User:One Night In Hackney/Evidence

Content policy violating edits

 * 2 January 2010 Adds text saying that "The decade was a time of unrest in British politics and spurred on by the popular reception of Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech, regarding non-European immigration into British communities, the National Front under Tyndall's leadership had become more successful and known in the public sphere" using this source (search for Tyndall then go to page 225), when what the source actually says is "The leader of the NF for much of the 1970s was Tyndall. He envisaged electoral success bringing the NG to power, a view encouraged by the popular reception given to Enoch Powell's 1968 'rivers of blood' speech", and there's nothing else relevant on the page. So the claim that the NF "had become more successful and known in the public sphere" is not sourced by the source cited.
 * 2 January 2010 More problematic text added citing the same source as the diff above. "After reportedly becoming the third party at local level in some areas of the United Kingdom" is unsupported by the source which reads (on page 227 not 225, this was changed on a later edit) "The NF's increased votes in the 1976-77 elections, which were widely (mis)reported as making the NF the third party in some parts of Britain...". Spectacular, the source says that the NF were actually misreported as being the third party in some parts of Britain, and Yorkshirian neglects to include that rather important fact only that they were reported as being the third party! But there's more from that diff. "...around 1978 during the Callaghan Ministry, the news media began a more partisan, hostile coverage of the NF", note the inclusion of the mention of Labour being in power at the time. As you'll see from later diffs that's a common theme on Yorkshirian's editing, attempts to mention the Labour government or individual politicans being in power at the time of certain events. Naturally the source cited doesn't even mention Labour being in power, and what it actually says is "...encouraged many within the media to adopt a more overtly hostile line". So rather than the entire news media as claimed it was "many within" it, and don't ask me who they are supposed to be "partisan" to either. "The Trotskyite SWP also set up the ANL campaign against the NF", unsurprisingly the source says something else entirely - "The apparent success of the NF also encouraged the formation of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL). This was created by various left wing groups...". Then there's "After a poor showing at the 1979 general election, precipitated in no small part by Margaret Thatcher's televised speech stating the Conservatives would imploment a "clear end to immigration"", what a surprise Time don't actually blame the NF's poor performance on Thatcher's speech on any of the three pages of the article!
 * 2 January 2010 Adds "This culminated in the ousting of Tyndall as chairman in 1980, where the faction surrounding him left to form the New National Front, which became the BNP two years later" using this source (search for "New National Front" then go to page 191) which actually says "The New National Front was established by John Tyndall after the NATIONAL FRONT (NF) 1979 election debacle, for which he was blamed". It then goes to say it became the BNP, but the part about Tyndall being "ousted" and a "faction surrounding him" isn't mentioned at all, unsurprisingly.... (note that this was changed to Tyndall leaving citing a different source in a later edit, but the latter part of the edit was unchanged and is still allegedly sourced by the original source)
 * 4 January 2010 Adds text saying "The only substantial policy difference between the two parties in their 1983 campaign, was that the BNP barred exponents of "homosexualism" from high office within the party. This was intended as an attack on Martin Webster, the de facto leader of the NF, who had formerly being a close political ally of Tyndall" using this source (search for "Martin Webster" then go to page 187), which actually says nothing of the sort, other than Tyndall making a "gay NF" jibe when forming the New National Front which was before the BNP were even formed.
 * 4 January 2010 To the existing sentence "Rather he had hoped the BNP and NF would be reconciliated, once the factional disputes had calmed" he adds "—for a time there existed an organisation called the Committee for Nationalist Unity which would tend to imply that the Committee was in some way attempting to calm disputes and reconcile the BNP and NF. Naturally the source used (search for "Committee for Nationalist Unity'" then go to page 178) says "In 1980 he [Tyndall] formed the NEW NATIONAL FRONT (NNF) and in 1981 the Committee for Nationalist Unity which acted as a front to draw members from other right-wing organizations. So basically, the Committee acted in a totally different way to the way it was implied in the addition.....
