Talk:British National Party/Archive 9

Infobox (still)
Look who ever owns the BNP article just put "denied by BNP" next to fascism again and this silly argument might stop (chris) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.31.41 (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No one "owns" the article. However, the point of an infobox is to give brief details in a common format clearly and concisely at the head of an article. Qualifying those entries with things like "denied by the BNP" or "alleged" or "some fairies say" or anything else defeats the whole object. This argument has been gone through here before - look at older talk entries - and the consensus was to remove "denied by the BNP" for the reasons I have given and because it was covered within the article in any case. Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) As far as I am aware no organisation since 1945 has been self-described as "fascist"- "national socialist", "falangist" even "nazi"-yes. Fascist no. More generally they seem to prefer "nationalist". Does this therefore mean that none have been fascists? George Orwell pointed out that the term had become synonymous with the word "bully". Undoubtedly there are bullies who are not fascists, but equally all fascists are going to be bullies. Interestingly Mussolini's fascists were not anti-semitic and had Jewish members (who came to an unpleasant end when Kesselring's Germans took over). In fact Jewish refugees fled from Vichy France into Italy during his regime. So many of the arguments of the BNP to not be defined as fascist need to be weighed against the definitions of fascism contained on the wikipedia fascism page - obviously sourced from the original, and I think it qualifies under several.--Streona (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Fascism Ethno Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.170.189 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By that logic the Scottish National Party should be branded as a fascist party which they clearly are not and the use of the phrase should be ejected from the article as it is POV and controversial without up to date verifiable sources.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The question was "Is Fascism Ethno Nationalism?" not is Ethno-Nationalism fascism. The SNP presumably do not preach discrimination against non-Scots, nor do they define Scottishness as having ancestors "who came over in the last ice age" (especially as Scotland was under it at the time) as the BNP do - although allowing people in who may be a touch Celtic or Viking- or even Anglo-Saxon. Also Scotland needs more immigrants as nobody wants to go there, perhaps due to the weather. Griffin seeks to imply he is not "racist" (although he & his comrades will not explicitly say so) by announcing a principle which allows him to hate Poles as well. Of course Hitler hated Slavs as well, but that hardly made him less of a "hitlerowskifascisti" as it says on the thousands of Polish war memorials. --Streona (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That response still does not reason as to why the phrase should be used in the info-box. The sources used are pre Griffin and pre major reforms of the party. Find up to date sources from after Griffin became leader and this will be settled.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All the sources for the "Political ideologies" section are from after Griffin became leader except 1 and 7 (and perhaps 6 - which is a book published in 1999, so may only cover the period before 1999). The sources come from a range of time periods, from 1998 to 2007. If there have been changes in the BNP that render some of these sources out of date, you need to explain why, and provide sources showing that the BNP has changed in relevant respects since those sources were published. If you ask for "up to date source," but don't say what the cut-off point is for being up to date, or justify that date, there's no way people can provide you with the sources you're looking for.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Passmore, lecturer in History at Cardiff University, gives a definition of fascism in his book Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. The definition he gives is directly descended from the view put forth by Ernesto Laclau.

The definition he gives is as follows:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

I have pasted this from definitions of fascism. I would suggest that the BNP fits this description before and after Griffin's so called changes and the setting up of ethnic minority ghettos within the party or claiming not to be racist because they also hate Eastern Europeans does not change this--Streona (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The above definition cannot be used in this article to describe the BNP as it is original research and barred from the article and all of Wikipedia. The phrase "I would suggest that the BNP fits this description", demonstrates the POV and OR. Nothing but opinion has been used to base that on. That is as blatant as OR and POV gets. The source cannot be used as it is not reliable as it has OR interpretations, only independent and reliable sources which cannot be claimed to have OR or POV can be used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Only trying to help--Streona (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Help is welcome, help within policies is however the only help welcome.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a small point, that isn't OR - OR is when an editor makes up a contribution that isn't supproted by reliable third party sources. In this case, Kevin Passmore's is the source, published no doubt by a reputable publisher, with an editor.  the principle is that it has to have been published somewhere else first, not on Wikipedia.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a talk page, not the substantive article--Streona (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascism- Right wing Government of extreme dictatorship. the BNP is not a right wing government of extreme dictatorship. There for the BNP is not fascist. It is that simple and there for the article should be changed. Fascist is just a term people on here are useing as a moral club on them because they dont like there policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.186 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Anon. Fascism is a term that reliable third party sources apply to the BNP. If reliable, third party sources can be found statuing that the BNP is not fascist, that will change.  BTW, though, were the Nazis fascists before 1933?  Anyway, this has been covered ad nauseum...--Red Deathy (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was from a dictionary btw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.255.252 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP is not a right-wing government because it is not a government but if it was-it would be. It can also be fascist even if it says it isn't, provided it still retains the attributes of a fascist party. This has been covered ad nauseam as Red Deathy says, but the reason for this, is a constant stream of edits from anonymous users seeking to challenge the appellation of fascist. These users very often have little other history than these specific edits and I suggest that they are seeking to promote a pro BNP POV.--Streona (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats like saying the conservative party will be fascist if they won an election! very silly indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.254.48 (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. A right wing government is not necessarily fascist, but a fascist government would be right wing as this term is generally understood. Its like a sheep is an animal, but not all animals are sheep.--Streona (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

yes it is! and even so Its still no justification to calling the BNP fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.216.5 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You have just said the Conservative Party are fascist.--Streona (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
The talk page was getting overful, and nothing more than spatting had occurred for somewhile, so I've archived the lot. Most of the topics were essentially the same, and are covered in the little exchange above.--Red Deathy (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it was certainly overdue.-- Neo  Nerd  14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC).

Thanks--Streona (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arguments not answered
Copied from the last archive:

This article is too long. It should be reduced to a general description of the party and its program, its historical development, and electoral status.

The definition of an appropriate "neutral point of view" is to compare its sections and content to that of mainstream parties (in Britain and elsewhere). Entire sub-sections on each small controversy or leader's statement are out of place. There should be one section on "Controversies", with a sentence or two on each, and copiously references to anti-BNP reporting that will detail these issues elsewhere.

For example, the entire subject of anti-Semitism should be a few sentences -- stating that there were openly anti-Semitic policies/statements initially, these have been reformed, but situation remains "ambiguous" due to statements by party leader. A lengthy transcription of statements by Nick Griffin to "prove the case" doesn't belong here -- that should be found in an off-site link.

Obviously there is a great deal of antipathy towards the BNP, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to present it. The appearance of the article being a lengthy attack -- almost a court dossier being built up to prove a point -- rather than objective presentation, only makes it look like the party is being ganged up on. And of course childish vandalism reflects terribly on anti-BNP forces as well.

In keeping with all these efforts to paint as unappealing a portrait as possible, the article (in my quick scanning) seems to focus entirely on race issues, and make no mention of the rest of BNP ideology. Leftist BNP opponents may not want to mention anything that might be regarded as positive (in their own quarters) -- but the nature of the BNP as a "working class" and "socialist" party is of tremendous significance in explaining the substantial growth of the party among disgruntled working class (former) Labour Party members. Anti-BNP activists certainly won't be able to campaign effectively against the party's rise if they have no idea what is appealing about the party to many people in Britain -- and Wikipedia is certainly the venue for them to get that objective information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.199.146 (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed entirely Sinthesizer (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. The BNP has a number of interesting policies, some of which are mentioned in the first paragraph of #Policies (before it goes into sub-sections). I'd encourage anyone to expand that and make new subsections if needed (giving sources as much as possible). I think it would be useful to have some historical perspective with this - how have the policies changed over the years. 76's other suggestions also seem very sensible. I don't know enough about the BNP to really give this ago, but if you do, please edit it or suggest useful sources on this page. Incidentally, this page has been protected (so you need to have registered for 4 days to edit it) since september. I think it's due to the fascism dispute above, but I could be wrong. If all is quiet now, we could ask for unprotection? --h2g2bob (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I see the Nick Eriksen news event has been added in. Why do barely notable news items like this litter the article, but not for other political parties? I searched The Labour Party article for "Northern Rock" but to no result, and this has received far more headlines than anything the BNP have ever done. Can anyone tell me why the following parts of the article are notable:

1. The entire "2000's" section, apart from a few lines that should mention their success in Dagenham + Barking and the trial.

2. The "Guardian Infiltration"

3. Most of the "2007 Split" section

4. In the "Racial Policies" section, the section on Frank Ellis and Phil Edwards. Also: "We do not and we never will." Griffin's use of the phrase "secure a future for white children" is similar to the white nationalist "Fourteen Words"." is someones own opinion/research, and should be deleted.

5. Why is Lee Barnes' blog notable? He isn't even directly involved with the BNP.

6. Google video source in the Anti-Islam section

7. Richard Barnbrook and Mark Collett in the anti-homosexuality section

8. In the section "Relations with neo-Nazi, terrorist and paramilitary groups" - the paragraph about Nick Griffin should be in his own article. Knowing a man who hasn't been proven to have done anything? Is this notable at all? The rally attended by William Pierce (why), Redwatch (an ex-BNP member makes a site which the BNP are advised not to go on.... why is this notable).

9. The paragraph on their newspaper troubles in "Repression of Free Speech"

10. The section about the ANL, Searchlight etc is too long for it's notability, and reads like an advert. Blockading a publicity stall in Scotland? So?

In "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" - "critics of the BNP" is sourced by a single Guardian columnist, and offers no rebuttal (why are we just giving the critics point of view?). In fact, why isn't this entire section amalgamated into their history? Why is a list of convictions given? Why doesn't this feature in other political party articles?

Why does the policy section read like a critique of their most controversial opinions?


