bang on' about the EU. And they appeal when they (think they) stand up for the best interests of the British. But there can also be no doubt that they pick up many votes as a protest; hence, for example, their generally poor performance in general elections and sometimes strong showings in local elections. Having said all that, I have no idea whether "many researchers" say this and such a statement would need some sources to back it up. Marcus22 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph
"...but lacks...any imaginative or worthwhile reason for its existence" This is one of the most biased, POV statements I've ever read in a Wikipedia article, and it's in the first paragraph! Are the editors of the article suggesting that there is no reason for minor political parties to exist? Clearly they have an agenda which is strongly different from other British parties, and therefore they have a reason to exist. Algabal 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is that statement? i cannot find it in the introduction.--Lucy-marie 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's gone...Was Wikipedia displaying an older version of this article for some server-related reason? This has happened a few times before. I apologize. Algabal 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That phrase was added by IP 217.40.55.2 on 30 January at 19:07. I thought I had deleted soon after; must have made a mistake and not saved the change. Anyway, it was deleted by User:One Night In Hackney later that day and has not appeared since, so it must have been an old version you wre looking at. Emeraude 15:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That line was vandalism. But apology accepted ;) Marcus22 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note. While reverting what appears to be another edit against consensus by Lucy-marie I think I've re-added some information that shouldn't be there. I'll have a look through the history and the talk page and remove some information shortly. One Night In Hackney 22:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that I had made "another" edit against concensous there was a discussion about the intrduction earlier concerning the UAF and the other policies of the BNP. I thought that the introduction that has now been reverted was agrred by a concensous as the BNP's other policies were also being mentioned, rather than just the anti immigration ones. Also that lead has been there a couple of weeks and anti concensous edits are usually reverted within a couplle of days at the latest.--Lucy-marie 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no consensus for several of the changes that were made, and putting another in quotation marks is disingenuous. You recently removed the section regarding the "BNP ballerina" without any discussion. As I said, I will check the page shortly and revert any inadvertant changes I made One Night In Hackney 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed that as that is someones personal life and should not be added. It was also not re-aded after i had removed it. That section has been gone a couple of weeks if people realy felt strongly about that para. they would have reverted and had a go at me for removing it. I cannot see how we can ad one individual private member to this article. That is why i removed it.--Lucy-marie 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead you reverted has remained unchanged except for vandalism for over a week now. I cannot see how that can be justified as being reverted to the earlier version. Many editors including yourself have made edits to the article and have left the introduction section as it was. I cannot see how or why the reversion has taken place. If it was that anti-concensous then it would have been reverted earlier.--Lucy-marie 11:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the ballerina, she is notable. I only noticed the removal of the section last night when checking through the history.  I think the removal of an entire section is something that should be discussed first, or at least you could have mentioned that you removed it on this page so discussion could take place.  You did neither of those.  The length of time the lead has been in place is not relevant, until last night I was not aware of several of the changes.  Once I have worked out which changes have consensus, I will make the neccesary changes. One Night In Hackney 12:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A personal question. Do you think that making known to the public a private individuals membership of a political party is fully acceptable?

I also disagree with your statment about the lead time as neumerous edits have ben made to the rest of the aticle and the changes were farily obvious i think it is a revsion unopposed concensous. I will try to find the section where this as discussed.--Lucy-marie 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The following a taken directly from the UAF section: Is the following necessary on the introduction, I think it belongs in a more apropriate section such as criticism of BNP policies or something similar.

The BNP is often described as racist.[3][4] The party denies this, however, stating that they are merely standing up for the white British working class and claiming that racism is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".[5]

The BNP is marginalised by the political mainstream. Conservative Party leader David Cameron, for example, has called on voters to "back anyone but the BNP,"[6] while Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has criticized "the politics of race hate peddled by the BNP."[7]

Anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party. --Lucy-marie 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a new introduction after the bit on thier electoral performance: According to its 2005 manifesto The BNP is commited to reintroduce compulsory national service, re-unify the UK with the Republic of Ireland, reuce and eventually reverse the number of non-white immigrants to the uk prohibit the seeking of asylum, encourage women to stay at home and raise families rather than work and reintroduce corporal and capital punishment. --Lucy-marie 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad - but I think you'd be in danger of underplaying the immigration issue then. I've rejigged the intro to reduce the paras. you mention - I think it looks better now. Immigration and racism is still prominent. But some other policies are also more obvious. I'm still not sure/not happy about the Searchlight bit though... Marcus22 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction should be just that a basic introduvtion and should outline the BNP and although immigration is a major issue it should be in a dedicated section and please can we get rid of the UAF bit at the very end of the introduction?--Lucy-marie 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --Lucy-marie 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A personal question. Do you think that making known to the public a private individuals membership of a political is fully acceptable?
 * Yes, absolutely in this situation. We are not "making known".  The information was widely reported in the mainstream media, including the BBC evening news.  Your attempts to censor a notable event are wholly inappropriate.


 * I will repeat again - there is no consensus for some of the changes you have made. Once I have had time to fully review the talk page, I will make the required changes.  Copying and pasting large chunks of text which are easily viewable in a failed attempt to show consensus is not helpful. One Night In Hackney 12:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with One Night In Hackney on both counts. I have just been thoroughly confused with these out of sequence repeat postings. Anyway, Simone Clarke is public figure who has spoken about her membership of the BNP to the media on several occasions (including in The Guardian earlier this week), so it's hardly a private matter. I missed her removal from the article as well for some reason (I may have been away), or I would have raised this myself. Emeraude


 * I would also like to point out that Lucy-marie's arguments are contradictory. On one hand she is saying that as the lead was not disputed for over two weeks (an exaggeration, for the record) that there is a consensus for that lead.  The information regarding Simone Clarke was inserted on January 9, and removed by Lucy-marie on January 22 .  As the information had been in the article for almost two weeks, according to Lucy-marie there was consensus for it being there and she should not have removed it. One Night In Hackney 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with her inclusion she would not have been known as a member of the party unless her information was made public by the guardian newspaper which has dubious legal grounds to stand on when publishing someones private party membership as she is not involved in the runningof the party.

The information when t was removed was also not re-added, if the information involving clarke had been re-added then i would have iniated a discussion about it. It was not re-added and this is the first timeit has been mentioned on this discussion page. So shall we start a discussion about this now?

As for the rest of it shall we debate it again or shall we leave as the version it was as nobody else had complained about it being a reversion of a consensous?--Lucy-marie 15:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to be uncivil, I would strongly contend that the Guardian's legal department are much more versed in privacy laws than you. Considering Simone Clarke subsequently gave an interview to the Mail On Sunday (confirmed here) confirming her party membership, I fail to see how your argument regarding privacy has any merit.  The reason it had not been re-added (yet, I hasten to add) is that myself and Emeraude were unaware you had removed it, given that as stated above you did not seek consensus before removing it or even perform the simple courtesy of a post on this page informing us you had done it.  There is no valid reason for its removal, so a discussion would be unncessarily time consuming and ultimately fruitless.


 * I would also like to correct your assertion that the lead has already been debated. Certain changes to the lead were discussed and what seemed to be a consensus was formed, then further subsequent changes were made without discussion or consensus.  I shall again repeat myself - there was no consensus for some of the changes.  They were never discussed here, and I was unaware of them.  The fact I had been editing the article is irrelevant.  The majority of my edits were reverting vandalism, and my other edit was the removal of a sentence.  As can be seen by this talk page, the majority of my focus has been on other sections of the article recently, not the lead. One Night In Hackney 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now you have a chance top discuss them. I think it is best that you are to clam down this is begining to fell like you think that my edit are unworthy of being on this page. It also feels like to me that you and emeraude are acting as a clique. To block any edits you seam to dislike. This surly cannot be a good thing (this is however just my opinion). The BNP Balerina as you put it Is not acceptable in my opinion and the Guardian Have broken the Data protection act by publishing the name of an individual without their permission as being the member of a political party, regardless of any subsequent interviews she may have given. The introduction you keep on going on about not having a concensous if you were that concerned about the lead and have viewed the page earlier, then why did you not spot them earlier. I mean it is the first thing you see on the page and i was not the only editor to make edits to that section marcus22 also made edits. You are still free to start a discussion on this and on the Balerina. --Lucy-marie 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Folks, take it easy! This section is so confused it's hard to be sure what the chuff is going on, or has gone on or might or might not have gone on.  There are at least two, if not more, distinct issues going on here:-

First the bit about the ballet dancer. L-M removed that. I, for one, was aware of her edit and I have/had no argument with it. So if she needs support to make that edit, I'm kind of in agreement. But - and it's a pertinent but - if consensus needs to be on a ratio of 3:2 before changes are made, then that section should be put back.

Second, that pertinent "but" brings me to the rest of what seems to be going on here. There was, it seemed, a 3:2 kind of consensus that sections needed rewriting so that we would talk less about immigration and more about other issues. So I made the changes to reflect that viewpoint. (Thus the new intro., which seemed to be accepted, is mine. As is the rewrite of the policies section). Now whilst my versions are certainly not set in stone and can be edited as and when, the 3:2 consensus view is that (or was that, or appeared that...) the article did need that re-balancing. That was why the changes were made.

Now if all that has gotten lost in the morass above, and it may well have done, then we can all see where the confusion and so on may have arisen. (And let's face it, it's easy to get confused and angry). So, how about I'll be the first to apologise to Hackney and L-M and others for getting embroiled in an argument because I've made what I believed to be consensus changes to the article.

Does any of that help or should I get my coat? Marcus22 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the more input we have the better the article will be and will stop one sided debates and one user being vilified by others. The section was debated hackney just because you didnt take part dosent mean you have the right to overrule the changes made as you are currently doing. This is why we have a discussion board to stop users being unconstructive and trying to weild a veto.Shall we discuss this now or do we need to all leave and come back as some children do not want to play ball.--Lucy-marie 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie please stop making totally untrue claims that are clearly in bad faith, and also stop making personal attacks. Please show me the discussion regarding the removal of the Ken Livingstone quote and the part that membership of the BNP is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians".  As far as I can see there wasn't any.  So your claim that is was debated is untrue.  Certain changes were debated and agreed upon, and I have re-instated those from my inadvertant incorrect revert as I stated I would do.  I also re-inserted information that was agreed upon by a discussion which I wasn't even involved in.  One Night In Hackney 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry chaps, this is ridiculous. One of you keeps removing a paragraph, I'm not sure who, and frankly it doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong with the paragraph, the news is topical, no reason has been put forward to leave it out. Hawker Typhoon 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the obvious way to solve the ballet dancer issue is to reduce it to one line noting that there was controversy. On the one hand, its just a single news story and not a massively important part of their history. On the other, the story has broken: it's not as if we're not breaking the privacy in paticular. However, if we were to include it as an example of the controversy that BNP membership causes - and express it as such - then I think it could be good. I don't think its a massive issue, though I do think if we're following the approach from before the text should have remained in until there's an agreal to remove it.
 * As for the intro - again, its not as if there was a consensus for change; not to say that it doesn't necessairily need changing. Actually, I've just looked at the diffs - to be honest with you, there seems to be bugger all difference between the two versions???  --Robdurbar 18:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's two substantial differences between the versions as I noted above, the removal of the Red Ken quote and the "Indigenous Caucasians" quote. As discussed much earlier, it's important to show that the opinion of the BNP is shared across the main political parties, so just including a quote from David Cameron doesn't really show that.