 * 4 January 2010 Adds outrageously racist text saying the the rioters in the 1981 Brixton riot were "black settlers", naturally the book cited doesn't contain the word settlers as no respected academic or published would be so gratuitously racist. Also adds text saying "Rather the BNP pointed the finger at the political establishment, arguing that their social engineering pro-immigration policies had caused violence on Britain's streets and social decay" which based on Yorkshirian's history is highly likely to be bogus. I can find no trace of anything like that in the book searching on Google Books, and since Yorkshirian thinks the book is written by Martin Harrison (more than likely because the existing text in the article before he edited said "Martin Harrison in The British General Election of 1983) instead of the actual authors David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh I don't believe he's got a physical copy of the book otherwise why would he get the authors wrong? *UPDATE* I've received details of what the difficult-to-obtain book actually says. The entirety of the coverage of the BNP's election campaigning is "Not to be outdone, the British National Party flanked its spokesman with two Union Flags. The simplest broadcast of all, this nevertheless opened on a shot of Westminster with a babble of voices calculated to stir contempt for the 'old parties', and John Tyndall's talk to camera included a clip of the Brixton riot. His emphasis was less heavily anti-black and more emphatically nationalistic than the Front's." There is a part about "There were skilfully edited sequences on the winter of discontent and urban decay, but with a moment's pause for reflection (which they sought to prevent) these seemed..." but this isn't referring to the BNP's election broadcast, according to Sam Blacketer who supplied me with the information this is "a general summary of all the party broadcasts in the 1983 campaign, and probably refers to the Conservative and Labour broadcasts respectively"
 * 5 January 2010 Adds back the "black settlers" claim that another editor had removed as a "perjorative racist statement".
 * 7 January 2010 Adds back the "black settlers" claim again.
 * 7 January 2010 Adds/changes text saying "It was revealed afterwards that Deputy Chairman of the party, Ray Hill, had been working as a mole on behalf of the left-wing magazine Searchlight; some academics have suggested he acted as a filth column, to sabotage the early activities of the BNP's progress", using this source (search for Ray Hill then go to page 178), which actually says "In the 1983 General Election the BNP unsuccessfully contested fifty-three constituencies but failed to challenge the National Front as Britain's biggest far-right group, largely because of damage caused by anti-fascist Searchlight magazine mole Ray Hill". So note the subtle change from "anti-fascist" to "left-wing" (a common Yorkshirian tactic, to claim anti-fascists are "left-wing", "far left" or "communist" when many anti-fascists just hate Nazis without being particularly political) when referring to Searchlight, and more importantly note that the "some academics have suggested he acted as a filth column" is a Yorkshirian fabrication not in the source.
 * 7 January 2010 Adds text saying "A new Public Order Act was instigated in 1986, limiting by law opinions people could state in regards to race in the United Kingdom; the state subsequenty convicted Tyndall under it that year, on the grounds of "conspiracy to publish material likely to inicite racial hatred"", with this source. I can find no mention of the Public Order Act in the book, nor the material in quotes although I can find the latter in another book. But the fun doesn't stop there. The Observer of 10 August 1986 while covering The Sun being prosecuted for inciting ractial hatred mentions that Tyndall's conviction occurred the previous month, ie July 1986. And exactly when was the Public Order Act 1986 passed? It's dated 7 November 1986 and that's the same day it received royal assent, and actually came into force on 1 April 1987. So remarkably the "state" convicted Tyndall under the Public Order Act four months before it received Royal Assent, and nine months before it even came into force!
 * 7 January 2010 Adds text saying John Morse was convicted along with Tyndall (see diff above). As I can find no mention of Morse in the source, that additionally makes it a BLP violation since he's still alive!
 * 11 January 2010 Adds text about 1987 election, which may be dubious. The cite claims page 236, yet the book itself only has a total of 236 pages and deposit isn't mentioned on page 236. The only mentions of the BNP are in the glossary, on page 8 and on what appears to be in the index on page 232. The fact that the BNP don't seem to appear on the same page as the word "deposit" looks mighty dubious to me. On its own from any other editor you'd assume it's probably right, but when you're dealing with an editor that's consistently using fake references it's the opposite.
 * 18 January 2010 Adds text saying "Around this time, the party saw a popularity growth in London and the urban southeast, and so relocated its bookshop to a heavily fortified headquarters at Welling, south east London". This seems dubious as well, as the relevant part viewable on Google Books reads "...bookshop in Welling in 1989, East London having become a promising area for the party", which is somewhat different to "a popularity growth in London and the urban southeast". I'm sure some of you are familiar with the author, one David Boothroyd, and I've had confirmation from him as to what is written about the BNP in full, and there's nothing about the popularity growth other than the part already quoted about East London.
 * 18 January 2010 Adds text saying "The seat was won on a Rights for Whites basis, in which it was claimed immigrants were being favoured for local housing initiatives ahead of the native working-class" using this source (search for Beackon then go to page 178) which actually says is "In 1993 Derek Beackon was elected as a BNP councillor on the Isle of Dogs, East London, following spurious allegations that a higher percentage of housing was going to black families in an area of poor housing provision". So no mention of "native working-class" (although ignoring the "native" I'm prepared to accept the population of the Isle of Dogs is largely working-class) but Yorkshirian conveniently leaves out that the claims were "spurious", and also the use of "immigrant" when the source says "black". The two are not the same, it's perfectly feasible the houses were going to black people born in England. Attributing the winning of the seat to the Rights for Whites basis isn't done by the source either.