 * A lot of the above was lost in the overlong archive, and I'm happy for it to see the light of day, and perhaps be the focus of constructive discussion. I'd start with saying why the BNP may get different treatment from oterh UK parties - precisely because it is a topic of controversy *from both sides* - i.e. because there are intense partisans active for and against, a long detailed article is needed in order to ensure POV complance, truncation may lead to a distorted view.  After that, precise weightings on topics remains a matter of editorial judgement (ours, and yours, that is).  What i prpose is that an editor take the article to a sandbox, make the changes they think will improve it, and post a link here for discussion, a similar approach worked over at Socialism which is a likewise contentious topic and which is overlong as a consequence (large reductions were achieved).--Red Deathy (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Socialism" in question, not "national socialism"? The Brownshirts in particular saw themselves as a working-class class national socialist movement, when in opposition but were rapidly dumped in 1936. Also if we copy any more from the archive, it won't be an archive.--Streona (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously biased editers
Could someone please shut streona up that has an account. She constantly spews out lies and attacks on the bnp like a fanatical zealot. For @#$% sake they just passed legislation BANNING WHITE MEN from work in the uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Streona is a legitimate editor. and they haven't banned white men from anything (in fact, in workplaces where white men are under represented employers would be allowed to pick them, under the proposed legislation).--Red Deathy (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4217376.ece

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/38293/Now-Labour-plans-law-to-bar-white-men-from-jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581898/White-men-may-miss-out-under-job-plans.html

Sure I believe you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

from your Discussion page reddeathy

Unfortunately for some of my anonymous detractors -and why do you seek to remain anonymous ?- there are going to be people that disagree with fascism and are going to be biased against them. I am one of that very large majority. The obvious response of a fascist by definition will be to have them shut up. If I resort to personal abuse or vandalism then I will expect that, but I don't. I think the points I have made are pertinent and in the main much better spelt than the "editers" who appear to be POV towards the BNP. Also I would have thought it obvious to anyone obsessed with Anglo Saxon history, that Streona is a male name after Eadric Streona Earl of Mercia. There must be somewhere else that views can be aired on current government legislation than this page. Maybe some right-wing blog forum or whatever--Streona (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. does @#%$sake constitute swearing ? Banning white men from working! Have a lie down, please--Streona (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that this might be the place to discuss the changes made to the article which I reverted earlier. Please, I invite you to explain the changes. Also, white men re not banned from work. I'm white. I'm a male. I work. Neo  Nerd 


 * You work at the moment in the future though you won't be able to. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, political POV must be avoided and I know how hard some of you try to own this article but let go and get rid of the POV and maybe the article will improve. This article give undue weight to anti-BNP and does not reflect them in a neutral light.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that you've fallen into the usual trap regarding neutrality. The policy doesn't state that articles should be completely neutral. Instead, the article should reflect the mainstream views on the subject. Thus, the evolution article portrays evolution as a well supported scientific theory, not challenged conjecture, as creationists would like it. Thus, this article displays the mainstream view on the BNP. they are a far right party, which rejects non-white membership. They conform to the definition of facsism. It would not be neutral to portray them as anything else, per WP:UNDUE Neo  Nerd  21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you so positive it is mainstream view labour was beaten by the bnp in henley seems like they are gaining ground everywhere. In my country the indigenous parties reject white membership are they fascist and far right. Streona harps on about "OH OH fascists try to silence you." is that like the discussion on this page constantly being edited if it shows anything other then a anti-bnp stance. I don't know much about anglo-saxon history it wasn't and still isn't taught in schools in my country. My mistake thought you were a women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.248.117 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The policy doesn't state that articles should be completely neutral. Instead, the article should reflect the mainstream views on the subject." - So Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it wants the opinion of the raving crowd. Great, just like democracy. We should reflect "mainstream views"? Does that mean the Black metal article should begin and end with: "Shitty, angry, shouting music."? Sounds like some people are trying to resist as much as they can to any change to this article. As a completely unrelated aside, how can someone be so interested in Anglo-Saxon history, but not Anglo-Saxon future?*


 * The answer is fear. Zxcvbispass (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To address you analogy with Black Metal: if the consensus of public and professional opinion were that it was 'shitty, angry and shouting' then an appropriate Wikipedia article might say that it involved much shouting, and that many people consider it to be shitty. 'It contains shouting' and 'people have said it's shitty' are objective statements of fact, while 'it is shitty' is a personal opinion and thus has no place on Wikipedia. To return to the case of the BNP, 'they are fascist' is an objective statement not an opinion (whether it is true is a separate question: see below). Of course the article shouldn't say 'the BNP is shitty' or anything equivalent, but since fascist doesn't just mean 'bad' but has a defined set of meanings (and is self-applied by many groups), calling them fascists is not comparable.


 * As to your objection that "Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it wants the opinion of the raving crowd": that's true, if reliable sources such as newspapers and academic articles constitute a raving crowd (we don't base articles on the opinion of the man in the street). If they do, I'm not sure how we would go about establishing 'truth' independent of such a crowd. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has decided to use verification in neutral third-party sources as its benchmark for inclusion, not 'truth'. If you strongly disagree with that policy then there are other similar projects which have selected different criteria you might want to look at. But while WP:V stands we should write the article accordingly. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because History is not Racism, - in fact Anglo-Saxon, like Celticism is not necessarily a race, but a culture and fear of who? --Streona (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating the most biased article on Wikipedia. You must be proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.41.227 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Postive proposals
OK, to help critics out, whose complaints amount to a call for a total, or near total, re-write, I've put a copy of the article in my user space. Please, do feel free to make substantial changes there, and create a version of the article you feel could be put forward as a replacement. I can't guarantee it will be accepted, but at the very least, parts of it may be, and it would give you the advantage of beign seen to be positively tryingt o improve the article yourself, and let the rest of us know precisely which bits are objectionable, so that we could look at other ways of remedying it. A similar approach proved relatively effective over at Socialism--Red Deathy (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It might work and may be worth a try. Some time ago (and this is in the archive here), myself and others, notably Sinthesizer, discussed a rewrite of the introduction - just the introduction. I set up a dummy proposal on my wiki space here and Sinthesizer and I made a lot of progress and were practically agreed before I took a few weeks off and the project dropped. It's a shame that, despite all the griping here, only two editors were prepared to do anything. Oh well. For what it's worth, I have pasted the intro that Sinthesizer and I prepared onto Red Deathy's page. You'll notice that it sticks to the bare minimum to provide a brief introductory overview to the article and no more. Emeraude (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is fine, but you will never appease the sockpuppets.(see Appeasement) (lol)--Streona (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP has an ethnic liaison committee which places "ethnic" self-haters in a "separate-but-equal (?)" category. This underlines the racist (or "etnno-nationalist" as Griffin now likes to frame it)nature of the party --Streona (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Streona you really do hate the BNP dont you? your hardly useful for this article if you are so biass towards it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.184.80 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Streona 'ethnic 'self haters' do describe whites that way who support mandela or pro ethnic groups that way? Its fairly obvious you have no intention of being fair or objective here. what are you scared of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.117.242 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Friends of mine have been physically beaten- in some cases near to death by the BNP. I have been attacked but with less success, so one might have a reason to be scared, bearing in mind that possession of a short haircut and some army surplus gear does not make you all that. I am unaware that Nelson Mandela has ever made racist attacks on white people for their race, although criticism of some of their policies he would have agreed with the British Government's position that establishing separate voting lists by the Nationalists was illegal. The BNP website ("Is the BNP Racist?") describes itself as a white-only party, presumably not considering the ethnic liaison committee as being a proper part of itself. What, other than self-hatred of at least one part of your cultural heritage would motivate one joining an organisation that wants you to leave the country (as opposed to booking an airline ticket)is something that only Mr. Rustem and his few if any chums can answer. In the case of mixed race people such as he, the BNP seems to question your very right to exist at all. I have made contributions of fact to the article (such as the numbers of councillors sourced from the BBC) and have restricted expression of my opinions to the talk page as my almost entirely anonymous critics have. The evidence suggests that this is because they cannot spell and have poor grasp of grammar, even though Noam Chomsky holds this to be innate (you don't like Dr. Chomsky, do you?).--Streona (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep your sob stories to yourself. This article needs to be made neutral, which at the moment it is far from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sob stories? Who is it squealing about being called fascist ? Not me - but then I am not one, so maybe not so sensitive then.--Streona (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Mandela and the BNP aren't as different as people think. Both are/were motivated by a desire to secure as much power for their own kindred people and their historical cultures as possible, using violent means where neccessaty. In any case, I do think this article is negative in places, and certainly lacks info on their many policies which are not related to the supposed white supremacy, Islamophobia and homophobia (they're not as homophobic as any Muslim you'll ever meet, incidentally)--MartinUK (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I know Thatcher compared him to the IRA (much to their amusement) but this is stretching to the point of being silly, Martin. Not only I have met many Muslims who are not homophobic, I know some who are actually gay, but I probably know more than you do.--Streona (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it because your a homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No--Streona (talk) 08:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

58.168.104.109 make a comment like that again and i will report you. (88.111.49.50 (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't think this article can ever be really neutral
I think due to the fact that not one mainstream press source (even the Daily Mail nowadays would not) would be willing to portray the BNP in a positive light, this article cannot really be neutral. The sources we have are largely about criticism of the party, and only by relying on WP:SPS from the party themselves could we hope to achieve any kind of neutrality here. The party makes claims on non-race-related issues (conservative policies on crime, employment, education, health, etc, which would probably appeal to many more 'ordinary' people if there was no racial element to their policies) but this information is not included particularly well.

Another question, of course, is where this party would find the money to do such things, but then, that'd be original research.--Les boys (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, although the lack of positive sources says something.I think that there could possibly be slightly less focus on race-based issues, but the defining concept of the BNP is racism, or ethno-nationalism. -- Neo  Nerd  19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially a liberal and democratic endeavour based upon reason and freedom. It discourages personal attacks and mystification Karl Popper describes fascism as one of "mankind's periodic retreats from freedom and reason". Thus fascism is diametrically opposed to all these basic values and the BNP are opposed to all these basic British values so any neutral account is going to cause controversy. Griffin is obviously aware of this as he specifically attacks this article in one of the quotes within the article itself. You might just as well try to reach consensus with the Daleks. At least they are more grammatical, even if they share other attributes.--Streona (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I always consider the Flat earth article to be the acme of neutrality, it's worth a read (or it was the last time I read it). We don't require mainstream sources, any verifiable, third party reputable source would do - any academic, researcher, etc. who has been published on the BNP is fit for inclusion, but in Wikipedia terms, if no-one describes the BNP as other than a fascist party, we must by the power invested in us by WP:V call it a fascist party.  Steps could be taken to balance the content a bit more, perhaps with a reduction in some of the minutia.  I don't think I could do it, because I wouldn't carry confidence, but perhaps an editor who might carry confidence could propose a draft on the sand version?--Red Deathy (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking Advantage of journalist code of conduct to keep BNP classed as fascist
It is obious that Sterona claims that we can only use third party sources that say the BNP isnt fascist because of the Journalist union having a code of conduct that states that nobody can report on the BNP unless it is in a way that puts them in a negertive spotlight. There for the article should have fascist removed. End off.