 * The privacy argument is a non-argument. Is Lucy-marie suggesting the Simone Clarke article have all BNP mentions removed, and be stripped down to a stub?  If that happened she'd be a non-notable ballerina. I think it's an excellent example of the controversy BNP membership causes, and should stay. One Night In Hackney 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally you have hit the nail on the head she isn't notable. You are having a go at me when Marcus 22 has said they were his edits to the intro. It seams you want to have a go at me.--Lucy-marie 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. She is notable, but not if you take away the BNP controversy.  What was Jean Charles de Menezes notable for?  Being shot by the police, otherwise he wasn't notable at all.  She is notable, because of the controversy.  If you don't believe me, nominate her article for deletion and watch the 'Keeps' fly in. One Night In Hackney 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me how she is ever going to turn up again in the media? Jean charles was notable for his death in public by armned police in broad daylight on public transport. He was also innocent unarmedand and there was a cover up. All the balerina has done is join a politacal party. she is hardly notble in comparison.--Lucy-marie 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the point. My original point was that if you take away the BNP controversy Simone Clarke is non-notable, if you take away being killed by the police Jean Charles de Menezes is equally non-notable.  I suggest reading WP:BIO to see the Wikipedia guidelines on notability for people, which confirm Simone Clarke is notable.  As for ongoing coverage, see, , ,  and .  That's just from one newspaper, I could easily find plenty more coverage. One Night In Hackney 18:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Those sources mean squat as they are from the same publication. You seam to have missed mny point she is not not notable as she is just a private individual who joined a political party. Also Can you find an article from this week about her and are you likly to find an article on her next week?--Lucy-marie 18:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall again repeat myself - That's just from one newspaper, I could easily find plenty more coverage. I do not need to find an article from this week about her, although I'm sure I could if I really wanted to. Notability is permanent, not temporary.  Can you find newspaper articles from this week about Adolf Hitler, Charles Dickens or Winston Churchill?  One Night In Hackney 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not permenant it is temporary it is just who and what the media want to report at the time. Ok lets go for someone who was not a world leader or the man who devised evolutionary theory. SHe is now way notable next month you will not know (proberbly) who she is if you walk down the street most people will not know who she is she is NOT notable.--Lucy-marie 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with the appropriate guidelines before making any further incorrect statements. Also you appear to be confusing Charles Dickens and Charles Darwin, please do me the courtesty of reading my replies. One Night In Hackney 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will ignore the above as it again implies i am an idiot . You are mis using those guidlines as permenant notability is someything or someone who you will remember easily or be easily able to find a large number of sources for over a prolonged period of time. She will not be able to full-fill either catagory.--Lucy-marie 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. Are you suggesting the online archives of various newspapers and the BBC will eventually be deleted?  Are you aware in some articles newspaper articles well over 50 years old are used as sources?  Are you not aware many libraries and newspapers themselves keep archives of previous editions?  Again, notability is permanent according to Wikipedia guidelines.  It would be helpful if you took some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability (and also civility and no personal attacks) rather than continuing to argue from an impossible position. One Night In Hackney 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I will again ignore part that are conderscending and portray me as an idiot. To make a newspaper 50 years ago you had to be previously famous eg royalty or a polatician or do something important. Not like we have to day oh a balletdancer joined a political party. no really a true comparison is it. Will you remember who she is in a years time (unlikley), but the profumo affair is more notale so that should stay and not this attack on a private citizxen by media outlets who dislike her brand of politics. So as you are the only person to restore this and no other contributor has contributed to suppot you i think the statement is redundant. You cannot control pages by being pety, by posting frivoulous warnings, deleting sign posted responses and instigating edits wars. One more thing my position is not impossible it is entirly valid i think you need to read the polices you advocate especially on not using wikipedia to make a point and retaing an NPOV--Lucy-marie 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you are still failing to ignore points that prove your stance to be indefensible. Your version of events is clearly incorrect and biased.  To take your claims one at a time:


 * I have not seen one media outlet who have made an attack on Simone Clarke, I suggest you back up that claim with direct links please.
 * I am not the only person to restore the section, a quick check of the page history proves that to be incorrect. It should be noted that you are the only person to remove the section.
 * You claim no other contributor supports my position, I strongly suggest reading the page before making statements that are 100% false.
 * I did not instigate an edit war. I restored a section that was removed without discussion or consensus.  You then instigated the edit war by again removing it.  Perhaps if you followed my lead and sought consensus for the substantial changes you wished to make, this situation could have been avoided.
 * You claim I deleted a "sign posted response", whatever that may be. I assume you are referring to the personal attack you posted on my talk page, which I am fully entitled to remove.
 * You claim I am not trying to be NPOV. A quick read of this talk page proves that to be incorrect, in particular the "Links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations" section.  If anyone is trying to impose bias on this article it is you, trying to remove any information which portrays the BNP negatively.  Perhaps you could also explain why you changed the BNP's political position from "Far right" to "Disputed"?  I assume you actually have a source for their position being disputed, or are you seeking to impose your personal viewpoint on the article?
 * If anyone is trying to control this page it is you. As soon as I reverted your change which had no consensus you tried to get the page protected. You claimed on WP:RFPP that "You will not talk to me so i need to do something to force you to the table this is the most productive way as you are happy that i cannot edit the page and i am am happy you cannot edit the page."  This is incorrect.  The current dispute has arisen because you did not discuss changes you wanted to make prior to making them.  The person responsible is you.


 * I strongly suggest you continue to stop making false statements, which are clearly in bad faith. One Night In Hackney 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The above coments are unconstructive and as such will be ignored by me as this is just a way of attacking me rather than getting on and debating the isuue at hand. You advocate reading wikipedia policy so now i will suggest you read the policy on civility.

The post on your talk page was a respone to you posting an unwatrented warning on my talk page (like a 6 year old would in my opinion so it was not a personal attack)

Page protection is there for a very good reason to to stop people like you who want only your revsion of the page to be the accepted bersion you were unwilling to discuss on here beofre portection was placed on the page.

I have never cliamed anyone was attacking Ms. Clarke It tyhink you need to read and word your statement more carefully before you start making claims that i have said this that or the other lets move on and debate the issue at hand.--Lucy-marie 03:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I read your reply and made a mistake they happen get over it.--Lucy-marie 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Making false statements in bad faith is not constructive, neither are your ongoing personal attacks. If you make personal attacks, I am fully justified in placing the appropriate warnings on your talk page.  You never claimed anyone was attacking Ms. Clarke?  Please can you clarify what you meant when you said "this attack on a private citizxen by media outlets who dislike her brand of politics"?  Your comment was clear and unambiguous, that cannot be disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Conflicts
Wow, ok. I just saw this on the request for protection and have no opinion on this, but to me it seems like the paragraph about the ballet should be left it. Seems like a valid and sourced paragraph to me. --AW 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes sourced by one newspaper who may have broken privacy law and pressure groups such as UAF which i dispise being given promenance here. The staement has to go as we are not remaining neutral we are basically saying it is wrong fo a private individual to join a political party it has to go.--Lucy-marie 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, we're saying that there was a controversy over the individual joining. It's notable because if someone joined the Labour Party - or even fringe parties such as the Greens or Socialist Labour - there wouldn't be a fuss over it. The fact that there was a fuss over being a member of the BNP is important.
 * And besides, plenty of other news agenices reported on the story after it broke. That doesn't make what the Guardian did right, but once a story is out, its out. Broadly speaking, ballet dancers are public figures - they're entertainers, like singers and actors. I'm not sure its worthy of a full paragaph - that smacks of recentism to me - but I'd be supportive of a line such as 'Membership of the BNP can often be controversial. For example, some (add source to indicate who) called for ballet dancer Simone Clarke to be sacked from her position at the English National Ballet when it was revealed she was a member'.
 * As for the UAF - seriously, its one sentence. It worries me that it shoul matter THAT MUCH. --Robdurbar 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me we have the required 3:2 anyway, so hopefully that will be the end of it. One Night In Hackney 13:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 3:2 is hardly overwhyelming concensous and dont count chicken before they hatch debate rather than antagonise.--Lucy-marie 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shall I join in:)?Fethroesforia 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do! --Robdurbar 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The passage should stay. Notable detail in The Guardian article which has passed being relevant only to that article. Philip Cross 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Count me in - that's now 5:2 at least (I'm not sure who the other one is to make it 2). a) Simone Clarke has been covered in just about every national paper, not just The Guardian. b) Contary to what Lucy-marie asserts, she has been in the papers this week (as I mentioned several miles above here). c) The Guardian is not in breach of the Data Protection Act (a ridiculous assertion if ever there was one) though one might argue (unsuccessfully) that they have infringed her privacy. d) Simone Clarke has spoken herself to sevral papers about this issue, telling them that her membership was "£25 well spent". e) Simone Clarke is notable (regardless of this contoversy, she is a leading ballerina).


 * Where did the whole 3/2, 5/2 thing come from? Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Robdurbar 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was Marcus22 that brought it up. I was just going with the flow, so to speak.  I've yet to see any convincing arguments for the removal of the section anyway, just misguided arguments about privacy and the Data Protection Act. One Night In Hackney 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, note to Lucy-marie: I object to being accused of being part of a clique. Emeraude 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were i said it felt like you were.--Lucy-marie 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, so you did. ("It also feels like to me that you and emeraude are acting as a clique.") So it must be your feelings I object to, not your accusations. Seeing as I had hardly taken part in the current debate before your 'clique' remark, and clearly have not worked hand-in-glove with Hackney, to state your 'feelings' as such is tantamount to an accusation of bad faith at least. I notice that you do not refute any of the points a) to e) I listed above. Emeraude 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I refute every single one of them and agree with the post below about this being a recentism and is just adding a recent media report on a private BNP member. I say the para. should be removed.--Lucy-marie 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cue Bill Bryson:
 * "The writer... like many other people, thought that refute simply means to deny or oppose an allegation. He was wrong... Refute means to show conclusively that an allegation was wrong."
 * One Night In Hackney 03:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this to the debate in question you are well aware of what I mean.--Lucy-marie 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the relevance of your reply? Emeraude made five points, and you have not addressed any of them. One Night In Hackney 03:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok i have had enough of this you are being petty move on or i will have to report this to an administrator to sort out, as you clearly do not want to partake in a debate you just want to demene me by using pointless quotes.

I have been refuting them throught the entire debate with previous comments. why re-state what i have allready.--Lucy-marie 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, and I agree with all the above, but I notcie that no-one has refuted that having a paragraph on the thing smack of recentism? I'm not saying remove it all, but we shouldn't go reporting every single BNP releated news story. Robdurbar 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a significant and notable event, not many stories about the BNP attract national attention the way this one did. I think it does need to be included in some capacity, and your suggested version above is fine by me. One Night In Hackney 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that when the media get hold of any stroy no matter how minor they will run with it because it is the BNP. So this should be removed as it is just reporting a recent event and not what the actual party is about. Also isn't this page is about the party and not individual members?--Lucy-marie 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange then that the BNP claims it gets no coverage in the press! Anyway, here's a quote from the Daily Mail: "But her story has wider implications. When one of the country's principal ballerinas, a 36-year-old woman who spent much of her recent working life as the Sugar Plum Fairy, decides to join the British neo-fascists, there is an argument that something has gone badly wrong with democratic British politics." (30 Dec 2006, see it here) This one paragraph from the Daily Mail aptly sums up why this is an important issue, and the rest of the article (from a paper that in the 1930s supported the British Union of Fascists) provides some excellent sources for criticism of the BNP from a right of centre perspective (e.g. "The BNP is certainly repellent"; "veneer of respectability might be paper-thin"; "racist organisation"; "manifesto of hatred"). Clarke speaks in this interview at great length about her support of BNP policies; she has put herself on the record. Emeraude 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok she may have gone on the record about her views about the BNP but the phrase about being sugar plum may be just an act, whihc may just be a result of Clarke being a good actress because when it comes to being a balerina there is a degree of acting involved. In my view it is the same as someone playing a German war criminal and then people being shocked that they are a communist. If it is deemed to be that essential then it belongs on the page regarding Clarke and not here on the page about the BNP itself. The page in my opinion should remain about the party and not become a page on members aswell.--Lucy-marie 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not even mentioning that she plays the Sugar Plum Fairy in the article, so I don't really understand the point you are making. Also if you check what links to Simone Clarke, the only other mainspace articles are English National Ballet and Yat-Sen Chang.  Without wishing to underestimate the popularity of ballet, I'd say that substantially more people have heard of her due to her BNP membership that when she was just a ballerina.  Her being part of the article is as a result of the Guardian article (a section which was tagged for expansion I hasten to add), and shows the wider implications of BNP membership. One Night In Hackney 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please get your facts staright. The policies section was tagged not the gardian section I know I added the tag. The refrence to sugar plum fairy was refering to a comment made by Emeraude. She is mianly know thright the BNP that is why it dosent belong as it is a recetism. Soon people will forget who she is and she will not be notable any more.--Lucy-marie 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering your catalogue of false statements made in bad faith, you are hardly in a position to pass judgement on what was an innocent mistake on my part. I saw an expand template on a diff when I was reviewing the history, and clearly I was mistaken when I thought it applied to that section.  Again, according to Wikipedia guidelines notability is permanent not temporary.  It would be beneficial if you attempted to base your arguments on policies and guidelines rather than your own personal feelings.  Policies and guidelines take priority over essays (which WP:RECENT is) and your personal feelings. Also you are attempting to use a reverse crystal ball argument.  How do you know that people will forget who she is?  Furthermore have you actually read WP:RECENT?  One relevant part is:


 * "Articles accused of recentism need not be deleted; they should be revised to become more balanced and timeless. The aim should not be to remove notable information about recent events (see deletionism and inclusionism), but to add information of the same detail to other events."


 * There can be no argument that the Simone Clarke situation is not a notable event, therefore it should not be removed. One Night In Hackney 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made no comments in bad faith. Well i also think you have been highly judgemental and critcal when refering to me especially with the use of the irrelevant quote regarding the word refute. I also do not advocate the complete removal of the stuff on Clarke I simply say it does not belong on this article. I say it belongs on the page about her, that is because this is a page on the pary and not on individual members. There can allways be an argument you just seam to dislike the arguent because it seam the you have a fear that you will not get your own way. I have lost a level of common respect I had to you as I though you were just another common editor that was commited to improving articles. Clearly i seam to be wrong. You want to label me as a bad faith editor while you yourself slap unwarented warnings on talk pages, refuse to participate in debates until pages are protected, oppose page protection even when an edit war is going on and you claim i make perosnal attacks on your talk page and then remove legitimate posts from your talk page. I think this is getting out of hand and the accusations need to stop flying. This also need some form of resolution. The comments made by all user need to be considered by a disinteresed thrid party who has so far not taken part in the discussion to decide what the concensous seams to be.--Lucy-marie 12:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains that you have not refuted any of the five points I made, nor even addressed them. Emeraude 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok not directly but throughout the discussion have adressed them. I have just not done it in one go straight after you made your comments. So i will now go through and do so. 1. Simone clarke may have been covered by some newspapers, but when will she ever be mentioned again for her membership of the BNP? 2. I say that even though she may have been in papers this week will she still be in newspapers for weeks to come? I doubt it. 3. The way the information was published in the newspaper was posisibly a breech of data protection as the journalist had access to secure databases containg names and addresses of individual party members. Revelaing just one of those names is a breech of the data protection act as Clarkes permission was not sought before publication by the journalist. 4. Simone Clarkes personal views are just that her personal views we should not be judgemental of her just on those grounds as she is not trying to convert people to joining the BNP, she is merly stating her personal views and expressing her freedom of speech. 5. I do not dispute Clarke is notable as a ballerina, I simply say that she should not be mentioned as notable in this article. This is becuse she is just one member, and not even a high profile member within the party organisation. She is merly a private individual who has joined a political party in this context. She has not tried to get the English National Ballet to endores the BNP or her views. So her membership would have remained private unless she went out campaigning or got elected or appointed to a position within the party which was directly involved in the running of the party. --Lucy-marie 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2 are reverse crystal ball arguments. If in a years time she's forgotten you may have a case for removal, but not so soon after the event. And yet again, notability is permanent not temporary.  Wikipedia guidelines specifically state this, your arguments have no foundation.
 * The only place that has claimed that the DPA was breached was on Nick Griffin's blog, is there something you aren't sharing with us? Furthermore it is clear from the original Guardian article that the journalist had direct contact with Simone Clarke therefore there is no proof the information came only from a "secure" database.  Also her subsequent press interview negates any privacy concerns.
 * We are not being judgemental. The facts of a notable story are being reported fairly and accurately.
 * Again, the privacy argument is a non-argument due to her subsequent press interview.