 * 18 January 2010 Adds text to the end of the sentence from the previous diff, that "coupled with the "apparently racially motivated murder of a white youth", with this source. Yet again the source doesn't link that incident with the seat being won, saying "Against this background, the small local BNP organization began a "Rights for Whites" campaign, which latched on to local issues, most notably the apparently racially motivated murder of a white youth.
 * 18 January 2010 Adds text saying "Following the 1992 general elections it was established that the BNP was now the primary force in the nationalist movement; notable candidates included Tyndall who remained leader and Lady Birdwood a devoted activist of the World Anti-Communist League" citing this book, which actually says "The British National party had become by the 1990s the largest far-right grouping in Britain". So it doesn't say the BNP were the largest nationalist party (I'm sure the SNP and various others would disagree) only the largest far-right party, and it doesn't set a definite date for it.
 * 18 January 2010 Changes the existing incorrect text to even more incorrect text, changing "immigrants" to "asylum seekers" when we've already established the source says "black families".
 * 18 January 2010 Adds text saying "Subsequently the BNP banned membership in the organisation and Tyndall claimed it has been infiltrated by MI5, who, in a replay of NATO "false flag" operations of the Cold War were trying to discredit the BNP" allegedly sourced by Larry O'Hara's book Turning Up the Heat: MI5 after the cold war. No preview available on Google books, but I have the book and I'll happily send a PDF version to anyone who emails me. What it actually says is that a BNP article of unknown authorship (ie, not necessarily Tyndall) claimed Combat 18 had been infilitrated by "Government agents" (ie, not specifically MI5), and the NATO false flag Cold War discrediting the BNP is a typical Yorkshirian fabrication not in the book.
 * 22 January 2010 Adds ref to text "In 1995 Welling local council shutdown the party's headquarters" (text Yorkshirian has just added) citing this book which actually says "The BNP headquarters were closed down in 1995" without actually saying who was responsible. John Gummer apparently gave the order, who wasn't a member of "Welling local council" oddly enough.
 * 24 January 2010 Adds ref to text "Griffin supported by the likes of Tony Lecomber, stood against Tyndall for leadership of the BNP in October", "Griffin won on a ticket of "modernising" the party for the 21st century"(again, text Yorkshirian had just added citing this book, which makes no mention of Lecomber supporting Griffin and more importantly doesn't say Griffin won on a "ticket of "modernising" the party for the 21st century". What it actually says is "However, having become leader, Griffin quickly set about 'modernizing' the party. Griffin was helped by the fact that some changes were taking place within the BNP even before he became leader. Indeed, after 1999 there was some friction within the party, including resignations, which stemmed largelt from Griffin seeking to take the credit for modernization". That Griffin modernised the party about becoming leader doesn't mean he "won on a ticket of "modernising" the party for the 21st century", and the 21st century part is unsourced flowery puffery.
 * 24 January 2010 Adds text saying "Some had felt Tyndall's earlier dalliance with national socialism, would always serve as ammunition for opponents to hold the party back. An intransigent faction decided to leave as a result, rejoining the harder-edged NF" again citing this book, which actually says (immediately following on from the sentence quoted from the book in the previous diff, which is the mention of resignations) "He was also helped by the fact that the NF remained weak, contesting only five seats in the 2001 general election, with a best performance of 2.2 per cent in Birmingham Erdington. In part, this weakness stemed from a continued predilection for street activism. Symptomatically, its White Nationalist Report on 25 August 2000 stated: 'The NF WILL confront the enemy at every opportunity ... When the NF controls the streets, it controls the towns and cities - we call on all past members - REJOIN!". So remarkably, we go from resignations (which are not sourced as anything to do with "Some had felt Tyndall's earlier dalliance with national socialism, would always serve as ammunition for opponents to hold the party back" or an "intransigent faction") and the NF calling on former members to rejoin the party, to the astonishing conclusion that the people who resigned from the BNP rejoined the NF. Seriously, what?!