In the biz they call that a non-sequitur86.138.248.126 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Duh?--Streona (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please cite a source that journalists are obliged to show the BNP in a negative light? Otherwise, your statement doesn't hold much credence. In any case, it isn't just Streona who wants 3rd party sources. It's Wikipedia policy. Third party sources don't have to be journalistic, anyway. If you could find a peer-reviewed academic article that states the BNP are not fascist, that would be fine too. Please read WP:RS.-- Neo  Nerd  12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The NUJ code of conduct is available at http://www.presswise.org.uk/display_page.php?id=648 It advises - bearing in mind the NUJ is a trade union and not an employer - that should racist opinions be aired, that a balancing anti-racist viewpoint is given. In this way racist and fascist organisations are singled out for special treatment and "the anti-social nature of their views exposed" as it says in the code. It is not clear that there are any sanctions that can be imposed for breach, but most NUJ members will oppose "hate speech" and no doubt welcome the guidance.--Streona (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Witness the reporting of the anti-fascist riots at the BNP's Red White and Blue festival this week. A great many articles didn't make it clear that no BNP members or supporters were responsible for the disturbances, or implied that they had caused it indirectly. Compare reporting of BNP views to reporting of Islamic fundamentalism or special interest groups such as the National Black Police Association, and I think you'll see an imbalance.--MartinUK (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reports I could find stated that anti-fascists were arrested clashing with the police, which seems quite objective. None mentioned anything especially critical of the BNP apart from a local paper which said that local residents were cheesed off with the all-night karaoke (probably out of tune), fireworks and discarded glasses frightening the horses. If you can give an example then do so. --Streona (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Daily Star declared that BNP members clashed with anti-fascists, while the BBC's Ceefax used the title '33 Arrested in BNP Protest', implying that BNP members were involved in the disturbance.--MartinUK (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Star site I found did not say that at all http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/47579/Protest-demo-targets-BNP-festival/

I cannot find Ceefax on the internet but I presume the actual article was not misleading or you would have mentioned it. I would prefer if the more generic term "fascist" or "racists" were used as mentioning the BNP by name gives them publicity. Something like;

"And its one in the eye for Chairman Griffin as his ranks of jackbooted herrenvolk cower from the wrath of the chaps from beleagured Blighty who give him right old earbashing and no mistake! Are we scared of his fascist hordes ? Not likely! - Not if this little chap is anything to go by ! (cut to child in pushchair with luggage label attached to overcoat, waving a Union Jack) That's the spirit ! Remember, loose lips sink ships!"

-now that's the kind of quality journalism so sadly lacking today.

--Streona (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Enjoy your dhimmi status when it comes.--MartinUK (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's rather a non-sequitur. It doesn't address the question. In any case, the NUJ's guidance only applies to journalists, and not everything published is written by, or edited by, a journalist. Nigel Copsey or Alan Sykes aren't NUJ members so far as I can tell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Journelist code of conduct and fascism allogations
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/BNP.html http://www.s-light.demon.co.uk/presspack/media1.html

This one is not third party but is still interesting and maybe useful. (Chris) http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/03/the-media-reporting- on-the-bnp/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.99.226 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense! The first link is to "What Next?, a "Marxist discussion journal" and nothing to do with journalist codes of conduct. The second link is dead, but should be to Searchlight's press pack - not to any official journalists' code of conduct. The third is the BNP itself which, like all its fascist predecessors, has always claimed it gets an unfair press, so far from a neutral source in this point. Emeraude (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.77.229 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a fascist organization?
Nazi? Racist? Or did the leaflets I read go over the top?-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends what leaflets, although I suspect not.--Streona (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Those leaflets are a deliberate act against the democratic process, this wouldn't be tolerated if this smear campaign was against any other political party, Gerry Gable and the rest of the red filth are as bad if not worse than the Nazi's-Tashkent Fox 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

Maybe they were BNP leaflets?--Streona (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The British National Party is NOT a fascist organisation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.37.158 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The BNP's political ideology is NOT White nationalism
Nick Griffin has said several times, including on the BBC, that the BNP are not a "White nationalism" party. He has pointed out how the immigration promotion also comes from Eastern Europe and those people are white. It a British nationalism party. I do not support the BNP, but I do support an unbias article. Unsigned comment by 90.240.85.159 at 18:31, 17 July 2008

The BNP website states that it has an all-white membership and that it seeks to promote the interests of the "indigenous British folk". It does not deny being racist but suggests that various ethnic organisations - such as the Jewish Telegraph and Black Police Officers would also be racist if it is racist and simultaneously suggests that they are. Check it out if you don't believe me.

They do not say they are fascist, but then which terrorist organisation claims to be terrorist? Most will deny this but they are still terrorist.--Streona (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The BNP isnt a terrorist organisation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.197.180 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not as such, but I was using an analogy.Apologies for offending any of Der Kameradenschaft. (Apolgies to any Germans, who are on the whole a decent bunch, if inclined to be a bit serious). --Streona (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To settle the issue we do need a more up to date reference. The current ones are from 2003 or earlier and WP:NPOV would certainly require a more contemporary reference for such a bold assertion. Valenciano (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism
The BNP is seen by many as a fascist party. Something that the party fiercly denies.

Nick Griffin says that the party is not fascist because it doesnt believe in militery dictatorship or racial discrimination, and that the party is fully dedicated to democracy and freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.63.168 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I will refer the questioner to the fascism article, where they can read up on what fascism is.-- Neo  Nerd  00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But is the article of fascism correct? I personally think it is to assesive. It says that nationalism is fascism yet many left wing groups and parties are nationalistic. Fidel Castro for example is a communist yet he has very very stop nationalistic pride.

Is Fidel Castro a fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.145.137 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Also as I have pointed out before, the BNP denies being a fascist party. Why not just put denied by BNP in brakets next to fascism again like it was before? I think it is only fair to do this considering how biass the article already is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.145.137 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Equally -as I have pointed out before- one could put "denies being terrorist" in brackets in the Al-Qaeda article. Fidel Castro is not a Fascist by the definitions on the fascism article and this article is not about Fidel Castro. --Streona (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the fascism articles part on nationalism is wrong and in my opinon delibratley span so fascism can be enforced on this article. Yes add denied to the both of them if its fact then do it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.84.168 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Fascism does not itself define fascism, but quotes reputable sources. No doubt many people and organisations deny what they are and were. Serial killers for instance... Radavan Karadzic even denies being a totally rubbish poet- but the evidence is there.--Streona (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sterona is too biass to be taken seriously. Seriously though the BNP isnt fascist. They are too demacratic. Although the constitution of the party does say that Nick Griffin has ultimate final decision on all issues regarding the party. Thats the closest thing to fascism the party has written down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.82.53 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest statement to the BNP being fascist was John Tyndall's statement "Mein Kampf is my Bible". Can the leopard change his spots or the Ethiop his skin? I think you will find that most people who are not racists have a bias against the BNP. Even so Tyndall had the effrontery to deny being a fascist when he was heading up the National Front in the late 70s and they thought they were in with a shout electorally as the BNP currently imagine.

Look, I realise that Streona is not on most people's spellchecker, but try with the rest of the edit. Put it in the Add to Dictionary -Eadric Streona, "the refuse of mankind and a reproach unto the English" as Walter Mapp put it...--Streona (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tyndall said mein kamp is his bible when he was kicked out of the party. You cant use that quote as evidence of fascism. Well I will be pushing forward to have (denied by BNP) written on the article. Most people on here agree so it is going to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.33.136 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tyndall is dead now, the party has moved on a long way since then under Griffin, the party cannot be considered fascist, as it is a point of view and opinion. We can't even come up wit ha definition of fascism let alone going about a way of proving it, reliably.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do most people agree? The anonymous authors of several comments agree, but it's hard to tell how many people that represents because of dynamic IPs. My impression is that a larger number of people disagree, but many of them have less patience than Streona for arguing the same things repeatedly and have not been as vocal as he. Either way, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a proposal's relationship to policy is more important than the number of people who support it. You'll be more likely to receive support for the addition if you provide an argument for it based on a Wikipedia policy, which so far I haven't seen (apologies if I've missed it - this talk page is not the easiest to read). Olaf Davis | Talk 22:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the GA review will show the major flaws in this article and this debate personifies the problems with the article. It is a few owners of the article preventing the progression of the article I suggest holding a peer review by a completely disinterested party.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did put forward a proposal, which still stands, for critics to put a re-write in my user space so we could see what improvements they felt they could make, and answer came there non, which suggests to me a lot of critics don't have the good of the article actually in mind The offer still stands, though...--Red Deathy (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Tyndal was readmitted to the BNP in 2004 and was a member at the time of his death. May I also point out that edits I have made to the substantive article have been in the intersts of NPOV - such as removing the word "fortunately" from the phrase "the BNP has no memebers of parliament" and that edits on the Talk page are not necessarily connected with the article itself. The role of this page seems to be a back door for BNP sympathisers (and I do not suggest that Lucie-marie is one, as they are nearly all unnamed) to try to take down the fascist tag from the article for their own purposes.--Streona (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To suggest this is a right wing forum is absurd the only comments that I post and should ever be posted by anyone are on the content of the article. THis article needs completely deleting and a wholesale re-write of the article is needed, by a disinterested party in accordance with the policies and Guidelines of wikipedia or this article will forever be completely biased, POV and useless.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucy-marie, tehre is a copy of the article at my user space if you want to completely re-write it there, so we can access the changes, and move forward by consensus (this will help protect page stability).--Red Deathy (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The BNP is not a fascist party. It does not have any of the characteristics of a fascist party; nor is it based on any of the ideology of Benito Mussolini. Fascism is a political system which aside from arguably Juan Peron who had some similarities to it, has not existed since the end of WWII. The BNP is a democratic party with xenophobia as its core focus. Just because the bias, undereducated far left extremists and their pot smoking college student comrades randomly label it "fascist" because its a snappy word which in the 21st century has automatically derogatory use in the common English language, doesn't mean we should too.


 * Essentially, labelling the party as "fascist" is a form of propaganda; it would be like labelling the Socialist "Workers" (middle-class, jobless, college students) Party as "Maoist-Leninist" due to derogatory word association. It is an intentional form of POV propaganda on a widely read media outlet to disuade the reader from voting for the party. Simple. No ifs or buts, that is just what is it. Can you imagine discussing Plato's Republic with anybody involved in the BNP? I somehow doubt it. Fascism and racial nationalism are different beasts. Fascism is an incredibly easy system to comprehend if one bothers to research it using the correct NPOV avenues, but I'd bet most supporters of the BNP couldn't tell you what fascism is any more than the far left loonies.- Boo Baah (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For those in doubt as to what Fascism is, please refer yourself to the Doctrines of Fascism. The BNP is not a Fascist organisation, but like most (if not all, and this includes the Tories) of the Britain's right wing parties it has had connections and sympathies with fascists and nazis. But then most of the left can point to connections and sympathies with the Soviet Union in it's history. I would also remind you that Britain has a fascist party somewhat less racially minded than the BNP (which has had it's article deleted for some reason).--Super-soviet (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you point us to a source which states that the BNP is not fascist, or that its fascist status is disputed? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understyand that many BNP members have found it difficult to see a copy of their own constitution, so it might be difficult for them to know what they are. It is available online at http://northwestnationalists.blogspot.com/2008/06/bnp-challenge.html