 * As for your claim that you have made no statements in bad faith, I refer you to the above Introductory Paragraph section.  I notice you stopped replying after I posted that you had stated "his attack on a private citizxen by media outlets who dislike her brand of politics", even though you claimed you had said nothing of the sort. One Night In Hackney 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not a bad faith statement that is merly an observation of what the media in the uk is like. the privacy argument is still an argument that i am making ist therfore cannot be a be a non-argument you should try and be more constructive with your points. I give full detail you seam not to put why her media interviews make the original privacy breech void. The notablity you keep on refering to says "generally premenant" and not just "permenant". I have never before read Nick Griffins blog and find the accusation offensive and the wording of the statement conderscending."is there something you aren't sharing with us?" is cearly a probing bad faith attack statement. Simple reading of the data protection act would lead to that conclusion. Regardles of how much contact someone has with someone It still does not give that person the right to publish private information about the person, that is a breech of privacy laws. I also disagree that it is being reported fairly, as a previous editor has said it should just be one line if anything on the membership, such as BNP membership is controversial for examle ballerina simone clarke had call for her to be fired when it was revealed she was a member. not the current situation. My view is that the current paprgrapgh should go and either be replaced with nothing or a single line somewhere else in the article about membership controversy, without the current wording being anywhere near as much on clarke as it is now. The page is also about the party and not individual members. I think we should keep it that way or we may just as well publish a list of all BNP members on this page.--Lucy-marie 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not refutations I'm afraid, but more unsustainable assertions. 1.)  She was mentioned for her membership of the BNP in The Guardian, and other papers, last week. 2.)  See 1. 3.) If the journalist had access to secure databases (and only you say they were) they weren't secure.  The Data Protection Act does not apply in this case, it puts a duty on the owners of the database to protect it (i.e. the BNP).  There is, as far as I know, no suggestion that Clarke's name was acquired from a database. As someone else noted, the paper's lawyers will have ensured that they are in the clear.  4.) She IS trying to convert people to joining the BNP.  Read her Daily Mail inteview and see what she says! Since when can we not be judgemental of people's personal views???  We do it all the time!!! But not in Wikipedia, where no one has suggested making judgements on her personal views, just recording in an article that she holds them (fact!), is a member of the BNP (fact!) and was revealed as such by The Guardian (fact!).  5.)  Quote: "Finally you have hit the nail on the head she isn't notable".  You said it, so you DID dispute it before.  She ceased to be, as you put it "a private individual who has joined a political party in this context" when she gave a major interview to the Daily Mail on why she joined the party!! Emeraude 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating a restrciion of thought when I said judgemental I was refering to the article and not persnoal thought. I am entitled to reform my opinion over time while considering the comments bieng made. You have a point she is a public figure (in the ballet world), but not within the party itself, she is a private member of the party and not a public figure of the party. An example of a public party figure would be Mark Collett or Nick Griffin. So my veiws on the matter have changed slightly but I still think the paragraph should go from this page and be on her page only.--Lucy-marie 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add my thoughts on this matter. I have been reading the pros and cons of this arguement and I feel that the discussions are getting too complex and too involved. I don't believe that the discussion of Data Protections Act and so on add anything to this argument. The simple point that needs to be addressed is "does the entry about Simone Clarke warrant inclusion in the BNP entry"? We should refer to the Five pillars of Wikipedia to determine the validity of this entry. The first point in the five pillars is that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia - not a place to hold trivia. I feel that this entry (as far as the BNP entry is concerned) is trivia. Simone Clarke is not a leader, fund raiser, campaigner of the BNP, nor does she have any involvement in how the BNP is organized. This is a controversy about Simon Clarke not the BNP. As such, she is of little importance to this entry. She is however a notable member and there is a certainly a place for this section in Wikipedia.


 * So - how do we resolve the importance of Simone Clarkes membership of the BNP with the encyclopedic requirement for the BNP entry. I feel that the best method of doing this is to include a section in the BNP of notable members along with their profession. These should link to individual biographies where inclusion of these controversies can meet the criteria for inclusion. In summary, I would agree with Lucy-marie that the entry should be removed but on the proviso that a link is included to Simone Clarkes biography under a notable members/notable supporters section or something similar. Munta 10:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A very intelligent comment and a good suggestion. --Robdurbar 11:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from there, but I still prefer Robdurbar's earlier suggestion, which was - 'Membership of the BNP can often be controversial. For example, some (add source to indicate who) called for ballet dancer Simone Clarke to be sacked from her position at the English National Ballet when it was revealed she was a member'. It's not trivia, as it's directly following on from the Guardian's infiltration story (and in the same section).  I feel that one sentence provides adequate weight for the event, and provides a necessary wikilink for someone to go to the Simone Clarke page to get a more in-depth version of the story.  My concern of simply putting her in a "Notable members" section is that it will probably just be a name in a list (of one at present) with no context as to why she is notable.  In the "Links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations" we aren't just providing a list of wikilinked names, we are at least providing some context as to why the people/organiisations are notable and I think if a "Notable members" section is created it should be similar.  So at present if there's only going to be one person in the section, it would be better left in the appropriate section. One Night In Hackney 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On balance, I'm with One Night In Hackney on this. As written at present, there is sufficient context within the section to sustain this.  Emeraude 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the Notable members the Guardian also mentions the following "The BNP already has significant numbers of members living in those areas. They include Peter Bradbury, a leading proponent of complementary medicine who has links to Prince Charles, Richard Highton, a healthcare regulator, and Simone Clarke, principal dancer with the English National Ballet." Do these people also warant an entry in this section? Three people would be sufficient for a notable members/suppoters section. I would argue that these people should also be listed and that would require holding in a new section Munta 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume we're judging notability by Wikipedia standards? At present neither of the other two named has an article, so I don't see much benefit in listing them.  If we're going to have a notable members section, it should really only include people that have Wikipedia articles. One Night In Hackney 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the whole point of Wikipedia is that it isn't (yet - or ever) the definitive reference to information. People will continue to add new information. Infact, by the criteria that you gave, Simone Clarke wasn't "notable" until January 5th 2007 when her entry was created. I would assume that her entry was created by Bondego due to the fact that she was reported as a BNP member by the Guardian in December 2006. Infact, the second edit on her biography added the Guardian claim just 1 hour after the page was first created. Her notability is therefore directly related to the fact that she is a BNP member. We should therefore either remove her entry (as un-notable) or we should add the other two people as notable members and let someone create Biography pages of those people. Munta 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood me. My point was that the section should only include people who have Wikipedia articles, this is a standard applied across many pages such as "Notable people from here" in many articles about towns and cities.  Anybody is welcome to create an article about either of the two mentioned people, but I doubt there is sufficient source material to create such articles.  One Night In Hackney 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simone Clarke was notable before her Wikipedia article was created - she is principal dancer with a major ballet company! The fact that she had no article here before the Guardian story is more a reflection on the type of people who edit Wikipedia - not enough ballet lovers - than her notability. It is nothing to do with her BNP membership or the Guardian. I've no doubt it was the news story that led to creation of her page, but that's irrelevant; she deserved a page anyway.  Personally, I don't see the point of a section on notable members (name and shame?).  If they've done something to deserve a mention in the article editorially, fine - mention them there in context. (And I think that does apply to the people we're discussing.) Emeraude 17:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must agree regarding the notability of Simone Clarke. Emeraude makes very good points which I support. On the talk page, Talk:Simone Clarke, Lucy-marie questions this notability based upon the argument that she didn't "have a page befroe the BNP article was released". I'd suggest this is irrelevant, I'm sure there are thousands of persons who would deserve an article as per the notability guidelines who don't have an article about them. Adambro 17:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that being irrelevant, It just seamed to be a knee-jerk reaction to create a page for her, due to this controversy. So what are we going to do, I support the creation of a notable members section at the end and the controversy bit can then be move entirely to Clarkes page.--Lucy-marie 19:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of pages created in response to current events. However, the subject is notable so this shouldn't matter. This controversy served to highlight a notable subject omitted from Wikipedia. To clarify my opinion regarding what should be included, I think it is appropriate for the paragraph starting "In the aftermath of the Guardian’s report" to be in this article. It helps the reader to understand the strong feelings about the BNP. However, I'm not sure about a notable members section, what form would this take? I think I agree with Emeraude's view. Adambro 19:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afarid i have to disagree i have to agree with Munta as this seams to be a middle gorund proposal, where the information remains on wikipediua with a link to it on this page satisfying some people and the text is removed for the actual BNP article satisfying other people. This seams the best way to resolve the issue so lets take it.--Lucy-marie 20:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I've explained at length as to why a bare name on a list isn't appropriate, as have other editors. The middle ground between the current version of the page and your original desired outcome (complete removal) is not a wikilinked name on a list. One Night In Hackney 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this seems to be the best proposal so far as to resolving this conflict, as you seam to disagree why not come up with your own compromise situation.--Lucy-marie 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You "seam" (sic) to have not read the discussion, I have already posted a compromise. One Night In Hackney 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The best solution does not have to be a compromise; indeed compromises often provide the worst solution because NO ONE is satisfied. It seems to me that no one is now proposing absolute deletion of Clarke from this article. (Lucy-marie, I apologise in advance if I am misunderstanding your current position; please say so if I am.) So the question now is how to include this issue.  My view is unchanged; the present wording is editorially sound, it acurately describes the controversies (there are two: the nature of the BNP revealed by the Guardian article and the Guardian article itself), it is all sourced, the arguments over 'notabilty' seem to me resolved.  I propose leaving things as they are.  Emeraude 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hackney I am afraid i cannot locate your compromise could you please re-state your compromise. Emeraude you are correct i no longer advocate the complete removal of clarke from the article, but I do advocate the complete removal of the clarke para as per what was said by Munta, but i do not advocate its complete removal from wikipedia. I think the statment does have a place but just not in the context it is currently in. This is an article about the party and should remain so. When we start going in to the grassroots party membership, the article is no longer just about the party. I do agree with a notable Members section as this would provide a clear link to people who have wikipedia pages and are memebers, this list would include clarke annd the other two members mentioned by Hackney. If it is deemed 100% essential that clarkes membership be spelt out in trhe article (which I strongly disagree with) then it should be one line on membership controversy using Clarke as an exmaple linking to her page. Her page would then explain the controversy and that would be a more relevant place.--Lucy-marie 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the events surrounding Clarke occupy two sentences. The second is her stating her position. This seems adequate to me (OK, it's not one line as you suggested). So why not leave it at that? The only thing wrong is that gives undue emphasis to UAF - criticism came from many quarters including the Daily Mail and other papers, not just UAF, and no mention is made of the question of whether ENB should employ a member of a racist organisation when, as a recipient of considerable public funds, it is required to promote multiculturalism. (This last point belongs elsewhere though, but indicates why it is important that Clarke stays here.) Emeraude 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Emeraude 21:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) Well in an ideal world I'd like to keep the article as it is at present. However in an attempt to bridge this vast impasse I'd be willing to go with Robdurbar's earlier suggestion, which was - 'Membership of the BNP can often be controversial. For example, some (add source to indicate who) called for ballet dancer Simone Clarke to be sacked from her position at the English National Ballet when it was revealed she was a member'. That is fully inkeeping with your comment of "then it should be one line on membership controversy using Clarke as an exmaple linking to her page". At present I don't think there's much point having a notable members section, as Simone Clarke would be the only entry. As I said earlier we don't have Wikipedia articles for the two other people mentioned in the Guardian article, and I doubt we will have any time soon based on the lack of source material. A notable members section should be restricted to people who have Wikipedia articles, and given there would only be one entry the sentence regarding Simone Clarke would be better left in the Guardian section which it directly relates to. One Night In Hackney 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Emeraude. I don't think we need to find a compromise. I think the paragraph about Clarke is relevant and appropriate. As an aside, could I ask that Lucy-marie doesn't edit her comments after other editors have made replies based upon them. But I would also suggest that it was inappropriate for One Night In Hackney to mock the error. Adambro 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So what are we going to do with this section? I strongly dislike the current revsion of the para and we seem to be building a middle ground concensous on the one line version so whiuch are we going to go with?--Lucy-marie 22:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that much of a problem with the two sentence version. The second sentence is giving her right of reply after all. One Night In Hackney 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've previously suggested, I don't see a problem with the current revision, but what exactly is it that you strongly dislike about that paragraph? Adambro 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. I'm still not happy about this inclusion in the way it stands. Clarke is not a key member of the BNP and therefore has as much relivance to the BNP entry as any Labour or Conservitive party member has in those Wiki entries. However since there has been no movement on this section, I feel my time is best spent on other Wiki entries. - At least for now Munta 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I strongly dislike is that this paragraph highlits a member of the BNP who is not an "active" member. By that i mean someone who is directly involved in the running or campaigning for the party. I think that the controvorsy surrounding clarke's membership is nothing to do with the BNP but is a matter for Clarke, as such i think it should be on the appropriate page Clarkes not the BNPs'. I also have a dislike for UAF here I have said before I don't think they have a place anywhere in this article except in an opposition section. Furthermore I feel the Guardian section is devalued by this as well, as it kind of moves focus away from the article and towards Clarke's membership. Those are my dislikes with the section.--Lucy-marie 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware that anyone other than Lucy-marie has suggested or supported a "one line version" so how can there be "middle ground concensous" on that? I did suggest the two sentences we have are right and should stay, and this has been supported.  Lucy-marie is writing about what she dislikes, but this should not be the criterion we use.  I like the way it is now, but that's no criterion to use either. We know that Lucy-marie doesn't like the UAF in this section, and from past posts she doesn't seem to like the UAF full-stop. Again, not a criterion to use - the UAF includes leading mainstream politicians and its statements on this issue are therefore valid (though as I intimated above, I would prefer to see a quote from a leading politician if one could be found). Emeraude 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (On a personal note, I'm away for a few days - I hate to think what I'll see here when I get back! Have fun. Emeraude 09:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Two sentences one sentence its a figure of speech. Also i have ahave a dislike in the article surrly i'm entitled to expres why i dislike it. Also i gave some valid points UAF are a pressure group. So what if they contain polaticians many pressure groups do contain mainstream polaticians or are supported by mainstream polaticians. Also what is a "mainstream" polatician? The most major point I think I have raised is that the inclusion of this may lead to the page becoming more about the membership than the party . I dont care how much detail this is gone into on Clarkes page, because it is all about Clarke and little to do with the BNP. If Clarke was an "active" member as defined above then I could understand an inclusion about her, but she is not so why put it in the BNP page and not just in Clarke's page.--Lucy-marie 09:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about Clarke seems to be a sensible part of that section. The paragraph above it discusses how membership has "expanded beyond the party's traditional range". I think it is perfectly reasonable to illustrate this with the example of Clarke, as well as including the UAF reaction to this. By doing this we are not, as you have previously suggested, "saying it is wrong fo a private individual to join a political party", we are just including facts that there might be a certain stigma attached to membership of the party. Clarke doesn't need to be an active member for the UAF to object so why should she have to be an active member for us to mention this? I think in doing so is remaining neutral. Adambro 10:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree i'm afraid as i do not view it as a natural following on . I view this as the over emphasisng one individuals membership of the party which belongs on her talk page and as i have said before i do not hink that a prssure group should be given prominance. If clarke was secrelty working or recruiting donors or loans to the BNP then fine include it there. She wasn;t though all she did was join the party. The bit about expanding beyond its "traditional base " is covered without specific naming of individuals which is the wayi think it should remain. I think naming names is pointless. I do however believe itbelongs on CLarkes page and not here.--Lucy-marie 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps what is not clear from the section, is that Clarke "was revealed to be a member of the party by the Guardian newspaper last month" . I think this shows a clear link between the controversy over Clarke and the Guardian which I'd say justifies it being in that section. However, it might be worth rewording the Clarke paragraph slightly to indicate the link better. This is about the outcome from the Guardian's work, not about "over emphasisng one individuals membership". To discuss some of the fallout requires us to mention Clarke (name names). Her importance (or lack of) within the party is not an issue. I don't see any reason why we should avoid mentioning opposition groups as you seem to be suggesting. The BNP sits in a wider context, part of which is opposition to the party. The article by the BBC cleary indicates this situation, if this wasn't of signifiance, the BBC wouldn't have picked up on it. We can't discuss the BNP in isolation. Adambro 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a section for opposition and its called opposition to the BNP that is what i oppose about the UAF statement, It Is in the wrong place. If this was in the opposition to the BNP section I wouldn't care but its not it is near the begining of the article and opposition should be limited to the opposition section. I advocate leaving the first para. only in the Guardian section and if necessary moving the second to the opposition section or to Clarkes page only not where it is at the moment.--Lucy-marie 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To put the Clarke paragraph anywhere else but in the Guardian section would leave it out of context. It makes sense for it to be where it is. I don't see the reasoning behind your view that anything that may slightly oppose the BNP must be in that section. It is a direct reaction to the actions of the Guardian newspaper. Adambro 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am going to disagree with you again and you are going to disagree with me again. We are just going to go round in circles. Shall we try and find a third way?--Lucy-marie 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that would be an appropriate use of anyones time. Regardless of how long this war of attrition is perptuated, I cannot see any outcome that results in consensus to remove the Simone Clarke information from the Guardian section. One Night In Hackney 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I cannot see a concencous for keeping it either and there was no original concensous for its addition.--Lucy-marie 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to the comments of AW, Robdurbar, Philip Cross, Emeraude, Adambro and HawkerTyphoon before falsely claiming there is no consensus for its inclusion. One Night In Hackney 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