it seems to give almost unlimited powers to the Chairman (this is known as the "Fuhrerprinzip") and any challenges to Chairman Griffin are stamped on ruthless with expulsion and in the case of Sadie Graham, having her house burgled by the Security Department (S.D.). It also confirms that it is racially exclusive.--Streona (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BNP Representation and Record
I propose a new paragraph dealing with the record of BNP councillors etc. This features prominently in Searchlightwho have subjected them to minute analysis, albeit from a wholly negative viewpoint. This might also be an opportunity for displaying their objectively verified successes and excuses as to why they have none, which to be fair is often due to the degree of hostility and non-cooperation displayed to them by other councillors and staff as well as the personal shortcomings of the councillors themselves, plus the illegality of any policy intiatives that are racially discriminatory. There is also a high dropout rate ofIn this way we might be able to see how fascistic they are in practice when given the chance of power. It would be best if this could be in general terms as a list of every councillor is going to be far too long, but I foresee difficulties in achieving any consensus. --Streona (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. see "Councillors' Achievements". Whilst the BNP are more prominent in their shortcomings, their YouTube speeches- which are incredibly dull, do claim credit for the placement of traffic bollards in suburban parts of Havering or some such tosh, I have not included these as a achievements, since the local authorities concerned are not BNP controlled and not really notable. --Streona (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is national socalism under political ideolodgies?
This should be removed because its simpley not true. There are no elements of national socalism within the party. They are a nationalist party and yes some of there economic policies are left wing but thats not enough to make such a bold and potentually offensive claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.71.48 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not offensive enough--Streona (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you don't want this article to be neutral, but do you really think such petty point scoring is of any benefit?--MartinUK (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting it is not offensive. Many BNP members hving a long record of political activities in the British Movement, International Third Position and alongside (or under) John Tyndall will find it complimentary. By suggesting that I want to be a dhimmi are you not doing the same? Nonetheless I apologise, since counter-allegation is not a logical riposte. Still thanks for an improved level of spelling.--Streona (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Streona. The BNP have a history of National Socialism. John Tyndall wore Nazi uniforms and Mark Collett has made supportive remarks towards Hitler. - VSrugbyfan —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So what thats two people. Just because Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform doesn't make the whole royal family Nazi or national socialist, stop tarring all with the same brush--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It can be seen in streona's talk page that she/he/it is a proponent of "hybrid vigour" when applied to humans a theory that could only be explained as two people of different races coming together to create a hybrid child which is apparently an improvement. So Streona is very much a racist. Hybrid vigour is like multicultural fascism as it is essentially a eugenics theory. Apparenty Heinrich Himmler gots his experience and qualifications with eugenics from breeding chickens. To apply Hybrid vigour to humans which is something taught to agricultural students reeks of the ideas of the third reich.

Multicult fascist or Multicultist seems appropriate enough tag for Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The BNP kicked Tyndall out for being to extreme, yet this is a good enough piece of evidence to call the BNP nazis? I think its discusting, and should be reassesed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.3.152 (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He is also dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote:"The BNP kicked Tyndall out for being to extreme...." Not so. In 1999 he lost a leadership contest to Nick Griffin who briefly expelled Tyndall for a short time in 2002 for being disruptive. He was later reinstated. He was expelled again shortly befor his death, while facing charges of incitement to racial hatred jointly with Nick Griffin! After his death, the BNP described him as "excellent chap with a keen analytical mind". The fascism (not Nazism) of the BNP is evidenced not just from the political histories of the late John Tyndall but also from countless other members, but more importantly from its organisation, philosophy and policies. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that racism is self-defeating and inbreeding does not lead to a master-race. I use the expression "hybrid vigour" as an example although I neither advocate nor oppose it- unlike Mr.Griffin who says that he against race-mixing. In what way "against" ? How would he and his supporters stop it ? As for being a multi cult fascist, I am not sure that even makes sense. Himmler got his experience of battery farming from chickens, which obviously came in handy in organising the Holocaust.When I go to your talk page 58.168.104.109 (although I do not think you even signed that without sinebot)- I find that you do not appear to exist prior to 0725 this morning. See Godwins Law.--Streona (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Streona you default to godwins law in every post. When ever anyone contributes to this page you are there waiting it seems always, to throw up some piece of ww2 history (which seems to be all from wikipedia) even if it is completely irrelevent to the bnp. Also it is deeply insulting to jews to hear the jewish experience used for peoples own ends stop doing it you racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Note : "I suggest that racism is self-defeating and inbreeding does not lead to a master-race." Pure racism right there. 1. You seem to be referring to the british as imbred or is this the wider "white" race that you seem to only acknowledge to insult. 2. Does this theory apply to other Distinct groups around the world or just "white" people. So your way would lead to a master race is what you are saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a way. There is probably insufficient variation in homo sapiens for any such development, but if there were the way of racial segregation advocated by the BNP -or swimming in the shallow end of the human gene pool- would not produce it and thus there is little point to their basic premise of racial separation and hatred. The British are not inbred but ethnically diverse. Some cultures do favour endogamy which can lead to hereditary defects, such as deafness, or the "Hapsburg lip".

In all this talk page I have once compared members of the BNP with the Brownshirts and the reference ton Himmler was in response to one of the sockpuppets. As for Godwins Law- this may be phrased disparagingly that one should not compare one's opponent to Hitler, but only by implication. In a discussion of fascism, obviously the terms of debate are going to be around this issue. But I'm not the one blubbing about being called a fascist. I am also not sure where there are any references to Jews on this talk page at all, apart from the edit saying that I keep referring to them. If I did I would use a capital letter.--Streona (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I point to this as yet another blow against the already fragile nature of British democracy, the article isn't anywhere near neutral, should the Labour Party have Marxism-Leninism listed in their ideology box? No, of course not because then the article wouldn't be neutral. It wouldn't surprise me if Gerry Gable vandalises this article on a daily basis. This country is pathetic, there is no freedom of speech, there is no freedom of assembly, there is no freedom of thought and there is no freedom of the press, Stalin would be proud of Brown's Britain-Tashkent Fox 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So you'd rather live under Hitler's Nazis than Brown? And no i'm not a Labour supporter before you start i am a Green Party supporter. - VSrugbyfan —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Labour Party has never ever been Marxist Leninist and has banned Communists from membership, whereas the BNP, although now seeking for its own purposes to distance itself was founded by John Tyndall specifically as a racist and fascist party. I do however share some of your views about the Labour Government which is becoming more right-wing and authoritarian and religious.--Streona (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree about the Labour Party becoming more right-wing, although the extreme left (such as Stalin) and the extreme right (like Hitler) always end up with a similar outcome, a totalitarian police state. Just because the BNP were once racist and had fascistic elements isn't to say the same is true now (Just for the record I am not a member of the party) Wikipedia must be neutral on all issues, to say that a political party is National Socialist without their admission is not NPOV-Tashkent Fox 15:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote: "to say that a political party is National Socialist without their admission is not NPOV". Not so. Using just their admission (or denial) is most definitely POV - the party's POV! We do not write that a certain football team is the best because they say so, no more than we say a mass murderer is innocent because he says so. This is an encyclopaedia, so descriptions etc need to be backed up from independent, reliable, academic sources and in this article they are. The BNP is not National Socialist or Nazi (though its antecedents and many of its founding members were). However, contrary to your assertion, it is still racist and not only still has fascistic elements within its membership but is unarguably fascist. (Incidentally, the LP has become more right wing.) Emeraude (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

May I cite Robert Mugabes page as a good NPOV article? Of course there will be racists in the BNP (As there are in any political party) the definition of Fascism you're using is very loose, the word has been taken so far out of it's proper Italian context over the last 60 years that it's not really a valid political label for anyone anymore. I noticed on your User Page that you're an Anti-fascist, Emeraude, well, given the antics of the 'Anti-fascists' at the BNP's Red, White and Bule festival you should be ashamed of yourself-Tashkent Fox 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tashkent - you can't say that all anti-fascists should be ashamed because of the actions of a few. If you accept that as valid, then it is equally valid to state that all BNP members are neo-Nazis. This is of course completely untrue. In any case, I digress. The BNP as a a whole are not National Socialists, simply because this carries inescapable connotations of Nazi-ism. However, they are fascist in nature. Even though the term popularily is misused, the fit the actual definition of fascism. In any case, Wikipedia takes verifiability before truth. Please provide an independent, third-party and verifiable source that states that the BNP is not fascist. -- Neo  Nerd  21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And for the record Tashkent, my User page does not say I'm an Anti-fascist. It says that among my interests are politics (in which I have degree and post-graduate research), particularly anti-fascism and elections. An apology would be appreciated but I won't hold my breath, since the tone of your posts so far does not indicate that you are too concerned with accuracy. And, also for the record, I did not say that there are racists in the BNP; I said the BNP is racist - that is avery significant difference. Neither am I using a "very loose" definition of Fascism. You will notice that I have always spelt the word with a lower case initial letter as well, acommon practice to distinguish the philosophy from the party. Further, although the derivation of the word is Italian, fascism as a political philosophy was never a purely Italian thing and the name was used by a number of other groups pre- and post-war - in Britain alone see British Fascists (founded 1923), National Fascisti (1924), Imperial Fascist League (1929), British Union of Fascists (1932). To argue that the word can only be used to describe one particular historical example is either naive or deceitful. Emeraude (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of racism Emeraude? Simply discussing it and/or showing dislike for a particular groups actions isn't enough to warrant a racist tag. In reality though if you look at someone the wrong way now and that person is Schizophrenic enough to mistake it for racism your in trouble.

http://sioe.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/peaceful-demo-at-aarhus/ Anti-fascist/Anti-racists attack anti-racist protest its amazing you people only attack whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And Neonerd and Emeraude, Tashkent said nothing out of line. He shouldn't ever have to apologise. All Anti-fascists should be ashamed for their actions. Simply because Antifascists will always be Antifascists unless they go by another name like armchair antifascists? So Emeraude its plausible that your a fascist supporter with an interest in antifascism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tashkent said nothing out of line???? How about "I noticed on your User Page that you're an Anti-fascist, Emeraude, well, given the antics of the 'Anti-fascists' at the BNP's Red, White and Bule festival you should be ashamed of yourself." Personal attack or what? Nearly as bad as you saying that "All Anti-fascists should be ashamed for their actions". Bit tough on Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Orwell............ Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Think you jumped the gun there If Anti fascists in a group go and attack innocent people Antifascist should share the collective shame. Its called responsibility. Unless there is a society of non violent antifascists then they have obviously nothing to be ashamed of. That wasn't a profascist remark it was neutral. If a group of people attack others its alright as long as they call themselves Antifascists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Which innocent people were those then ,58.168.104.109, me old mucker ?--Streona (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This si a page for discussing improvements to the article, please cease personal bickering and general debate. If you have a contribution to make, please make a suggestion, make a change to the page, or make a change to the version in my user space.  No-one owns this page, and I am trying to build consensus here. (For the record, though, racism is the belief that humanity has different races and that that is consequential - of course, there is only one human race, but that's beside the point).--Red Deathy (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Correction one SPECIES many races the term race is something we inherited from antiquity. A racialist is often what people should say instead they misuse the word racist just because someone makes a remark about someones skin tone dose not mean they think like a racialist for instance. Your definition wasn't excepted over a hundred years ago. I Think Red Deathy you show the most neutrality of all those who have signed imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding the difference is that racialism is the theory that one race is superior to another but racism is the practice. I think Red Deathy should stick to his guns and not be swayed by the sockpuppets--Streona (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is a bit different - to me 'racialism' is the belief that there are differences between races (even if it's just that black people are better at Basketball) and basing any of your thinking or behaviour on these ideas, while Racism is the belief that one race is better than another.

I think you got them mixed around Streona.

Maybe- the wiki on racialism describes them as synonyms - also see racism--Streona (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Streona me thinks you should read this it'll edumacate you real good. (Imp)

Serious, moi? Quite a good article on the BNP on uncyclopedia though. (I did the link to cockroach)--Streona (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh you seem to be the BNPs biggest fan was that the first article you visited? Oh you should love the http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Africa article it is a featured article too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember in the Royal Navy, having a handout called "Know Your Enemy". Rather unwisely as it turned out it had silhouettes of Russian ships when it should have had Argentinian. Nonetheless we like to keep the profiles of your lot in mind. You could also check out Conservapedia, which is a lot funnier.--Streona (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My lot ? your insane. Take your meds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And your medical qualifications which enable you to make your somewhat snap diagnoses would be what exactly, 58.168.104.109...? I would have thought most courses would entail a sufficient knowledge of Latin to find the meaning of "ad hominem"--Streona (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Did they teach you about the internet in the Royal navy. I'm just off to have a meeting with my lot. Your ignorance is frightening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your quite fond of Ad hominem. Though it can't be understood why it sounds like your just expressing what you'd like reality to be rather then excepting the fact you are ignorant. this is why i call you mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any edit by me on this talk page that is Ad Hominem and they did not have the internet when I was in the Navy. I understand from your last replies that you do not have any medical qualifications, yet you also seem to have diagnosed Emeraude with schizophrenia. This just makes you look silly- that's not an attack, by the way, but an observation that the more unpleasant your ad hominem attacks become, the more they reflect upon yourself. On the other hand your spelling has improved. I think rather than attending political meetings in the dead of night you should get some rest. Later on in this page I have advised you on breathing exercises. These are remarkably effective and I have used them with clients who are undergoing anxiety attacks often due to disturbing flashbacks, dissociative states and intrusive negative thoughts. Mind how you go.--Streona (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha Still don't get it. Your trying to psychoanalyze a featureless IP. Why do you think you are clever creating an entirely fictional character to attack. What you just added was more Ad hominem maybe you should read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I am not attacking you, but your hysterical tone suggests that you need to chill out and breathing exercises always help, This is not psychoanalysis. If it were I would charge you.--Streona (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Article
I have just re read the substantive article again- as opposed to this Talk page- and I cannot seee the basis for the doubts that Red Deathy expresses. The article is not untrue, nor especially biased against the BNP. Yes, they come across as a pretty unsavoury bunch to anyone who does not share their viewpoint, but they only have themselves to blame for that. This article would only be accepted as NPOV by the sockpuppets if it were POV towards the BNP and after all, they do have their own website. The only point of controversy raised in the Talk page has been over the label of fascist and general knockabout stuff, which does give some insight into the nature and vies of proponents of both sides and some in the middle. I am somewhat surprised that fascism does not appear in the National Front ideology box if it is in the BNP, but that's a different article. I am also rather surprised that the proponent(s) of one side do not appear to be registered wikipedian(s), cannot spell and only seem to make a few edits before vanishing again. They also often have foreign IP numbers, and although quite personal attacks are made on the basis of information on User pages, no User page I have ever seen has support for the BNP included on it. This is becasue they are too ashamed, which shows some decency, but not enough I suggest to reach this sought after consensus.--Streona (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does this post add, apart from a veiled attack on the BNP? The article is missing any details on the party's many non-race-related policies, is written in a "this is wrong because..." style (which Streona probably thinks is a good thing), and does not include much background to the case against mass immigration or multicultural integration. Maybe people who post pro-BNP views on here don't sign their comments because they are afraid of being labelled as racists and thus banned from millions of jobs?--MartinUK (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether one signs one's comments is irrelevant to anonymity since the information is there in the history anyway. Privacy is an argument for registering an account though, since a name like Streona or Red Deathy reveals a lot less than an IP address, which can be used to trace people. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) While I sympathise with you Streona, and agree that there have been several instances of personal attacks on this page which really aren't on, some of your comments above seem less than relevant. Anonymous editors have just as much right to take an interest as registered users, and so do those in foreign countries. While poor spelling is an annoyance, many people do have trouble with it (unsurprising if they're foreign, but common also among native English speakers) and it doesn't effect the quality of their arguments. As to User pages, there are plenty of reasons not to declare personal politics on a User page which have nothing to do with shame. My page doesn't mention my politics but I'm far from ashamed of them. Making personal attacks based on information on others' User pages is of course wrong, but it's not made any worse by a lack of similar information on the attacker's page.


 * I would request though that our anonymous colleagues make an effort to sign their posts, as it makes conversation easier to follow. That's a small amount of effort to take but I think you'll find it better disposes people to take your contributions seriously.


 * Let's focus on criticising arguments (and as those for not saying 'fascism' are in my opinion pretty weak that shouldn't be hard) and not get side-tracked by irrelevant points. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for making veiled attacks- which my edit was not. In future I should be more explicit. I have no problem with anonymous edits except it seems strange that there are so many on this talk page and I am not the only one to suggest that they may be sockpuppets, partly because they are all so badly spelt. I do know where Martin or Tashkent are coming from because they are open about it on his user page. Fine (lets hope the BNP don't find something to pick on you about next).

This is a bit of a side track- my edit was meant to focus on the article, which seems far less biased- if at all- than its detractors imply, but remain non-specific about. So can we ge back to that as Olaf says--Streona (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, if you brought them up as comments on the likelihood of sockpuppetry then the relevance becomes clear - sorry. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Olaf how can you write a sensible paragraph that gives unsigned IP's the benefit of the doubt. Then say what Streona said is relevant. Streona just sounds like a conspiracy theorist. Streona attacks anyone that he sees as even neutral to the BNP some people on this talk page don't except anything less then complete hostility towards them and have very thinly disguised prejudices against the British. Also why do you people insist on attacking peoples grammar and spelling when ever an argument is made it seems your just dodging debate. I know at least two of the IPs are thinking these people are nuts. I personally cannot be bothered signing up with wikipedia after witnessing an iranian user who apparently was receiving accolades from his government for editing western history and christianity articles. No one was stopping this user from doing this even encouraging his obviously prejudiced edits.
 * I said Streona's comments seemed relevant because I realised he was bringing up similarities in people's editing patterns as possible evidence of sockpuppetry. That doesn't mean I think there's anything wrong with anons, or people with less than perfect spelling, or that I agree sockpuppetry is going on: just that I now see why he even mentioned it at all. I stand by my comments about people's right to edit anonymously, though I confess I don't see why the actions of one Iranian editor encourage you to edit with an IP address rather than a string of characters as identifier. Either way, we're getting off the purpose of this page again - if you want to discuss this further I invite you to use my talk page where I'll be happy to respond. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Someone vividly accused me of sock puppetry, and blocked me (although its recended now) till November! I'm not sock puppeting, ive just forgoten my user name and password! heehee (chris)

This is what was posted on a registered users page. " Just Fuck off and leave my user page alone. Do not mistake me for a liberal, you piece of scum--Streona (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"

So leave my user page alone from posting insults then. Regarding the anonymous edits- many of these seem to have a very recent and short life span, similar viewpoint and similar spelling and grammatical error and my post was on an anonymous users page, who left an offensive and racist edit on mine, which has only now been replied to-perhaps by another anonymous user (we await Sinebot to tell us)- two months later. I think Lucymarie and possibly MartinUK and Tashkent Fox are - to varying degrees neutral to the BNP, but I have not attacked them, and apologise if they feel that I have. I do seem to have annoyed (perhaps)quite a few other people, all of whom remain anonymous. But I appear to have been the recipient of more - often highly personal attacks, delivered anonymously, such as being called a " Multicult fascist"- obviously some inner party jargon not familiar to the rest of us- and been compared to Himmler. In fact reading this talk page, I do not believe that I have attacked anyone personally, but for the BNP collectively. Come to think of it- if all the anon edits (which are all pro BNP) are the work of one individual, then that would not be a "conspiracy" even in theory, but could only be if they are from more than one.

Anyone else remember the David Low cartoon captioned "But my dear, even Mr.Hitler cannot be both dregs and scum" ? --Streona (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeh "I know at least two of the IPs are thinking these people are nuts" I took myself into account. There could be any combination of sock puppets not just 1xn, could be 2xn or 3xn. Can you prove that signed signatures don't have multiple accounts or better yet can you prove there is one person posting. Its amazing that one person can travel to the other side of the planet in less then an hour to post twice on wikipedia. This "one individual" must be like superman heh Streona? Again you confirm your insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah! The hate that dare not speak its name. There are websites where you can buy as many IPs as you want. Whatever, the number of useful contributions made by any of them is negligible however you slice it.--Streona (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell us more about these "websites" Streona that you know about and how to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on you lot, let's keep it constructive! Some of your comments are border-line ad-hominen attacks and aren't really necessary. There is not an unlimited number of IP's available, IPV4 at least is running out and very quickly! If you suspect sock-puppetry then why not take the appropriate and recommended actions to report it rather than having a moan about it? :) Gable Gez (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Article 2
I have just re read the substantive article again- as opposed to this Talk page- and I cannot seee the basis for the doubts that Red Deathy expresses. The article is not untrue, nor especially biased against the BNP. Yes, they come across as a pretty unsavoury bunch to anyone who does not share their viewpoint, but they only have themselves to blame for that. This article would only be accepted as NPOV by the sockpuppets if it were POV towards the BNP and after all, they do have their own website. The only point of controversy raised in the Talk page has been over the label of fascist and general knockabout stuff, which does give some insight into the nature and vies of proponents of both sides and some in the middle. I am somewhat surprised that fascism does not appear in the National Front ideology box if it is in the BNP, but that's a different article. --Streona (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

--Streona (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascism NPOV
With reference to the claims that the BNP are a fascist party, I have found no credible citation in this article which seems to indicate this. The BNP manifesto and policy as seen on their official website quite clearly stipulates a policy of personal freedoms and liberalism. Comparing this to some other UK political parties, not marked as fascist, who are asserting non-democratic (no public referendum) policies which seek to remove personal liberties, self-governance and sovereignty, I can find no reason at all why either: the BNP should be marked as fascist; or other UK political parties should not be marked as fascist.

It seems most clear to myself and other editors of this article that the NPOV rule is being clearly abused on this article to create a biased viewpoint.