May I please say that wikipedia is not a democracy and can i refer you To allow those poeple to speak for themsleves beofer lumping them together and i will not be again drawn int ot another match of pettyness with you.--Lucy-marie 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those people have spoken for themselves. You chose to disregard their comments to further your agenda.  One Night In Hackney 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look you are at it again you cannot stand me for some reason and have to make personal attacks about me having an "agenda". The only "agenda" I have is improving the quality of wikipedia articles.--Lucy-marie 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Kindly refrain from making baseless claims about me making personal attacks. Your agenda is clearly the removal of the Simone Clarke paragraph, which is what I was referring to.  Thus far you have failed to address any of the claims brought forth in support of the retention of the paragraph, instead you have resorted to evading points, repeatedly falling back to your original position and lots of arm waving and "I don't want it there".  Such actions are not helpful, and the amount of time wasted due to your stubbornness has prevented editors from improving the quality of this and other Wikipedia articles. One Night In Hackney 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My claims of personal attacks are not baseless. In one edit summary you claimed my edits were "lies lies and propaganda" you have also just cliamed i have an "agenda" which is another personal attack. Also your quoting me saying I dont want it there i have nnever said that, if you read my proposal i have two option one it stays in a reduced version and the other it is soley on Clarkes page. As for me being stubborn i have simply stuck to my position. That is hardly being stubborn. Being stubborn would be insisting it wasn't in the article and then removing it from the article. I have not proceeded to remove it from the article I am still willing to debate a way forewards. You however seem more content on attacking me with claims of "agendas",. Im sure I could find more ways you have been uncostructive towards me aswell. so do you want to debate with someone who is of a diffrent viewpoint or are just going to attack them? also you did not let the original editor Adambro to resopond to the comments i made you responded for them, that cannot be constructive either.--Lucy-marie 11:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To take your comments one at a time;
 * "In one edit summary you claimed my edits were "lies lies and propaganda" Incorrect.  I was referring to the vast amount of 100% false comments you have posted on this talk page.
 * "you have also just cliamed i have an "agenda" which is another personal attack" Incorrect.  This has already been fully explained, repeated the same incorrect allegation is inappropriate.
 * "As for me being stubborn i have simply stuck to my position. That is hardly being stubborn" Do you actually know what stubborn means?
 * "You however seem more content on attacking me with claims of "agendas"" Incorrect.  I have stated you have one agenda, as documented above.
 * "so do you want to debate with someone who is of a diffrent viewpoint or are just going to attack them?" I have frequently debated, yet you do not.  As stated above, you have resorted to evading points, repeatedly falling back to your original position and lots of arm waving and "I don't want it there"
 * "also you did not let the original editor Adambro to resopond to the comments i made you responded for them, that cannot be constructive either" So I'm not allowed to reply until after Adambro does?
 * Now how about you reply to my last post in the Intro section? One Night In Hackney 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you are unaware what constitutes apersonal attack a personal arttack is derogatory comment towar an editor rather than commenting about content claiming the claims of multiple agends is a typo and you damn well know it. The mere claim of an agenda is a personall attack. now you are claiming all of my comments are "100% false" another personal attack you have made . You are adding the personal attacks here. Look do not antagonise me or expect me to capitulate under you assumed attacks i have good mind to report you for these attakcs.--Lucy-marie 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:KETTLE and also WP:TE and WP:NPOV. I never claimed all your comments were 100% false, that is clearly another false statement made in bad faith.  Also how about replying to my post in the Intro section below?  One Night In Hackney 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll let someone else decide that.--Lucy-marie 02:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) Sadly it is impossible for me to distinguish between what may be a legitimate typo (agendas) and something you typed deliberately. Perhaps if you took more time over your typing it would be helpful to everyone. Saying a statement is "100% false" is specifically commentating on content, as it clearly relates to the statement. If I had for example called an editor a liar that would constitute a personal attack, but any comment regarding a statement is clearly content related. One Night In Hackney 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we have left the air to clear for few days can we now resolve this issue. I am afraid i still have to disagree with the currnt wording and inclusion of the paragrah as it is. I am still willing to compromise here. I think that if all else fail we should go for the shortened version and leave the more in depth stuf for Clarkes own page.--Lucy-marie 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies to Lucy-marie who it appears was waiting for a repsonse from me. I was hoping she would suggest a 'third way'. I took some time out to consider the issues but I've also been away for a few days. I hope the time we have all had to think about this has been useful. I'd be interested to hear Lucy-marie's suggestion as to the wording of any shortened version of the paragraph, along with her justification for the wording as opposed to the current wording. A number of editors support the current paragraph, so I would suggest the onus is on Lucy-marie to provide a good reasoning as to why they should consider anything different to be acceptable. If this helpful reasoning is not forthcoming, I would consider the conclusion of this discussion to be reached in favour of keeping the paragraph as is. To simply say as has been previously that she disagrees is not very helpful. There seems to be a common theme of Lucy-marie opposing any mention of the UAF but I think this is something she must learn to accept is required in a neutral article on the subject of the BNP.Adambro 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is in my opinion far too in-depth about Clarke, for this page. This is because she is a single member who is not an "active" memebr of the party ("active" as defined above). I think the current wording should be along these lines. The article raisd the issue of controversy over membership of the BNP such as ballerina Simone Clarke. Then the rest of the stuff on Clarke and the whole controversy can be discussed on her page where it would be more apropriate as the issue relates directly to Clarke and not directly to the BNP. Also i do not agree that UAF are essential to the neurality of the article as they are a pressure group, who will always be slanted against the BNP in some way. In my opinion a neutral source is something like channel four or the indipendant or BBC Radio not a pressure group. This is due to these sources not having a bias one way or the other. The line saying the UAF "dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party" is a slant against the BNP, so they are not a neutral source. They are a source but not a neutral one.--Lucy-marie 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that the UAF were a neutral source, I recognise this is clearly not the case. What I was saying was that a neutral BNP article must include details of the criticism the party has come under. I don't see how the line you have quoted is a slant against the BNP, merely it is highlighting some of the significant controversy surrounding the party; that an organisation exists whose main aim is to fight against the BNP. There probably isn't such a thing as a 100% neutral source, but our task is to work towards a NPOV on Wikipedia.
 * I think the current wording is clear and to the point. Her status within the party, I don't see as being important but I recognise she wouldn't be seen as an 'active' member. I don't think your suggested wording would be adequate enough to illustrate the point of the paragraph. That being the impact of the Guardian article and the strong feelings about membership of the BNP. Adambro 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally think that if we keep the current wording we are losing the main point of this page it is about the party and not individual members. If Clarke was secretly an "active" member then by all means dedicate a whole section to her but this is not the case. I also think that the para. reads a bit too much like a tabloid newspaper and i think it is pandering to the lowest denominator rather than being a profesional account. This is why i think we should have just a single line and not the current wording.--Lucy-marie 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As we have left this section alone and no more voices of opposition have been made against reducing the section to one sentence for seven days now. I shall assume that is now the agreed version. I shall give seven more days before making the necessary changes.--Lucy-marie 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, practically everyone else agreees that a two sentence version is preferable, and they shouldn't have to repeat themself ad infinitum for that to remain the case. Please show where all the "voices of support" are for the one sentence version? One Night In Hackney 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been reviewing this dispute for a while as a neutral third party. I have to agree with One Night in Hackneys assertion that the 2 sentence version seems to be the preffered version. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with One Night In Hackney as well as the analysis of the debate by Chris. I can't see any development of this discussion that justifies the edit you are proposing. I also don't see how your last response on the 14th should have prompted us to continue repeating our opposition which you seem to suggest from your latest comments. But as it is, I shall address them now. Once again, I don't see your argument that the Clarke section isn't relevant to the page about the party and I also don't see how the paragraph is 'like a tabloid newspaper'. Admittedly, I don't read tabloid very often but I don't see any problem with the language used. Maybe you could suggest exactly what the problem is? Thanks. Adambro 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One sentence two sentences i am refering to a shorter re-worded version not the current version. As I have said before the section is about the individual rather than the party. This is not what the page is about, the page is about the party not individuals. Clarkes own page is about her not this page.--Lucy-marie 20:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the section was more party orentated rather than person orentated, then i think it would reflect the problems associated wih membership and membership controversy. Currently it is mainly about the individual rather than the party membership issues.--Lucy-marie 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, we are not talking about a section which in Wikipedia terms is the whole of The Guardians infiltration'. We are only discussing one part of the section, to be precise, the final two sentences. Apart from Lucy-marie, I can't remember anyone else suggesting that every reference to Clarke should go, or that what is there now should be shorter. I do remember saying myself that it should stay as it is. Others have said today that it should stay as it is, on the grounds (to paraphrase) that everyone has already said it should stay as it is. This includes people who did not take part in the earlier discussion. So what is there to discuss? Leave it. Emeraude 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

i am not saying all the clarke refrences should go i simply say clarke should be used as a refrence and he main conclduing para of the guardian section should be about membership and its controversies. This is because a i have said before that is more relevant to this article as the article is about the party as a whole and not individuals who are party members. The stuff on party members is best left for pages concerning the members themslef such as clarkes page.--Lucy-marie 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, I think most of us understand that is how you feel in regard to the content of party members vs. the party itself. However, from what I have read, and gathered in looking through a long history of diffs related to the article and reading this talk page, you are apparently one of the only people with this concern.  That would show that the consensus is to include the content on the party members and not omit it, to be included in each members article.  As I stated, re-stating how you believe it should be done is not going to change peoples minds, especially because they know how you want it and appear to disagree.  If I am wrong with this, please let me know. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to discuss any proposed new version, if one is actually proposed. But I'm not going to carry on this discussion if Lucy-marie does not actually propose a new version.  I don't believe that to be unreasonable.  If Lucy-marie is unhappy with the current version, then the onus should be on her to propose a new one. One Night In Hackney 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I would also not be adverse to that. Lucy, how do you think it should be?  Write it out on your sub page then copy it here in quotes.  Let other editors critique it, and reach compromise on what should and should not be included.  In the process of this, remeber, have an open mind, be willing to give here and there and above all, remain WP:COOL and Wp:CIVIL.  Good luck! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok a new version of the para. should read something along these lines: The article highlghted many issues surrounding the BNP, such as how controversial membership of the BNP is by non-traditional figures such as ballerina Simone Clarke

I prefer this version as it still mentions Clarke and allows people if they wany to find out more to visit Clarkes page. This wording also brings focus back on to the party membership and focus away from party members.--Lucy-marie 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie wrote: "i am not saying all the clarke refrences should go" in response to my note above. Rather disingenuous that. It may be true now, but it doesn't answer what I wrote anyway (which, to repeat, is that no one else has suggested removal entirely or shortening). To put the record staright, Lucy-marie certainly did believe that any mention of Clarke should be removed from the BNP article, as these quotes show:
 * "The BNP Balerina as you put it Is not acceptable in my opinion...." 17:26, 2 February 2007
 * "..this should be removed.." 02:56, 4 February 2007
 * "If it is deemed to be that essential then it belongs on the page regarding Clarke and not here.." 17:08, 4 February 2007
 * "She is mianly know thright the BNP that is why it dosent belong..." 02:42, 5 February 2007
 * "I also do not advocate the complete removal of the stuff on Clarke I simply say it does not belong on this article." 5 February 2007

And, of course, all reference to Clarke was deleted on 22 January by... Lucy-marie. Emeraude 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with where the debate is currently at? This also does not seem to be a comment on the topic more a comment on the user.--Lucy-marie 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a comment on something the user wrote which is not in line with the facts. Besides, "where the debate is currently at" is that everyone is in agreement apart from you.Emeraude

So what does this have to do with where the debate currently is?--Lucy-marie 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

??????? Emeraude 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The debate has moved on passed the previous discussion angle to discuss the issue from another angle.--Lucy-marie 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that this discussion just stops. I don't imagine we're going to be able to get anywhere. The consensus is to keep the Clarke as is. This just seems to be heading towards more accusations of personal attacks which must be fashionable as it seems have been going on for a while. All of this is just wasting our time and ultimately is not good for Wikipedia. I'm afraid that Lucy-marie must probably accept the consensus and move on. Ultimately, it is not a major point. This is occupying far too much time that could be spent making much more worthwhile contributions. Adambro 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made a sugestion that was asked of me to make by other users, so I only think it is fair that the users that asked me to make the suggestion get a chance to comment on my suggestion.--Lucy-marie 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the proposed new version, I don't feel it's acceptable. It provides no context as to why BNP membership is controversial, and does not include any events that followed the Guardian's initial article.  It is true the bulk of the information is in Simone Clarke's page, but this page should also include an adequate summary of events as well. One Night In Hackney 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so how about having another paragraph on why it is deemed to be controversial somwhere in the introduction for example. I also agree that a summary on Clarkes page would be useful. I think that the context as to why Clares individual membership is controversial should be left on her page. I think if you want some context then it should be why BNP membership is controversial in general.--Lucy-marie 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraphs make it quite clear why the BNP and membership of the BNP are controversial with vocabulary such as "far-right", "racist", "fascist", "marginalised", "criticised", as well as the general tone. The sentences on Simone Clarke as well as the rest of the Guardian section make it clear why her membership and membership of people like her is controversial, so I don't think another paragraph is needed anywhere. The existing wording does this adequately enough. Emeraude 11:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so another paragraph may not be required I was simply making suggestions. The paragarph being about Clarkes membership should be on Clarkes page, that is the main reason I have a dislike for the current wording. The page in my opinion should remian about the party and not about indivduals. That is why we have a sepearte Nick Giffin page. I have made a suggestion of what the wording in my view should be more like. I think it works better as it removes emphasis from individual membership and re-focuses on membership controversy as a whole. By all means go into as much depth as you like on Clarkes page about her memebership but that is where it should be not here. This page should be about the party generally, individual pages on members are where member specific issues belong.--Lucy-marie 11:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As Lucy-marie is now carrying on the same discussion as before, I now consider this matter to be closed and shall take no further part in this discussion. One Night In Hackney 11:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok . I was simply stating my reasoning behind why i disliked the current version and will wait on the comments from -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) before making any decision on the outcome of this discussion, as he was the other user who asked to comment on a propsed new version.

As an aside, can i ask what your opposiotion is to having greater in depth coverage on the individuals page and keeping the main page about the generality?--Lucy-marie 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't get the impression that Chris was going to take part in this discussion beyond pointing it in the right direction, but I may be wrong of course. I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea of a summary of the Clarke episode on this page with more details on her page. The debate seems to be about what we think is an appropriate summary of the episode. Adambro 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected?
Why? I see it pointless. Vandalism can be removed easier than it can be added,so it isnt that bad. Any edits against consensus may not be against wikipedia 'rules' (i think) but we can trust each other to do that? I think the protection is just plain silly personally.Fethroesforia 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The protection is to stop the users who were reverting each other. Its not protection that's silly, its reverting - it never gets you anywhere.
 * On a related note though, if there are any non-controversial changes (spelling, grammar etc.) that are needed on the page, I could use my magic admin powers and do them if they're suggested on the talk page. --Robdurbar 00:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I havent been keeping as up to date as usual on this page. So i didnt know about a revert war. Well, that pretty much explains it:)Fethroesforia 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Embedded HTML vs. Footnotes
We seem to have a rather unhealthy mix of both in the article at present. When the article is unprotected I'm planning to make it consistent, so which system would people prefer? One Night In Hackney 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnotes. Though I adore and user HTML a lot, I dont think it has a place on wikipedia. But,neither paticularly bothers me. Fethroesforia 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A difficult one, this. When I'm reading a book, I always prefer footnotes on the page rather than at the end of a chapter or at the back of the book, so that I can see at a glance what the note is or what the reference is. I suppose this is best achieved in Wikipedia's long articles with embedded html; hover the mouse over it and read the source, click if you want to follow up, or don't. However, the blue marks do break the flow in the way that simple small numbers don't and it is easy enough to click to the bottom of the article and click straight back. Emeraude 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for footnotes. It gives the reader more information about the links. On a slightly different topic, I would suggest that the link in the external links section "Official BNP Forum", should be removed as per the guidelines which suggests that links to sites requiring registration should be avoided. Adambro 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I was about to bring up the external links myself, as we could probably do with removing the entire section. The official BNP site is already linked in the infobox, so it's not needed again.  The internet TV is simply a sub-page of the BNP site, so again not needed.  If we're removing the BNP forum as well that only leaves external links that are in opposition to the BNP, so it's kind of an undue weight problem if we leave those there.


 * As an alternative to footnotes we could use the slightly less intrusive embedded HTML, like this . My only concern with footnotes is that we've presently got approximately 140 links, a mixture of footnotes and embedded HTML.  I've no problem with changing them all, just that even taking into account a slight reduction due to duplicate links the reference section will become quite large even if we use two colums. One Night In Hackney 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to have two columns? I thought that was only supported in Mozilla browsers. Emeraude 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work in the old version of IE, I've just tried. Not sure if it works on the new version either as I've not upgraded. One Night In Hackney 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem to work in IE7. Can't see any reason for remove the CSS to do two columns though so I guess it might as well stay. Adambro 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So....about the removal of the entire external links section then? One Night In Hackney 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh yes. I've removed the BNP forum which I think is clearly against guidelines; it's not of use to the majority of Wikipedia readers. I left the other links though because it would be quite drastic so felt it should be discussed a bit more. I guess the BNP TV link can also go for the reason you stated before. Maybe we should only include the BNP website in external links. I would think there are enough internal links to opposition groups in the article itself, and the article is about the BNP after all. Adambro 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We can removed the main BNP link from there as well, as it's already in the infoxbox though? One Night In Hackney 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'd prefer if the official site remained in the external links section. In that respect, I see the info box as a summary of the article with some additions, not a replacement of any of the content. Adambro

Intro
Thge intro seems to have been reverted By WGee. WGee Seems obsessed with the current version and cliams that it was concensous. There was however two discussions on this earlierm, the second instigated the Simone clarke incident and the first was on about the UAF and de-empahsising the Immigration policy of the BNP. There also seems to have been information lost in this revsion such as the stuff on the policies such as national service and women staying at home. I do not want to instigate another edit war but would rather WGee came to the discussion first and read all the discussions as it may be imbedded in other discussions on the Intorduction. I dislike the current version and the version it was reverted to while the Page protection was up i also dislike. I like the version that was there before the whole incident of revert wars was instigated. WGee also cliamed that during the discussion period when edits were being made that white-washing was occuring and did not participate to back up these claims. I think that the page should once agian be protected to sort out the introduction as a blanket revert has taken place and a reversion will instigate another edit war.--Lucy-marie 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not get the page protected again. There's plenty of improvements to the article I'm wanting to make, and another week long wait isn't going to be helpful. One Night In Hackney 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I was merly stating the consequences of anouther edit war and the current version of the intro is an old concensous version not the current concensous.--Lucy-marie 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, lets not have the article protected again, it gets us nowhere. If people disagree with the current revision, much better to leave it be and discuss it as opposed to becoming involved in revert wars to get it back to what individuals consider correct. Adambro 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie, do not say that I "seem obsessed" with the current version; comment on the content, not the contributor. Also, do not assume that I am not keeping abreast of recent discussions, because I am. I restored the previous version of the introduction&mdash;the one that prevailed before your arrival to the satisfaction of everyone&mdash;because it includes a core component of the BNP's race-based policy that the other versions omitted, namely the party's intention "to [restore] (. . .) the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." Moreover, if we are to mention certain of the party's policies outside of the fields of immigration and ethnic relations, there must be some objective criteria for deciding which policies should be mentioned ahead of others. In an encyclopedia, one cannot give prominence to certain information without establishing why it is exceptional&mdash;something you failed to do. For example, why did you choose to highlight its policies on law and order and national service rather than its  anti-Islamic stance, its producerist economic policies, its proposals to suppress liberal art and social movements, its plan to "dismantle the repressive state," or the ideology that is driving all of these policies (i.e., radical right populism, producerism, neo-fascism)?  In any case, one of the purposes of the lead section is to establish why the subject is notable, and the BNP is notable primarily because of its racist policies, not because of its policies on free trade, Euorpean integration, or corporal and capital punishment&mdash;policies that few people highly consider when voting for the party.