Wikipedia does not allow a point of view, it does not allow original thought, and it does not allow a claim without citations (especially in the evidence to the contrary) to remain without challenge. Why are all three of these rules being blatantly/selectively ignored at the moment? Gable Gez (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is complete and utter nonsense by what can only be a BNP member or supporter, attempting to pass himself of as Gerry Gable (and that is a violation of Wikipedia policy). He claims to find "no credible citation" in the article to indicate the BNP is a fascist party. It's been said again and again and again that the references cites are respectable, reliable, independent, academic sources fully in accord with the hisghest principles of Wikipedia policy. Also, and its been said again and again and again that it is open to editors to supply citations that are reliable etc to the contrary - no one has done so, because none exits. Emeraude (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Gable Gez is Streona and that streona is a BNP member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The option to put a proposed change to the page is available via a sandboxed version of the article should editors wish to avail themselves of it. Further, if any reliable third party source that claims that the BNP is not fascist I would happilly remove the reference myself in line with WP:V and WP:OR.  I hear a lot about POV in the article, I see previous little will from those who make such claims to do something about it.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this simply mean find an article without the word fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC) If anyone would answer this question. If there was a Tibetan national party ( does not matter if there is one) and it only allowed ethnic Tibetan membership would it be fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on its policies.--Streona (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Ok so you believe excluding all other ethnicities other then the indigenous ethnicity is not fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you'd need to find an artical that rebuts the claim that it is fascist in a reliable third party source. An article that simple does nto mention fascism while describing the BNP would not suffice (that's been tried before).--Red Deathy (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a BNP supporter, what interests me is the fact that any "white" interest group is automatically labeled fascist, racist, nazi etc even though many political groups exist of other ethnicites which mirror their policy and are not branded Fascistic etc. People would naturally come to the conclusion it was just because they are white.

Would you like to have ago answering the Tibetan question Red Deathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 09:01, 2 September

There are further dimensions to being listed as fascist. The wiki page fascism gives reliably sourced definitions. We are not told of the hypothetical racially excluse Tibetan Party's policies towards other ethnicities. Taking Mandela's case - he and the ANC (apart from not being racially exclusive anyway) have not sought to treat whites worse than blacks- in fact the economic gap between the whites and blacks has actually widened as the economy has improved. The BNPs policy -in fact the whole reason for its existence- is to force non-whites citizens to leave the country by systematically favouring white people over them. In order to do this would require a wholesale repudiation of the European Convention of Human Rights as well as every aspect of the "unwritten British Constitution" since Magna Carta, and the introduction of a repressive enforcement regime. This would be a "Nationalist Revolution" at the heart of fascist rhetoric since the 1920s. This is Right wing revolutionary movement, which does NOT thereby make it "left wing" as some editors imagine. --Streona (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also what planet are you on have you not heard of the white genocide in South africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Farmer_Murders Within is the quotes from ANC " such as "One settler, one bullet!", "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer!" and "Maak dood die wit man" (Kill the white man)." And there is a youtube video that all reportedly has Mandela singing Kill whites.
 * Aha you can't be serious South african economy improving? is this like zimbabwe's economy improving? And the ANC is a racial majority party as is BNP. There are also positive discrimination for blacks and wealth distribution policy which in no way seems to be affecting the wealthy blacks.

Hey why don't we discuss the ANC ? See ANC wikipedia article.--Streona (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was also till recently I believe still listed as a terroist organistation and fair amount of them are listed as criminals post apartheid.

Your statement raises another the question is the ANC a racist fascist party? (Imperium) See ANC--Streona (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Streona you are an idiot. Did you not get the uncyclopedia joke. You wikipedia educated fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anon, we don't put 'fascist' in the article because of the BNP's attitudes to non-whites: we put it there because reliable sources call them fascist. If reliable sources called a Tibetan party fascist we would call them fascist; if not, we wouldn't. Whether they ban members of other races is irrelevant for two reasons: firstly, because fascism is not the same as allowing only one race membership, but more importantly because we rely on independent sources and not our own reasoning. No amount of argument about whether their policies are fascist is going to convince everyone to remove it from the article unless you provide a reliable source which has made the argument and said they are not fascist. This is simply how Wikipedia works. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Again! I suggest that we simpley put "fascism" (Denied by the BNP) under political ideolodgy.Third party sources being used tend to come from anti BNP groups, such as Searchlight and UAF. I thinks its unfair to use sources from a group that is anti BNP.

I suggest you put there. Fascism (acroding to anti BNP groups) Or Denied by BNP) or something along those lines. I think that is the answer to this arguement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.108.51 (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe this is what the debate has been about not wether fascism should be removed but the "add Denied by BNP". (Imperium)
 * I don't think an actual reference supporting the claim that the BNP denies fascism has been produced yet (at least, not one that wouldn't have required an OR interpretation to reach that claim). But, neiterh has a third party resource, and WP:V goes by reliable third party sources, at least one of the current batch is an academic article from a peer reviewed journal dedicated to the relevant topic.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is not the BNP pages itself used a few times as a source going by the footnotes. I'm sure they deny it somewhere on their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As Red Deathy says, the sources used to justify the statement of fascism in the infobox are academic journal articles and books; such sources stating that the BNP denies fascism would perhaps justify including that too. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No the BNP website has been used as a source its in the footnotes(not referring to the infobox). Is the BNP a thirdparty source. Because it sure looks like people have been using it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking specifically about those used to verify the claim of fascism. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't Olaf. I was talking specifically about the article itself. If the site can be used for BNP POV additions why can it not be used for denied fascism ? No one answered the Tibetan question. Would a Tibetan National Party that only allowed Ethnic Tibetan membership be fascist? Yes or no. Dodging the question will count as no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I had answered your Tibetan question above (starting with "Anon, we don't put 'fascist'"). If you think I was dodging the question can you explain why? Or did you just miss it (this conversation is certainly confusingly formatted)? As for the other point, I need to sleep now but will try and find time to reply soon. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I missed your "(not referring to the infobox)" before; apologies. Will attempt to reply soon as I said. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't your simply ignoring the question. The Question is a hypothetical question unrelated to the BNP article but of interest in this discussion. Does a party that mirrors the BNP ethnic membership policy count as fascist. It is not a yes or no to the inclusion of fascism in the BNP article. Its a question about double standards. Again Yes or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a party that restriucts its membership by race is a racist party. A fascist partty would have fascist additions. The BNP manifesto is a valid source on the BNP manifesto, though, maybe you're right and we should only take reliable third party soruces there (WP:V is a bit weak on coporate documents and primary sources, so it may be a problem with the policy, I've run across it before).--Red Deathy (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To make my answer as simple as possible then: "Does a party that mirrors the BNP ethnic membership policy count as fascist?" No, not necessarily. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Signing posts
Hi everyone. Can I ask people to please make an effort to sign their posts? As I've said before it makes no difference to anonymity because the information's easily available in the history for SignBot or another user to access, but it makes the debate much easier to follow. In the above section, for example, an IP's contribution looked like it was from Streona because there was no signature to separate them. If you really object to typing four tildes, at least putting 'end of comment' or something would make the discussion more readable. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove signatures from comments. If SignBot has made a mistake then say so; if you don't want your IP address displayed on talk pages then register for account to hide it; if even that is too public for you then you should probably avoid editing Wikpedia. But removing signatures is not going to help your anonymity and may look like vandalism to other editors. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The return of white nationalism to political ideoldgies
Can someone PLEASE direct me to valid sources PROVENING THIS BEOND DOUBT?

How can we direct you when we don't even know who you are ? (or what you are talking about).--Streona (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete whole article
This whole article neds deleting and anybody who thinks the BNP as a bad party or nazi or fascist party needs expelling from the country. I am sure taht all these people who are mad enough to say these things will be thrown out of the country before all the illegeal imigrants froeging criminals and scrounges. They will not be given the years voluntary right to leave like the legitimate non british folk who are here they will be just removed or they should be. As it is their kind of bigoted anti-reform anti-anything which they disagree with run this country into the ground and keep the country agitated idiotic views which they espouse have created in this country and this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.20.194 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you say this in the first place and we could wrap up the whole argument ? Is this BNP policy?--Streona (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Just Being Silly
¹Both United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) members defected in February 2005 to the newly-formed Veritas party; from September 2005 they formed their own party, One London which failed to win seats in the subsequent election.

The BNP have a history of Nazi members so anyone who doesn't think thier Nazis needs expelling from this country. -- Just grow up--Streona (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Apologies if you are in fact under 7 years old - do not hang around with these people son, they are no good and will get you into trouble. Take my tip, sonny, and get out more.--Streona (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The above edit is abit wierd. But Streona you should really get out more. Thinking the SA economy is on the up and the ANC is a non racial party. You are mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should get out and stop talking to the likes of you. Its a dirty job, but someone's got to do it --Streona (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Shut up streona stop suggesting everyones a BNP member. You multicultural eugenics loving bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.104.109 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now what did we say about ad homininem ? My arguments have been counter eugenics, so I apologise if they came out the other way. A wish to preserve racial purity, central to the thoughts of Griffin if not the BNP, is by implication eugenic in intention, but not in outcome and since the world has many cultures, it is going to be multicultural whether you like it or not. Could you please make any reply devoid of personal abuse - it just makes you seem hysterical. I suggest that you breathe in for 8 seconds, hold it for 8 and then breathe out for 8 seconds before making further edits. If you are not a BNP member, then congratulations- keep away from them. --Streona (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiculturalism is the last thing we are heading towards. The entire world will gradually become more and more similar, probably ruled by Islamic fundamentalism. If people are active encouraged to move, how will that preserve cultural (or genetic) individuality?--MartinUK (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

We start from multiculturalism- you suggest we are heading away from it. I do not think that Islamo-Fascism has quite the influence you fear. In Pakistan the fundamentalist parties only took two seats at the election and the majority of the people fear and hate them, although they attract disproportionate attention. In Iraq, Al Qaeda has lost the support of its former Sunni allies and is now being smashed. However the influence of Western culture is more homogenising. Eveywhere you go there are adverts for Coca Cola, MacDonalds etc. I believe it was Mr. Griffin who once sought funding from Iran and Libya, was it not?--Streona (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Primary sources
''Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

''only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. from WP:PRIMARY I'd suggest the BNP manifesto qualifies so long as its use is limited to simple statements of what is in the manifesto, without commentary or interpretation. Anything beyond that requires secondary or tertiary sources. I hope this helps.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but would extend this slightly to say the manifesto defines their current policy is (this is the definition of a manifesto). Is there any bit of the article you have in mind? --h2g2bob (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal
If this has been discussed before, then I apologise. I propose that this article is subjected to third-party review, which might end some of the bickering which has dominated the talk page for months. I personally don't think that anything is wrong with the article. However, it seems as though a vocal group of anonymous editors do. Would this idea be satisfactory? -- Neo  Nerd  21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is currently being undertaken.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

3% prediction
Did anybody seriously predict that the BNP would get 3% of the vote in the 2005 General Election, despite entering candidates in less than a quarter of the seats? Without a source, that quoted figure looks like one chosen by an enemy of the party, to belittle whatever results they did go on to achieve.--MartinUK (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been unable to find any source on this, and since no-one else has replied I've removed it. Cheers Martin. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just found a source on BBC News - not quite sure how I missed that before. I've re-added the claim with a cite. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although I suspect the exit polls were biased to produce a higher BNP figure - perhaps a high share of the seats sampled were inner-cities (so more likely to earn BNP support). Or is it simply that BNP voters were more likely to publically declare their allegiance (especially compared to 2001 and earlier?)--MartinUK (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could be any of those - also I wonder accurate exit polls usually are for figures that small. Either way the BBC article doesn't give us any more detail to add. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All polling has a margin of error of between 2 and 5 percent with the mean being around 3 percent. This would indicate that the level of actual support from the exit polling would vary greatly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3% of the 100% who were polled, which would still make 2.8% or so. Unless they deliberately polled everybody wearing a Union Flag T-shirt, such a massive discrepancy is hard to explain--MartinUK (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not 3 of the 100 polled. 3% overall, so in fact they with in the margin of error of having any support at all.--Lucy-marie (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between 0.7% and 3% is statistically much bigger than the difference between (say) 47% and 50%. Putting forward 3% as a serious prediction was poor statistics and poor journalism, and almost certainly deliberately biased.--MartinUK (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how bigging up the BNP vote is necessarily biased against them - if 3% really is bigging them up. If it is, I am sure they would wish to agree with it. What is more likely is that journalists will ant to puff up the significance of their story.--Streona (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bigging up" this isn't the ghetto use proper english and grammar please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall we all do that ?--Streona (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you may. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding of Standards Board for England
The Standards Board for England and Wales has officially ruled that the BNP could be called a Nazi party.