 * Regarding your proposal to have the article protected: one cannot request protection simply out of retaliation, just because one's edits are reverted. Currently, there is no edit war that is beyond timely resolution; in fact, there is a consensus to refrain from edit warring, and the who chooses to violate that consensus can be easily singled out and blocked for disruptive editing or for violating WP:POINT. Any reversion by you would be particularly disruptive because you have never attempted to justify your favoured version, nor have you constructively criticized my/the consensual version: you have merely said, "I like this one, I dislike that one" without reason. One Night In Hackney has also noted your tendency to rely on proof by assertion, and  both Emeraude and One Night In Hackney have remarked on your habitual evasion of criticisms of your edits. -- WGee 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason i highlughted those points is because they are written in thier manifesto there is nothing that specificly states "anti-Islamic" policies in the manifesto itself.--Lucy-marie 14:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand and have never disputed that those policies are written in the BNP's manifesto, but my point was that many others are as well. Hence I specifically asked you why you chose to elevate some particular policies above others, but again you have evaded my question. Moreover, as a prerequisite to editing this article, I have read several of the party's annual programmes, and the BNP's hatred of Islam is certainly obvious in both the text and images of the manifestos. The party need not explicitly admit that it is anti-Islam, for it is the job of political scientists to categorize the beliefs and policies of political parties into movements and ideologies.  That is why the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, for example, is not hailed as Russia's only advocate of liberal democracy, but rather condemned as a hub of Stalinist nostalgia. Anyway, the BNP's anti-Islamic stance was but an example, and unfortunately you chose to concentrate on it rather than address my main point. -- WGee 14:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didnt write them in alone i also didnt suggest them I merly suggested that immigration policy be de-emphasised another editor Marcus 22 was the one who chose the policies. I just agreed as it gave more poliices than just the immigration policy. Also i regret that you feel i evaded your question it wasn't intentional, but please i cannot be expected to pick out all the points and know exactly what your cenral plank is if there is more than one question being raised. Also i feel that i have answeed the questions you raised.--Lucy-marie 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to "de-emphasize" the BNP's immigration policy, because, as I have already explained, that is what makes the party notable in the eyes of the media and the public. Thus, we should actually be emphasizing it, and the current version does that. -- WGee 14:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "i cannot be expected to pick out all the points and know exactly what your cenral plank is if there is more than one question being raised." But you are expected to do that. A competent editor must to be able to do that. A competent editor must be able to demonstrate at least a basic ability to think critically. -- WGee 15:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * when i said de-emphasis i meant to stop them from sounding like a single issue party which is what the introdustion was (in my opinion) sounding like. That is hardly unreasonable. I was not advocating the complete removal of all of the immigration stuff i was just trying to give a more rounded view of wat the party stood for. A personal aside what does think "critically" actually mean I have heard it used but never heard it explined without the explaination levaing more questions than answers. So could you please enlighten me on this then.--Lucy-marie 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure reading the article critical thinking will be of use. Adambro 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of the introduction and Lucy-marie's evasion of criticism of her edits, this seems particularly relevant.

An anon editor changed the ideology from ethnic nationalism to White nationalism with an edit summary stating "White Nationalism is more accurate because the party is against immigrants of a visible minority. The party membership is restricted to Caucasians not only to brits". Lucy-marie immediately reverts it back with an edit summary stating "please discuss your edit this may be considered orignal research". It should be noted it is not the first time Lucy-marie has reverted this change either. However Lucy-marie is not averse to making unsourced changes without discussion in a different direction. For example she changed the BNP's position from Far right to Exact position disputed with absolutely no edit summary or discussion. When the edit in question was reverted Lucy-marie again reinserted the text with the (somewhat confusing) edit summary of "here we go again we are trying to be constructive but WGee strikes again we are not white washing we are trying to de emphasise immigration". Perhaps Lucy-marie could explain why any edits that might portray the BNP in a more negative light are reverted with an edit summary claiming original research, yet she is willing to make similar edits without discussion or sources to try and portray the BNP in a more positive light? I did bring this up earlier but I never got an answer, hopefully this time my query can be addressed please?

Also worth mentioning is this edit. VoluntarySlave had added a source for the list of UAF supporters, yet Lucy-marie mysteriously removes the source with an edit summary of "UAF are a pressure group". Is there any reason for the removal of the source in question please? One Night In Hackney 06:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You hit the nail right on the head, One Night in Hackney. And now, Lucy-Marie can no longer suggest that to assert that the British National Party espouses white nationalism is original research. Also, I added "radical right-wing populism" to the ideology section of the infobox, as per several reputable, peer-reviewed scholarly journals.  For those who are inclined to dismiss "radical" as nothing more than an epithet, I would ask that they recognize the sense in which these academics use the term.  It is not used as a perjorative, but rather to denote that the BNP reprobates the political order of the UK, proposes drastic reform of the state, and that its values and beliefs contradict Western political paradigms. -- WGee 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would agree with the terms "White Nationalism" I also recognise that is my POV. I can find no reference to the BNP in those citations and therefore I do not believe that these links support the views of you and I. At the very least, if the BNP is mentioned in the body text then that fact that the articles must be purchased does not make it a reliable source for wikipedia. Munta 00:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't reviewed the articles, and if they are subscription only then I will assume good faith on the part of WGee that they provide an adequate citation. That they must be purchased does not make them an unreliable source.  Such sites are to be avoided as external links, but they are perfectly reliable sources.  Books are perfectly valid sources, and may require someone to purchase a copy if they are unable to find a copy in a library but they are still reliable sources.  Use of subscription only articles is not prohibited under WP:CITE. One Night In Hackney 00:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps WGee can post an excerpt to satisfy this cynic :) Munta 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't right now because I'm not at the library anymore :-) In the meantime, however, maybe you could search Google Scholar and find the relevant statement in the preview pane? You could probably just input the title of the article and the phrase "white nationalism," both in quotation marks. -- WGee 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was implied in my above post, but, just to clarify, anyone can go to a library and access the article for free through the library's subscription service (though I understand that some libraries do not subscribe to certain services, that's neither here nor there). In any case, as One Night in Hackney noted, there is no requirement that sources be freely available on the Internet&mdash;a reliable source is a reliable source. All the editor has to do is give the reader the information necessary to locate the source; it is then the reader's responsiblity to find the source if he or she wants to verify something, which should not be too difficult given the panoply of information that is provided. Moreover, in situations like this, Munta, you should assume good faith, especially since I have not given you reason to doubt my intentions. -- WGee 02:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank for your comment - no offence meant. I don't doubt your intentions just that my cynicism gets the better of me sometimes. Munta 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:EQ, I would like answers to my still unanswered questions please Lucy-marie. One Night In Hackney 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the BNP are very strongly anti-immigrant is both i: precisely why they appeal to the voters they appeal to and ii: overstated in the introduction and other sections of this article. If the intro is supposed to reflect a balanced account of what the BNP are - and it should - it needs to stress more than just their anti-immigration policies. Similarily if the intro is supposed to intimate just how daft and rather horrible the BNP are - and it should - it needs to stress more than just their anti-immigration policies. WGee in particular I'd like to hear your view on this. Marcus22 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it is impossible to mention all of the BNP's policies in the lead section, we should only mention those that are most notable per news reports and scholarly articles, namely the BNP's policies on race and immigration. All others are far behind in terms of notablity, and there are no objective criteria to decide which of those far less notable policies should and should not be mentioned. Hence we should not mention them at all.


 * The BNP, like most extreme-right political parties, is basically a single-issue party: it campaigns almost solely on its racial separatist policies, speaking little about its policies on economics, international affairs, or national security. Of course, we know that the BNP has a fairly comprehensive manifesto, but that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that the BNP exists only because of its anti-immigration policies, just like the Bloc Québécois&mdash;despite also having a comprehensive manifesto&mdash;exists only because of its advocacy of the soveriegnty of Québec. Thus, it would not be inappropriate for the lead to give readers the impression that the BNP is a single-issue party, because it essentially is.


 * The lead section is missing something much more important than a comprehensive list of the BNP's policies, however. According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The lead section currently explains why the subject is interesting or notable (because of its racist immigration policies), it describes its notable controversies (it is utterly condemned by mainstream political parties and anti-fascist/anti-racist groups), but it does not establish context&mdash;historical context, that is. Thus, we should write one paragraph about the BNP's origins, because in order to properly understand the present, one must first understand the past (cliché, but true). -- WGee 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to feel like Jeremy Paxman.......per WP:EQ, I would like answers to my still unanswered questions please Lucy-marie. One Night In Hackney 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WGee, thankyou for your well argued comments. But as I'm sure you will understand, the conclusions you draw do not follow unless you accept the premises you use. And I do not accept those premises. (For example, I disagree that the BNP is a single issue party, and so, for me, a good deal of your argument falls down). Straying off tack a little it is my own belief that it is a dangerous and time-honoured error on the part of the political Left to focus on the racial issues of such parties as the BNP and to ignore their equally poisonous ideas in other spheres. Their racism attracts the naive and it always will. But some of those foolish enough to be swayed on race are turned back at the thought of, for example, compulsory National Service or the idea of their neighbour having an armalite in their house.

However, all that aside, what we are looking for here is not agreement per se - nor an endless debate between people who see things in a fundamentally differing manner - but a compromise position which satisfies the concerned parties. There is no need for us, any of us, to agree. We just have to be flexible enough to allow for others to have their views aired.

So how to proceed?

Well I want to see the previous intro re-instated and you do not. As neither of us want to, nor is there any point in doing it, get into an edit war, how shall we proceed from here? I want to see reference in the intro to some other policies as do/did one or two other editors. You can just say OK to that and reinstate the para which made such reference and we have an agreement... In turn, even though I find it unwieldy and rather poorly done, I shall leave intact the para with the quotes from Ken as well as Cameron. Then we have only one bit to debate; the equally unwieldy paragraph about the BNP's... Compromise agreed? Marcus22 12:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

brief editorial slip whilst i find it... er... that's this one:-

According to its constitution[7], the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." The party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." Accordingly, the BNP advocates the use of "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK.[8] Membership to the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians."[9]

Let's please get rid of one of the two bits in speechmarks? I cannot see, nor can others at my end who have looked at it, what the two pieces add that just one does not. regards Marcus22 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there are four bits in speechmarks, so can you first clarify which you want to remove please? I disagree about the single issue notability, but I could be persuaded if you can find a large amount of media/scholarly coverage of their other policies.  The lead should be about what makes the subject notable.  Case in point, Ted Bundy.  Yes it's probably a poor comparison, but you should hopefully be able to see my broader point.


 * Ted is first and foremost (and largely only) notable for being a serial killer. The lead doesn't include him working on a Republican Party campaign or working as a volunteer at a suicide crisis centre, but this is covered in the article.


 * The overwhelming majority of press coverage regarding the BNP is in regard to its immigration policies, or alleged criminal activities committed by its members. As above, if you can find coverage to show otherwise please do so.  Therefore the lead should focus on what the party is notable for.  If the other policies are notable, then there is a case for including them.  One Night In Hackney 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ted Bundy case supports your statement. And I do not disagree with you that the introduction to any article should cover the salient points. My view however, and it's hardly a unique or radical one, is that the policies of a Political party are salient points.  I think it would be stretching the semantics of this debate to dispute that.

Well, otherwise, I think we all know where we stand. Can we now please discuss my proposed compromise - or one you may care to offer? Marcus22 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding this paragraph: "According to its constitution[7], the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." The party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948." Accordingly, the BNP advocates the use of "firm but voluntary incentives" to remove ethnic minorities from the UK.[8] Membership to the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians."[9]" The first statement describes the BNP's central ideal (white supermacy), the second sentence reveals what that ideal entails (the ending of non-white immigration and the reactionary restoration of the status quo ante), and the third sentence explains how that ideal will be put into practice (through a system of "firm but voluntary incentives"). The last sentence describes the explicit racism within the party, which is striking considering that most European radical right parties would never adopt such explicitly racist practices. Basically, this paragraph sums up what the BNP is all about, and I do not know why there is so much focus on trimming it. We need to set priorities, and our first priority should be to insert a paragraph about the BNP's history, not to quabble over one extra sentence.


 * As One Night In Hackney said, if certain of the BNP's non–immigration-related policies are noted by the media or by reputable scholars, we could possibly include them. We cannot, however, just randomly choose a few non-notable policies with no criteria for inclusion just to "offset" the BNP's race-centrism. (Furthermore, that the BNP is a single-issue party was a conclusion, not a premise.)


 * The last paragraph can possibly be re-worded if it bothers you that much :-). -- WGee 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "My view however, and it's hardly a unique or radical one, is that the policies of a Political party are salient points." But notablity must be measured relatively. So we must ask ourselves: Are the BNP's economic policies, etc. notable compared to its policies on race on immigration? Media reports&mdash;the only standard by which we can at least somewhat objectively measure notability&mdash;indicate that the answer is "no." -- WGee 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your comments WGee but I really feel we are not going to get any further by debating this. The fact remains that intro as it stands is not the intro that I or one or two other editors wish to see; there is an overemphasis on immigration, it is rather poorly written in certain respects and overburdended with quotations.  Conversely I do appreciate that the intro that we would perhaps be happy with is not the intro that you and one or two other editors wish to see.  Thus we need a compromise.  I have proposed one - to insert a paragraph on other policies and to remove one of the two long quotes from the aforementioned paragraph.  I think this is reasonable.  If you do not, then please propose a compromise of your own.  Marcus22 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WGee in answer to your question are the BNP's policies on the economy or national service notable compared to their immigration policy, the answer has to be yes. This is because the BNP are not a single issue party suh as the SNP or Mebyon Kernow are. They are intrested soley in breakaway states and little else. The BNP are commited to other policies such as reintroducing compulsory national service and the death penalty. The only diffrence betwen these policies and the immigartion policies is the amount of media coverage that they recieve. immigration in the brtitsh media seems to be focused on strict undefined "boundries" and the last conservative policy was seen to push that boundry. The BNP policiy is deemed to fall way outside of these undefined "boundries" and as such are reported madly and wildly by the media. So as far as the BNP are concerned all policies are equally weighted it is just the media which weights the policies diffrently. So all of the policies are notable it is just how much weighting the media gives each policy.--Lucy-marie 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:EQ, I would like answers to my still unanswered questions please Lucy-marie. One Night In Hackney 16:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I go away for less than a week and we don't seem to be much further in coming to decisions, though there does seem to be a more rational debate going on. WGee, you have made some excellent points which I can hardly fault; basically the Introduction section does exactly what an introduction is meant to do in Wikipedia, though I think there is room for one improvement which I will come to shortly. First, a few observations: (1) The BNP is clearly a racist party and is known as such; (2) its supporters support it for this (and most couldn't care less about the other policies); (3) despite what Lucy-marie says above, the SNP is not a single issue party; (4) and also despite what Lucy-marie says, the BNP does not weight all policies equally and even if it did, (5) see (2).

The introduction does not anywhere mention that the BNP is a neo-fascist group. I know this is mentioned elsewhere in the article and this information is available in other parts of Wikipedia, but it really is important in my view to have this stated in the Introduction. (Or, if will keep some people happy, that it is "accused of being neo-fascist"). Why do I think this is important? Well, the history of fascist groups in Britain since 1945 has followed a pattern that the BNP is inheritor of; openly parading as Nazis gets you nowhere, appealing to bigoted racism may be preferable. The National Front had this worked out; so did the National Party and other groups. The BNP is the direct descendant of this tradition. Opposition to the BNP from the left is largely based in recognition of their fascism, not their racism (I'm not implying that the left do not oppose racism; rather that they see the racism as part of the BNP's fascism.) In all the debate, some of us seem to have overlooked what UAF stands for. The Sun and the Daily Mail (neither paper noted for its anti-racist campaigning) oppose the BNP. Why? Because it is fascist. So how about leaving the Intro as it is (quotes included, after all, they are from the BNP so no one can say they're the result of bias) but adding in that as well they are (accused of being) fascist. Later sections of the article expand on this as with other parts fo the Intro.

Sorry if I've rambled - jet lag. Will try to be more coherent tomorrow. Emeraude 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. Though I have to say, what you said about "(and most couldn't care less about the other policies)" did slightly annoy me. Im pretty sure people who read this page know im a bnp supporter, and I know many others, yet I am NOT in any way racist, and neither or others I know. is this basically accusing the bnp of being a single issue party? I admit MANY bnp supporters are fat, uneducated, racist bigots..but not most. Rather overgeneralising that. Anyway welcome back and i support whoevers idea it was that i read above to KEEP THE PAGE AS IT IS for the moment.Nothing on the page needs adding/removing/modifying in any way that deserves to be done so without thorough consensus. Fethroesforia 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies Fethroesforia - didn't mean to annoy anyone. My point was really echoing what WGee and others (myself included some time back) have said about the BNP's support - perhaps I should have said voters rather than supporters??? No, leave it as it is and count yourself as an unusual supporter (i.e. not a "fat, uneducated, racist bigot"). I still say you're misguided supporting the BNP, though. Emeraude 00:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, your probably right.Though it never has been a case of me choosing the bnp,more a process of elimination (disgruntled with labour, i hate d.cameron with every bone in my body, the lib dems have some anti-rich thing going on, greens are very focused on one thing, snp dont appeal to me, ukip are too flimsy and soft..etc). Well, illtake the unusual supporter bit as a compliment:) (well..compared to the riff raff that usually support the bnp..alas id never go to a meeting thing...) To your comment below..i guess so..though researching chemistry is making me tired..(boring)..im off to sleep.Welcome back again:) Fethroesforia 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Thus we need a compromise. I have proposed one - to insert a paragraph on other policies and to remove one of the two long quotes from the aforementioned paragraph.  I think this is reasonable.  If you do not, then please propose a compromise of your own." Your compromise is not totally reasonable, and I have already explained why. For one, "We cannot (...) just randomly choose a few non-notable policies with no criteria for inclusion just to "offset" the BNP's race-centrism." In other words, there must be some objective criteria for deteriming which policies are to be mentioned instead of others, lest the lead section will reflect the personal perceptions and biases of the editors. Moreover, I have already explained that all the quotations are necessary because they complement each other; could someone please respond to this?


 * Unfortunately, Marcus, I cannot propose a suitable compromise right now, but I will certainly support your inserting some of the BNP's non-racial policies if you can demonstrate that they have gained notoriety. -- WGee 01:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi WGee, just to have my say. Whilst the bnp has many valid policies which are not linked to race, the immigration stance is what has made the bnp "sucessful" (successful for an extreme party i guess). Theyve played on peoples underlying feelings and tension (the oldham riots and just general unrest throughout). So, however much some bnp supporters may lay claim otherwise, it would be un-wikpedia-able to dilute the fact that the bnp's stance on immigration and proposed policies. We know the green party have environmental policies which attract most attention to the party, alas the bnp has immigration policies which attract most attention to the policy. bascially, keep 'BNP's race-cetrism' as it is and leave the whole paragraph alone. Ive said before, if anything needs doing, its the race centrism needs highlighting MORE.Fethroesforia 11:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WGee, Hackney et al.: So, according to your arguments because the source for the second policy (below) is not 'widespread coverage in the Media' the following would be unacceptable: "The Flag Waving Party are famous for Waving Flags [See CNN, BBC, The Times] and they also have policies, for example, on What Colour Flags they would like to see waved on Mondays [See The Flag Waving Party manifesto]". Well I'm sorry to disappoint but that is NOT wiki policy. The source just has to be a reliable source. And the party manifesto is a reliable source.

You also insist that the inclusion of a policy has to have some objective criteria. Wrong again. Note the phrase "For example". That phrase covers the need for the objective criteria. It is an example.

Then, and somewhat bizarrely, you appear to think that the following is OK: "The Flag Waving Party are famous for Waving Flags [See CNN, BBC, The Times] and they have very harsh policies on Waving Flags [See Reuters, SKY] and other people are unhappy that they want to Wave Flags [See Hansard] and some have even said that they are totally against Waving Flags [See AntiWavingFlags League]". What utter balderdash! Assuming I already know that the Flag Waving Party have such a policy - it is, after all, what they are famous for - then that intro. provides nothing to make me want to read further into the article. It is not informative. It does not lead. It does not teach. It does none of the things an encyclopedia should do.

Finally, all along, we have the (rather spurious) insistence that i: "Compromise must be reached before edits are made". Well OK. I've tried to reach a compromise. And, in true politico fashion I have encountered little but ii: a dogged persistence to make nitpicking and interminable sophistic arguments in order to avoid reaching such a compromise!

Well, as I have no desire to enter into a revert war, and as neither of you have any desire to allow any other editor to make edits to this article - which you both clearly feel you own - then I shall simply leave it as it is. And, in the future, when you have released your grasp on it, I shall then return and make the edits to this article that it needs and, I should point out again, that other editors also want to see. Sorry for getting annoyed - I respect both of you as editors when I look at your work elsewhere - but your pettyfogging on this article is tiresome and, to be blunt, irritating in the extreme. Marcus22 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: It has been brought to my attention that the change I have made will probably be construed as the start of an edit war. It is not.  It is what it says; an example of a more balanced, well rounded, less strident, rather simpler and more approachable intro.  If reverted, I will not immediately revert back.  As mentioned above, for the forseeable future - until sense and Wiki norms prevail - I shall be leaving this article well alone. Marcus22 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Emeraude, One Night in Hackney, Fethroesforia ("Ive said before, if anything needs doing, its the race centrism needs highlighting MORE") and I are all in favour of retaining this version, while only two other editors support reinstating Lucy-Marie's version. So One Night in Hackney and I are not asserting ownership over the article, but are simply undoing changes that have been made without a consensus&mdash;changes which two thirds of the involved editors currently oppose. Disregarding that, I have allowed the paragraph on non-notable policies to remain. In return, however, I ask that you explain why you chose to mention those particular policies instead of others. -- WGee 02:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to calm down 3 of 5 is not overwhelming 2 of 5 is hardly a tiny minority. I think we need to have a fuller debate with more editors here. The current numbers are split pretty much down the middle as you cannot have half an editor. So I think this is dangerously close to becoming another conflict talk. I think we all, yes all five of us need to go away for a few days and come back when this has been thought over more and we have allowed more editors to participate. At the moment we are just beating dead horses with the same arguments getting nowhere. So can we all agree to give this a rest for a few days?--Lucy-marie 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Why should we? The fact is that Lucy-marie has still to put forward any realistic and meaningful argument; she has not countered the well-argued points of other editors despite having them repeatedly and clearly put to her; a BNP supporter no less (who has previously supported her on other issues) says that the article is OK as it stands; other editors have argued from reason and with a degree of specialist knowledge. There is nothing more to think over; Lucy-marie has lost the debate and needs to accept this. It's not a question of numbers - it's about the arguments brought to the issue. Sorry to be so brutal, but this has gone on long enough and the only dead horse beater I can see is Lucy-marie. Emeraude 16:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above statement proves why we need a breakfrom this it seems to have worked previously. look i have not been partaking activly in this discussion recently and was making a sensible suggestion to allow some editor calm down and some to read the arguments(me). I was not suggesting any arguments as I havn't read the arguments yet. so can we please take a break for a little bit?--Lucy-marie 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I've been away for the best part of a week so I have had a break. What do I find now? That you (Lucy-marie) have failed to answer questions put to you (repeatedly) by other editors and have constantly tried to raise personal issues instead of addressing a spurious issue that you, yourself, raised in the first place. I do not see that anyone other than Lucy-marie needs to "calm down", but I do accept that she may need to "read the arguments". If you haven't read them yet, as you say above, then you should not be taking part in the discussion, even though you started it. If anything, my statement and your repsonse to it prove why should back down. Emeraude 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now it seems what ever i say is construed as a personal attack. i was merly stating that a period of time to reflect would be a good thing and im not saying that we all ned to calm down in an offencive manner. Could you also please provide evidence to your claim that i am an evasive editor to anyone other than hackney.--Lucy-marie 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start you evaded my questions last week. You now seem to admit that you evaded Hackney's which is progress. But please read what I wrote. (1) I did not say that whetever you say "is construed as a personal attack". I said that YOU "have constantly tried to raise personal issues instead of addressing a spurious issue": check it out - just a few lines above here. (2) Nowhere did I state or even suggest that you had done anything in an "offencive manner", though other editors may disagree. Again, read what I wrote, not what you feel. And I notice that you have, once more, not addressed any of the points raised, this time by me, against you. I know what you said. I read your contribution carefully. The nub of it is, as you have repeated, that you suggest "that a period of time to reflect would be a good thing". Now have the courtesy to read my comments just as carefully and explain to me why I need time to reflect - as I sated, I have been away for nearly a week - reflecting!! And it might be a good idea to answer Hackney's question - you have had time to reflect. Emeraude 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have note quoted you on those things so those are my opinion and not what you said and feel you have miss represented what i have said. I even use the word seems in the first sentence. The offencive manner that is just the way i interpreted your comments. one final thing one should i respnd to an editor who seems more intent on personally attacknig me, please not i did report the personal attacks and asked hackney to provide evidence of his cliams of my persnonal attacks and these were never produced. Also i have just as much right to edit any page i want and not have another editor say i cannot edit because "they clearly lack knowledge".--Lucy-marie 22:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask and you shall receive, one totally uncalled for personal attack. While you're here, how about answering those questions as well? One Night In Hackney 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh apparently it's not a personal attack because it's an opinion. Believe me if I started expressing my opinions I'd be heading straight for banned camp..... One Night In Hackney 22:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that strongly then my original suggestion of a cooling off period is warrented.--Lucy-marie 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, we'll edit the article without you. One Night In Hackney 23:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then now other editors are aware that you go ahead and make edits witout concensous or even trying to engage in with users properly. I think for once you should give it a break and i have to agree with another editor. It seems impossible to have an opposing view point here as you seem you have taken ownership of this article.--Lucy-marie 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have no grounds for saying that at all. A retraction and an apology are clearly in order. Emeraude 23:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No grounds to say what? How can i retrcat part of a statmenty if you do not state what you want retracted.--Lucy-marie 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The operative word was "we'll", not "I'll", if you choose to take a break from this article that is at your discretion. The world will not stop turning to accomodate you, it will carry on regardless.  You still haven't answered my questions about your edits against consensus either...  One Night In Hackney 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating WE or I is irelivant as you are clearly refering to yourself in the WE. So i stand by my statement and will not apologise as i feel as if bullying is going on here.--Lucy-marie 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) Sadly not, your claims fall short. It can be seen by my many lengthy contributions to this page that I seek consensus for any controversial changes I wish to make, and perform the courtesy of listing any non-controversial changes I have made on this page for everyone to see, my actions are fully open to question. On the other hand you perform contoversial edits without discussion or consensus, and refuse to answer any questions about them. If you carry on this pattern of disruptive behaviour I will present the large amount of evidence I have obtained to concerned third parties. One Night In Hackney 23:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * you have just cliamed you will ignore an editor by stating "we will edit the article without you" that is not trying to seek a concensous. The edits you cliam are controversial are the bits which i think you have taken some form of ownership of. (this is my opinion not an attack)--Lucy-marie 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're permitted to edit the article without your input, if you choose to take a break. You are choosing to take a break, we are not going to sit around twiddling our thumbs during that time, we will improve the article. If anyone is claiming ownership it is you, stating that we are not permitted to edit the article for a few days because you don't want us to.  The most controversial edit was the removal of the Simone Clarke section, and the history of the page clearly shows I had never edited that section before you removed it.  Likewise the infobox has to the best of my knowledge never been edited by me, and I know for a fact I never edited it before you changed the BNP's position from 'Far Right' to 'Exact position disputed', something which you still haven't explained.  So now I've mentioned it again, could you please explain why you made that change please? One Night In Hackney 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have never stated any where that you must stop all edits to the article. I have merly stated that a cooling off period over the topic would be a good thing. I dont really care about other section of the article at the moment. The clarke section in my opinion that was not controversial at the time. It only became controversial when you re-inserted that section. The section had been removed for a good ten days at least before you re-inserted it. Well do you have hard evidence that they are far right or it It going to remain unsourced with no definition of far right is given. Until a concrete definition of far right appears then they could be any position as it is undefined. When responding please do not give what you think far right is give actual hard evidence. You seemed very happy to source the cliams of white nationalism, so why not source this as well, after providing a definition. After all you have claimed that you have extensive knowledge of politics.--Lucy-marie 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I have hard evidence they are far right? Yes, it can be sourced in about 10 seconds.  However that isn't the point.  If you think something needs sourcing you ask for a source, you don't change it to something else completely that's still unsourced.  You're still completely ducking the questions, so I shall repeat them.