Case no. SBE10144.05

Member: Councillor Gavin Stollar

Authority: Epping Forest District Council

Date received: 22 Feb 2005

Date completed: 15 Jun 2005

Allegation: A member failed to treat others with respect and brought his office or authority into disrepute.

SBE outcome: The Ethical Standards Officer found no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

The complainant alleged that Councillor Gavin Stollar, a member of Epping Forest District Council, made an "extremely offensive and confrontational" public statement about a British National Party (BNP) conference in Brentwood. Councillor Stollar allegedly said, "We don't want Nazis in our town". The complainant said that this was particularly offensive because the Group Leader of the BNP on the council is Jewish. Councillor Stollar also allegedly suggested that the BNP's conference was "deliberately planned to coincide with the Auschwitz Memorial Service".

The Ethical Standards Officer did not consider that Councillor Stollar's comments were disrespectful or capable of bringing his office or authority into disrepute. The Ethical Standards Officer considered that Councillor Stollar expressed his views on a rival political party within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate.

The Ethical Standards Officer found that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

--Streona (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears this board is anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Explanation: This board's credibility is in question if it alows a Jew to be called a nazi and sees nothing ethically wrong with this. Of course calling a Jew a nazi is very disrespectful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what other Jews think?--Streona (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, perhaps the Nazis were not anti-semitic after all. They had Jewish collaborators working for them as well. Abraham Gancwajch was a kind of town councillor in Warsaw during German occupation and he was Jewish and supported the Nazis also see news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm - 41k - --Streona (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your stepping over the line User Streona your racism won't be tolerated on wikipedia. Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in some countries let me remind you. Might I also refer you to Godwins law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This quite odious relationship with nazis and jews you have postulated reminds me of something. Quickley scanning your edits I see the unmistakable trend of a hardcore antisemite who has nothing on their mind but jews and nazis. The obsession of neo-nazis or more recently the far left sphere. So which are you a Streona a Neo-nazi or a communist? Try to reply with something other then teh Joos111. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The complaint to the Standards Board was not against me but against Councillor Gavin Stollar, who is none of these but is in fact a Liberal Democrat Councillor and Jewish. My point is that if having Jewish supporters is a kind of "get of jail free card" for Nazi organisations, the existence of such collaborators would disqualify the Nazis from being Nazi, which is plainly ridiculous. Were I a Nazi or Holocaust denier- which I am not - I would join the BNP, although when I grew up, British identity was defined by anti-fascism, Spitfires, Churchill etc. so the idea of any British person being a nazi is equally repellent. As for Godwin's Law, this does not apply to discussions of nazism per se, as is clear in the article. What I have noticed in the replies to my edits is that anyone who opposes the BNP gets called a nazi by their supporters. I attribute this to glue-sniffing on their part, which I know has been popular amongst them historically. I hope this clears things up for you, although I have not the slightest idea what "teh Joos111" means and quite frankly do not care.--Streona (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fails verification - the Standards Board of England does not have any record of this. The only source on google is on a blog at liberalreview.com. Blogs are normally not reliable sources, and certainly fail the redflag source needed for this. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is from http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=958 - not generally known as an anti-semitic website -

by Alex Sholem - Thursday 23rd June 2005

Liberal Democrat Councillor Gavin Stollar has been cleared of any wrong-doing after he was reported to the Standards Board for England for describing the BNP as “Nazis”. Jewish BNP councillor Pat Richardson complained to the local government watchdog after Stollar allegedly slammed a British National Party conference in Brentwood, saying: “We don’t want Nazis in our town”.She protested taht she found the comment to be “extremely offensive and confrontational”.

However, the Ethical Standards Officer said he did not find Stollar’s comments to be disrespectful, and that he had fairly expressed his views on a rival party “within the acceptable limits of political debate”.

Stollar told TJ: “This was a real landmark case for councillors who work alongside the BNP. It has given people the opportunity to be able to speak up against what the BNP stand for. I’m absolutely delighted with the ruling, what they tried to do has backfired and come back to show them up.”

--Streona (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/moderngov/Data/Standards%20Committee/20050720/Agenda/Item05.pdf

look for "Case 2" which reads word for word as the original edit above.

Also see

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1492709/Race-abuse-ruled-legal-as-long-as-the-victim-doesn't-hear.html

A watchdog has said that the British National Party could not object to being called "Nazis". The BNP complained after a Liberal Democrat councillor, Gavin Stollar, told a newspaper: "We don't want Nazis in our town" over plans for a BNP conference in Brentwood, Essex.

The Standards Board for England disagreed that the remark was "offensive and confrontational".

It said: "Mr Stollar expressed his view on a rival party within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate."

--Streona (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this contribute to cleaning up the article and making it more neutral if you keep adding every article on the net to this article its going to be very long. There are some far more right wing and openly nazi parties in Scandanavia and europe that have more balanced articles. Why the obessesion with the BNP visiting their site they seem to have no connection to nazism what so ever. From what you can read from the their page they seem to be fairly politcally astute. Also I fail to see how a party with Jewish membership could be considered Nazi. Antisemitism was a crux of nazism so they can't logically be called a Nazi party.

Maybe as a Solution to this problem a sub page could be formed for BNP related articles "BNP in the press" or something like that. The article is currently looking like a joke to anybody reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a polite & considered reply. I would argue that the demonisation of Jews under Hitler has been replaced with that of Muslims for purposes of political opportunism and with an appeal to a racial mythic past. The structure of the BNP concentrates power in the hands of the Leader and they have the policy of ethnic cleansing although they call it something else). They have tried to rid themselves of their skinhead contingent to make them more eletorally appealing - which only tends to underline their comparison with the suppression of the Stormtroopers in 1936. Circumstances in Britain are not the same as those in the Weimar Republic, although according to BNP rhetoric they seem to think it is. If Hitler or Moseley were to come back and want to set up an organisation to launch an essentially fascist programme, would they not do the same? Nazism seems quite well thought out in comparison with the guttural unthinking racism of the Klu Klux Klan, which if they are not to be compared with the Nazis- as Cllr.Stollar did and which the SBE found legitimate - would be an alternate comparison. I don't think the article is a joke. I am sure it is factually true where it is sourced. It probably highlights the controversial aspects of the BNP without giving due weight to their positive achievements. I am unaware what these are, although I am sure they will have big claims in the matter and thjses cannot be accepted uncritically. Griffin has sought to reposition the party to pick up on discontented voters and has been successful in gaining a number of council seats where the NF and Tyndall were not, and photos of "ordinary" people adorn their website and photos of Nick Griffin's cat, Boswell etc. replacing those of marching skinheads. However at least two councillors have resigned - Maureen Stowe and Pat Pattison - have resigned, claiming that they had been deceived into thinking that the BNP were not racist or fascist only to find out that they were. Hopefully others can be prevented from making the same mistake. I am an English patriot and want to see a better country, but my vision of what that is is far different from that of the BNP who claim to want the same thing, but based on hatred not respect. Perhaps you want the same thing.--Streona (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have to argue strongly against the muslim jew switch. Muslims as a group are strongly antisemitic. Also from corresponding with Iranians they seem to be the ideological successor to the Nazis. This seems to be from the highest level of their nation right down to the ordinary citizen. This is that they believe in aryanism and aryan migration theory into europe. I have no idea if they adapted their theories from the 1930's or the other way around but it is fact that they have identical ideological beliefs.

Also its no suprise where the BNP come from. If for the last half centuary all avenues for indigenous "white" europeans around the world to voice their concerns and to declare their basic human right to form interest groups, has been outlawed, demonised and left to fringe radical groups. Where do you think these people are going to come from. Thats the cause and this is the effect. Also alot of what you say is "reading inbetween the lines" sort of anaylse of their policys and statements is very much from your POV streona your lack of neutrality is off the scale it has to be said.

Im sorry Streona but this muslims are the new jews garbage is pathetic and doesn't hold up to muslims jewish relations and muslim everyone else relations. Apparently sharia is now being implemented in your country if you were a true British patriot you would be fighting this instead of the BNP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, so much for the reasoned debate. I have noticed that the more cogent your arguments, the better the spelling and grammar. Historically Muslims have treated Jews much better than the Christians have, although since the inception of the Israeli state animosity has become quite severe. This cannot be a coincidence. Sharia law is not being introduced, except as an alternative means of dispute resolution between consenting parties. Nobody is going to start chopping off hands. I have always found iranians to be very pleasant and educated, but maybe that's why they are here and not in Iran. Obviously you have been in correspondence with the wrong crowd, and maybe not just Iranians either.--Streona (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Streona its not a debate if I agree with you. Your obsession over spelling and grammar isn't very relevent and you seem to repeatedly use this as a crutch when unable to accept another persons opinion or engage in debate. The people I was in corrsepondence with were univeristy students. Also it appears you are a delusional appeaser. I see you have been to George Galloways page. Hopefully 5th columnists like yourself will be trialed for treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi Some reading for you Streona. Ignorance isn't a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.114.230 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And you can get an idea of how Christians treated the Jews from Spanish Inquisition. I have not read Galloway's page. Personally I despise him. Let me revisit some of the arguments here.

1.You say that Griffin cannot be attacking the Muslims in the way that Hitler attacked trhe Jews because Muslims do not like Jews. This does not make any sense.

2.If he is using the Muslims as a substitute for the Jews in Nazi demonology then it seems to be working, as you yourself are proof. Would you support thee BNP quite so vociferously if they were anti-Jewish and not anti-Muslim ? You claim not to be anti-semitic.

3.It was not so long ago that Nick Griffin was a fervent anti Zionist (the BNP has been described as the most pro Zionist party by Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies) and supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini and Colonel Gaddafi when he and Derek Holland were travelling foreign parts trying to ponce money from them.