 * Perhaps you could explain why any edits that might portray the BNP in a more negative light are reverted with an edit summary claiming original research, yet you are willing to make similar edits without discussion or sources to try and portray the BNP in a more positive light?


 * Also please explain this edit . VoluntarySlave had added a source for the list of UAF supporters, yet you mysteriously removed the source with an edit summary of "UAF are a pressure group".  Is there any reason for the removal of the source in question please? One Night In Hackney 10:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for the BNP being seen as 'far right'? Well, here's a few references for a start.


 * Daily Telegraph, 13 Feb 2007: "far-Right party"


 * Daily Mail: 12 Jul 2005 "The far-right British National Party" (also described them as 'Sick' in headline)


 * Daily Mail: 13 Feb 2007: "far-Right BNP"


 * The Guardian: "far right party"


 * The Observer: 23 Apr 2006 "far right"

How about something from a scholarly journal?


 * DAVID RENTON ‘A day to make history?‘ The 2004 elections and the British National Party in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005, which throughout refers to the BNP (and others) as "far right".

In addition, check the books listed in the Bibliography.

Not to mention the Wikipedia article Far right. These took me 5 minutes to find. Anyone can do it. Can anyone find a reference for the BNP having "exact position disputed"!? Emeraude 11:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and apparently my adding the Simone Clarke was section was "controversial". I added the section because Lucy-marie had removed it without discussion, it is clear which one was controversial and it wasn't my edit.  As I have said before, the world will not stop turning to accomodate Lucy-marie.  We will continue to discuss and edit with or without you, you are in no positiion to demand otherwise.  One Night In Hackney 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Far right? This might be interesting as well. A quick trawl through parliamentary debates turned up these quotes from across the parliamentary spectrum:


 * Baroness Scotland of Asthal: "..no matter how offensive we find the far-right statements of the BNP and others..." (Debate on the Terrorism Bill, 7 Dec 2005)


 * Greg Mulholland: "..far-right groups such as the BNP.." (Orders of the Day — Terrorism Bill 26 Oct 2005)


 * Lord Greaves: in asking about the BNP's electoral success in Halifax: "..that fascist party.."
 * Lord Clarke of Hampstead: "..neo-fascist parties.." (both from House of Lords debates - British National Party 28 Jan 2003)


 * Lord Ahmed: "..extremist far right groups such as the BNP and the National Front .." (Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 27 Nov 2001) Emeraude 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone...
Quickly highlight whats gone on recently on the page? Ive been awol recently (conditional offers from my university choices so ive been working harder than usual)I see a rather long...discussion/debate has occured oversomething I cant quite pick out at first glance. Many thanks:), ps-welcome back emeraude Fethroesforia 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, mate - you've got a lot of careful reading to do here!! Emeraude 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what the far right objection is
that the bnp are known as far right because of their stance on criminals (hypocritical as manybnp members are criminals) and immigration. They are not fully right, as they oppose laissez faire apparently and are slightly less right than the conservatives economically. However, overall the bnp are far right, maybe not fully extreme right but it balances out. They are known as far right, and however much someone might believe otherwise, its literally, a million vs one arguement. Fethroesforia 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about: they're far right because they're fascist? Throwing in a few insignificant "left" ideas does not change that. Emeraude 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is that. Im not disputing they are far right, im merely saying i understand how the view may be disputed, though its widely accepted so its pretty much sound. Fethroesforia 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So widely acepted that it's indisputable, I'd say. (By the way, hope the exams and uni applications are going well. My son went through it last year so I know how fraught things can be. Good luck with it.) Emeraude 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are a few (as in..a small few) who argue otherwise. I think some old tory argued it (hardly a non bias source though).

And yes they are thank you:) I handed in my application only a few weeks ago and have 3 conditional offers (all my applications are for History) Fethroesforia 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Reywas92
During the string of edits made by IP 71.228.3.157, another editor (Reywas92) also made a substantial change. 71.228.3.157's edits were removed in several reverts, but Reywas92's were left. I have now removed them and invited Reywas92 to discuss his edits (see User talk:Reywas92) here. It may be that some of the changes he made were useful, but given the heat surrounding this topic I thought it better to get some consensus first. Emeraude 12:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget all this. I messed up in reading the logs. Have apologised to Reywas92. Emeraude 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marxist perspectives
Too many of the references and quotes and contributions to this page appear to be from marxist or neo-marxist sources. I also wouldn't describe the BNP as "fascist" as they have a greater commitment to democracy than the people who protested Simone Clarke Unsigned posting by User:Davo698 13:39, 17 February 2007

Absolute bollocks. There are 67 references in the article which break down as follows:


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source ! Number ! Source ! Number
 * Peer-reviewed journals
 * 8
 * BNP publications
 * 13
 * Daily Mail
 * 2
 * Daily Telegraph
 * 2
 * The Times
 * 3
 * The Guardian
 * 5
 * Sunday Times
 * 2
 * Observer
 * 2
 * Yorkshire Post
 * 1
 * Local papers
 * 2
 * BBC News and Radio 5
 * 7
 * The Economist
 * 1
 * Various book citations
 * 8
 * Election results website
 * 1
 * Unclear
 * 4
 * Anti-BNP in some way
 * 5
 * Lib Dem website
 * 1
 * }
 * Unclear
 * 4
 * Anti-BNP in some way
 * 5
 * Lib Dem website
 * 1
 * }
 * 1
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

So, the biggest single group is the BNP itself. Marxist? I think not. Or perhaps [User:Davo698]] thinks the BBC is Marxist, or The Economist! If [User:Davo698]] thinks the BNP has a greater commitment to democracy than the people who used their democratic right to protest against public money going to support a body which employs a member of a racist party, then he is entitled to that opinion, however wrong it may be. The BNP has NO commitment to democracy beyond using the democratic process to achieve their fascist ends. Emeraude 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction - Part 687
Hopefully this shouldn't be too controversial. I think the quotes from Red Ken and Cameron should be removed fron the paragraph. Actually I'd like to get rid of the Red Ken reference entirely, but keep Cameron and add quotes from Menzies Campbell (Those who seek to justify racism for political ends have no place in the modern Britain of today) and Tony Blair (..was important both in confronting the right-wing racism of the BNP...). The paragraph would then become: "The BNP is marginalised by mainstream political parties, and has been criticised by David Cameron, Tony Blair and Menzies Campbell.(insert footnotes) Anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party." Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 14:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really part 687? Yes, that seems like a good idea. Much as I like KL's quote, a quote from each of the party leaders is more comprehensive. Emeraude 11:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the proposed edit, as Emeraude comments, quotes from the leaders of each of the main parties seems to me more appropriate than from Ken. Adambro 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir
Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc. "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator. Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare. Knights bachelor have no suffix. From:Naming conventions (names and titles) --Couter-revolutionary 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above shows Sir should be used. I give up, however, when administrators start showing PoV there's no hope.--Couter-revolutionary 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no pob here, I have no preference either way, however per the manual of style, I dont see why sir is appropriate. You just threw a chunk of text at me.  please make an argument for why it should be included and I wont have a problem adding it back. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, the first editor who removed it described it, I believe, as an "honourary title", which it is not. The prefix Sir should not be used re. Bob Geldof, who has an honourary knighthood, but there is nothing that says it shouldn't be used in other cases. --Couter-revolutionary 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, then I am guessing the first editor made a mistake (we all do from time to time). I guess an important question is how is he referred to in other articles?  Do other articles refer to him as sir?  I think it might be important to have conformity across links.  I do see that the MOS pointed to above is talking about naming of articles.  I am tending to lean towards not including it, for the same reason the main article shouldent named "Sir person X".  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should conform.--Couter-revolutionary 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Menzies Campbell he is referred to as Sir. In the Liberal Democrats article he is referred to as Sir. And other knights are also referred to as Sir in countless other articles. This not being an honorary title (like Geldof's) he is entitles to be called Sir. The policy quoted above is totally confusing on this issue, but the quote does only apply to article titles. So, in this article Sir Menzies Campbell is allowed and correct. Emeraude 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not the title of the article. It is without question on the first occasion the article refers to him. - Kittybrewster 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As per the way I read the policy, and on other articles, Sir is allowed as it is not a honorary title, (as a honorary title is like Rt. Hon.) Brian | (Talk) 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (names and titles) seems quite clear on this. Sir should remain in the article. Munta 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned his name is Menzies Campbell, that is made clear by the naming conventions. Categories call him Menzies Campbell because of this. The argument that other articles call him Sir brings nothing to the table, that does not mean the use of Sir is correct in those articles. What does the addition of Sir actually do to this article? Does it improve it in any way whatsoever? No.  One Night In Hackney 303 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Knights are entitled to be called and referred to as Sir ... - regardless of wiki conventions regarding titles of articles (which are irrelevant). ONiH is not being neutral in depriving the man of something he has earned. - Kittybrewster 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Rt Hon is not an honoraray title. An honorary title is one given to someone who would not normally qualify, so for instance Bob geldof, not being British, cannot be a real Knight, so his title is honorary. Same applies to an American recently (can't remember name). Hon and Rt Hon are proper titles. One Night in Hackney is, of course, correct: Adding Sir to this article, even though it is correct, makes not a bit of difference to the article, but I disagree with him and think it should be there for precisely that reason. (Also because I think anyone who goes around using a title sounds like a pompous ass and that's to be encouraged!) Emeraude 12:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant re. Rt. Hon. is that it is an honourific.--Counter-revolutionary 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Knights are entitled to be called and referred to as Sir...in the UK. Wikipedia is not the UK, and Wikipedia naming conventions make it expressly clear that Menzies Campbell is referred to by his personal name, and inclusion of the Sir goes in his article. I am being perfectly neutral, he is fully entitled to be called Sir in his article. One Night In Hackney 303 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Duke of Westminstr should be referred to as Gerald Grosvenor? - Kittybrewster 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dukes and Knights are two totally different things, please try and discuss the matter at hand rather than go off on abstract and irrelevant tangents. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not 'not in the UK'. Interesting geopolitical issue that. But the BNP is in the UK, most of the article writers are in the UK, all references to MC in the press in the UK and elsewhere use the Sir, so it seems really picky and pedantic to say Sir can't be in this article or any other apart from Menzies Campbell. (Actually, I think he's' entitled' to be called Sir anywhere in the world he goes.)Emeraude 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-think political stand
I don't think that we should label the BNP as "far right" considering that ALL they're economic policies are far left. I think we should term them "strong authoritarian" or something because in today's politics we rarely define a party as strictly left or right. We add the labels of authoritarian and liberal. I know most people will identify them as "far right" but maybe we should think about following it up with the information that their economic leanings are far left.  Unsigned posting by User:SKC 20:03, 8 March 2007 
 * But the economic policies of the BNP are precisely the economic policies associated with the far right. It's true that the terms left and right cover a (sometimes confusing and confused) variety of topics, and that other elements of the right are often associated with economic policies very different than the BNP. Nonetheless, "far right" is an accurate description of the totality of the BNPs program, including their economic policies. VoluntarySlave 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "ALL their economic policies are far left"? You must be joking. Nationalisation of the economy? No. Nationalisation of the banks? No. Redistribution of wealth? No. Punitive taxation of the rich? No. Their economic policies, such as they are, in the tradition of the neo-fascist right in Britain since 1945; most of them are aimed at not alienating the popular vote (e.g. no party in Britain will propose abolition of the National Health Service, whatever it's position left-right) or subtle anti-Jewish measures (references to international financiers..). Emeraude 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hate to break it to you mate,but this arguement has been dont before, and the resounding opinion was that the bnp is far right. As said by a variety of people (including me). They are sort of opposed to total laissez faire but then almost every political party is as laissez faire is economic suicide. However they do believe in protectionist policies which is reminiscent of the rightist usa in 1920's. therefore = far right. Fethroesforia 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)