It is a debate if we disagree and put our arguments logically. The point of my edit at the top of this paragraph was to draw attention to the Standards board as a source for the resolution of whether or not the BNP can be called Nazi. This is within the wiki guidelines for the use of the talk page. You can disagree with me without using such expressions as "pathetic garbage" "delusional appeaser" "5th columnist" to be "trialed (sic) for treason" "hardcore anti- semite". These are not really terms of debate any more than my being showered with bottles by the BNP in the Isle of Dogs campaign against Beackon in the 90s was (don't worry they managed to hit a bus instead- these were people still trying to master the use of opposable thumbs). My concern with your grammar is that the more hysterically abusive you become the worse it gets. Just keep calm and your level of debate improves. Welcome to wikipedia-I see that you only joined yesterday. --Streona (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Streona I've have claimed/said nothing about Griffin, gave no opinion of these things. Really just making stuff up makes me wonder about your sanity. Please read up on Dynamic Ips you idiot.

You have been on Galloways page though. Do you not read articles just spam their discussion pages.

Improve the policies section
Why are none of they parties policies on their article? Why is it obsessed with zionism and bomb nuts?

Also (same old argument lol) Why is FASCISM and WHITE NATIONALISM still on there? Or has Sterona been up to his tricks? ;P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.141 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not touched it. I told you before (although you have only signed on today- funny that) its Streona like Eadric Streona.--Streona (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeh streona told you before?! HAHA lunacy.

Bias
The bias here is just ridiculous. Pretty much every section smacks the reader in the face with the assertion that the BNP IS RACIST!!!11!!!! Make a separate section for racial remarks, policies, complaints, etc; having it repeatedly mentioned in the opening paragraph is just tiring. Nationalism is NOT fascism, although the word "fascist" has become so vague to suit propagandists' needs it barely means anything anymore besides "NOT LIBERAL". One need only look at the list of sources to see the bias here- are left-wing articles heavily criticizing the BNP really trustworthy? One might as well use extremely right-wing sources on the Communist Party page (but you can be sure that's not the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.40.27 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the 202 references are not from left-wing sources but from the national and local press, the BBC, academic papers and the BNP itself. The only reference from socialist worker was quoting a lengthy interview from a former BNP councillor. --Streona (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The BBC apparently go easy on Labour according to their Boss, I'd say thats a leftwing bias.

Agreed, useing third party sources by anti BNP groups is kinda unfair. If I formed an anti LAbour group and published articles saying labour is fascist, would it be ok for one to put fascism on the Labour party article?

Check the references in the article. Many are sourced from the BNP itself and local newspapers as well as the Conservative press. There are few if any third party sources that are pro BNP. If antone can name them, put it here.--Streona (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia the alleged "nuetral point of view "and the factsconcerning the BNP
It obvious to any one who has spent some years researching the BNP that then reading the Wikipedia article about it, that their dedication to the so called neutral point of view is so much fiction. In fact the article reads like the case a skilled legal practitioner would advance as an argument for his client. In this case the client is obviously a leftist. Having spent years dissecting the one sided screeds of both the left and the right wing politically,I, like any intelligent person, note that the best of the advocates for either side utilize a technique that involves martialling all the facts that fit their theory, documenting these facts as well as they can then understating obvious conclusions "logically" gleaned from this carefully culled selection. MOST LEFTISTS AND QUITE A FEW RIGHT WINGERS PRACTICE THIS SEGREGATION OF INFORMATION SO SKILLFULLY THAT THE UNDERSIGNED IS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THEIR ARGUMENT IS TO SHORE UP THEIR OWN FLAGGING ENTHUSIASM FOR THEIR STATED POLITICAL BELIEFS (emphasis added)

The BNP article is nothing but a series of isolated facts specifically chosen for their concordance with a predetermined conclusion. It is thin gruel, especially thin concerning the BNP's current leadership

Unlike the writers of this smear who fatuously pretend to present "the neutral point of view" I declare my conclusions and my Bias. Nick Griffin and the current leadership of the BNP are people who have striven, overcome and are much  to be admired. What they have overcome cannot be understood by anyone who has not walked in their shoes, and Lived in the UK during the Post war period. They are the survivors of a cultural war the like of which we have not seen in the United States, It is a cultural war that raised a generation to despise all aspects of traditional English culture, A generation whose intellectual leadership, rather than searching for its roots, learned to despise them and set it sights on being " European" rather than British. In many other European countries this has happened to many people, and now in these lands as well as the UK some people are realizing the meaning of that once popular Buffy song "Oh you Know You don't realize what you've got til its gone"  and attempting to revive their cultural heritage before it is wiped out. Since my facts come largely from my own research which I prefer even to the BNP website, Wikipedia would pronounce them as unsuitable. However I do not care about the judgment of a group of people who would rely on one out of context quotation more than twelve years old together with one recorded statement  " Islam is a wicked vicious faith" to try to smear the moral integrity of a person they politically oppose. Wikipedia may think their article condemns Griffin. It actually condemns Wikipedia.

When Wikipedia sets out to record a historical blurb on any controversial person, group, or event it would be better served, rather than chose partisans of one side of an issue who make a poor showing of attempting Neutrality, to let the best advocates of each of the various "sides" of the issue each present their own articles, then Let the readers use their own judgment to sort it out. That way Wiki would be of some more use than simply using a search engine and garnering from all sources. As it is, on most issues even your so called " facts" are suspect

Griffin understands this. He is at present authoring an Autobiography which will be much more useful than anything so far written in Wikipedia. Perhaps someday a scholar will write his Biography. Until then I offer my own observations made over the last four years. In a nut shell what Griffin has been doing ever since he joined the BNP has been weaning the party away from its indiscriminate racist roots and separating out the Nazis. Only those of us who have been involved in small party politics understand that the process of purging a political movement of undesirables is both difficult and slow. His vast growth of support amongst decent ordinary Brits who would not give the time of day to a skin head, and his patience by constant steady argument converting or removing the race haters has paid off and the BNP is now set to win seats in Westminster. It is a forgone conclusion that they will have at least a round dozen in Brussels next year. The facts are that the UK at 266 persons per square mile ( even more in England) is one of the most overcrowded countries on Earth. ( about ten time as densely populated as the United States. It is being overwhelmed with immigrants who are destroying its culture and its countryside. This needs to stop and Griffin and the BNP are the only political force which will stop it. All the other garbage and innuendo written about The BNP is unimportant compared to these stark facts.   -- JJB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.42.42 (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to edit the article, or, if your changes are likely to be substantial and/or controversial, make a dummy copy of your proposed changes (I have a sandboxed version of the article in my user space for you to use to that purpose). It is up to you to try and promote the NPOV value of the article, within the rules/polcieis/guidelines agreed among editors.--Red Deathy (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again there is another edit on this talk page complaining about the article in general without giving any specific examples of what is the problem. Highlighting the criminal convictions of BNP members may be giving undue weight to these, but is not untrue and is an issue which is frequently raised here in the little old United Kingdom, but the nature of the BNP is not decided solely on these facts but on other matters in the article. I am also aware that there are substantially more offences clocked up by BNP activists which are not mentioned.

Once again RedDeathy has put it to you to "put up or shut up", yet it seems none of these anon. editors are prepared to do either.

The future that you predict of a BNP run Britain is one that presumably you, like other of the anon. editors will avoid because you do not live here. I would be expecting a knock om my door from the race police enquiring as to whether I am to be racially classified as indigenous and if I or members of my family, should we fail the test will no doubt be invited to, maybe an interview at the Job Centre to make plans to leave the country, and which white British person can take our jobs and property. But what if I were a Black British person with no other nationality and my so-called "country of origin" won't take me? Would I be left alone? The BNP will by then have removed all anti-discrimination laws so I would probably be destitute. They also want to prevent air travel for Muslims, so that is going to complicate the repatriation process. Maybe they will set up camps. The present Government has set up detention camps for failed asylum seekers in the same position, but these can only house 10% of the numbers, so we would expect a huge expansion of Camps under the BNP, with no doubt newsreel of how humane conditions are and inspected by by the Red Cross etc. Maybe they could recycle the ones from Germany. Would these detainees be locked up for ever at tax payers expense ? What would happen to those detainees? David Irving said that Hitler did not really want to gas anyone but the camp commandants resorted to this only when they found themselves in a similar position. According to your compatriot 124.184.114.230 {strangely when I googled that it came up as wikipedia "User EBeisher",- does this count as sockpuppetry?) I would be "trialed (sic) for treason" so I would probably be first up against the wall. Obviously we would have left the EU by then and all human rights legislation repealed and the economy is completely stuffed, what within that and the UN sanctions. This is the unique selling point of the BNP. Restricting immigration is the policy of the mainstream parties. Without these policies they are nothing, and it does not matter whether the BNP wear Barbour jackets and brogues instead of boots and braces, the only way they can institute their "solution" is by these means. This is not my fantasy - it is theirs. Many of their supporters have not thought this through, but then even BNP councillors have failed to realise that the party was racist until after they had joined. I think we can promote British culture without making our country into a nightmare state that nobody would recognise as Britain and which my parents generation fought to the death to prevent. Winston Churchill once said "Try everything once except incest and Morris Dancing", which is no doubt why he would have avoided attending the RWB festival and their bizarrely stilted view of our culture. He also said something about beaches, though not as a holiday destination.--Streona (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All very optimistic and positive there Streona, but what have you been doing to ensure that this happens? Have you done anything to prevent Sharia law encroaching into British society? Or to break up the black and Asian gangs which have made many areas of our streets a no-go area for the white majority? Or to prevent the mass immigration of (mostly white) Eastern Europeans, let alone the illegal immigrants, when most of Europe seems able to keep them under control? Many ordinary people who are not racist are interested in the BNP because it offers them something, some hope of a future in which they receive support and attention and their values are respected and supported. Before you ask, I'm not a member and have never voted for them, but I wouldn't rule it out when the next election comes--MartinUK (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See "Councillors Achievements" in the article.--Streona (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a place for debate
We're not here to debate the merits of the BNP, Wikipedia is a netral factual resource. please keep discussion solely towards improving the article.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please report any off topic discussions, not focused on article content to appropriate administrators with supporting evidence.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On those lines i appreciate the contribution Martin made to the article on BNP domestic policies, insteasd of just moaning. I also believe the BNP have various animal welfare policies, such as anti (as it happens Japanese}whaling, but I could not source it.--Streona (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Repossession policy
The recently added statement "They have proposed that reposessed homes should become council houses, to prevent these being sold off cheaply to undercut private sellers, and to provide housing for those who need it" is sourced to an article by Martin Wingfield on the BNP's site. My feeling is that "They have proposed" suggests a more formal policy than a suggestion by a single member - how about "BNP member Martin Wingfield has proposed..."? Also, I'm not sure that the source supports "to prevent these being sold off cheaply to undercut private sellers" though I may have missed something - what do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point on the first edit. As for the second one, Wingfield says that it will "help shore up the fragile property market" and that repossessions have a "depressing effect on the price of property", but I suppose that isn't 100% clearly the intention. "To restore the volume of council houses and prevent mass homelessness" might be a good compromise?--MartinUK (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)