 * 24 January 2010 Adds text saying "A more "slick and sophisticated", populist dialectic inhereted from the New Right was adopted by the BNP, dubbed the "suits not boots" approach"" sourced by this (for "slick and sophisticated" only, and note that wording is actually Griffin's quote about Le Pen's Front National, it is not a quote about Griffin's BNP) and this (for the rest). I hope by now I don't even need to explain how much of the text isn't in the reference? Similarly there's the sentence "This change had been spurred on in part, by the continental electoral gains achieved by Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National of France and Jörg Haider's Freedom Party of Austria", the Haider part of it being cited to this book. As usual it's nonsense. The book has Griffin talking about Haider and saying Haider is his ideal role model, but it does not make any direct connection between Griffin changing the BNP and Haider's electoral gains. That's a conclusion being drawn from Griffin's admiration for Haider, thus OR.
 * 24 January 2010 Adds what is essentially a completely fake reference to the (partial) sentence "This change had been spurred on in part, by the continental electoral gains achieved by Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National of France". What the book cited actually says is "Its [the BNP] political hero is Jean-Marie Le Pen". That doesn't source any part of the sentence it's just been added to!
 * 24 January 2010 Adds text saying "During the 2001 general election, Oldham and Burnley polled highest for the BNP" citing this book, which actually says "The BNP had candidates standing in two of the Oldham constituences and in nearby Burnley, and they were able to capitalise on the disorder, eventually picking up more than 12,000 votes in the two Oldham constituences alone". Although I'm less concerned about this edit than others as the Oldham/Burney part can be easily sourced elsewhere, it's a good example of Yorkshirian's false use of sources.
 * 24 January 2010 Adds another completely fake reference to the Le Pen sentence, the book cited says "Its supporters call for withdrawal from the European Union and admire Jean-Marie Le Pen but have been unable to emulate his success".
 * 25 January 2010 Adds text saying "Scheduled to be aired ahead of the local, London and European elections of June 2004, the BBC colluded with Searchlight in creating a documentary called The Secret Agent, cited to this book. The use of colluded is completely biased and a breach of NPOV (see collusion, it isn't a neutral term and isn't used by the source). Yorkshirian's edit neglects to mention pertitent details from the source, such as that while the programme was originally scheduled to air before the elections, the BBC were wary of breaking laws relating to elections due to the content and after taking legal advice didn't air it until after the elections. So the attempted insinuation that the BBC attempted to sabotage the BNP's election chances is highly inappropriate, since they clearly did not.
 * 1 February 2010 Adds a ref to text he had previously added here about the BNP's website being successful. The book cited doesn't seem to source that, in fact that page talks more about the negative points of the BNP's online presence, saying things like "it is hard to see how the party's website could, on its own, deliver the level of support necessary for the BNP to extricate itself from the political fringe". Leaving things like that out doesn't seem like a particularly NPOV use of a source to me.
 * 1 February 2010 Amends text previously added by Yorkshirian in this edit. A reference was added that doesn't support the text of "With the dawning of the internet, the media campaign by the NUJ against the party...". The NUJ holding a meeting about how to deal with the BNP doesn't equate to a "media campaign by the NUJ" against the BNP. Also note the meeting was in 2009, so unless Yorkshirian wants to also claim the reference says the alleged campaign has been going on for years (which he probably would if the reference wasn't available with one click of a mouse, based on previous evidence) it can't be used to claim the party side-stepped the campaign by setting up their website. Also note the book cited doesn't source that there was a campaign, or that it "was side-stepped somewhat by setting up their own website to express their policies".

Dewsbury
The editing in relation to this incident is worth dealing with in a separate section, as it gives the best examples of the problems caused and can be explained in-depth more easily this way. Before we get to any diffs, let's just see what the article said in the version right before Yorkshirian's second edit (and indeed the first also, but he changed the text in the second edit) below:

"The first time that the BNP attracted widespread attention was the Dewsbury riot of Summer 1989. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131) Around 1,000 people took part in a 'Rights for Whites' demonstration after some white parents in Dewsbury had been trying to withdraw their children from racially integrated schools."


 * 11 January 2010 Going back to the "mention when Labour were in office" tactic mentioned earlier, here we have a piece of text that insinuates the local Labour MP for Dewsbury was responsible for Muslim immigration in the area, unsourced as yet.
 * 11 January 2010 Adds incredibly biased text - "native Christian parents", "socially engineered schools". No sources as yet, but those are coming soon.
 * 11 January 2010 Adds cites to the text he's just added, to a book entitled The Radical Right in Britain: British History in Perspective by Alan Sykes.

We'll stop with the diffs for a moment. It will transpire soon that Yorkshirian has never even seen a copy of this book (diff for that will come later), and has copied sentences and the reference from another article - 1989 Dewsbury race riot. So let's see exactly how that article looked on 11 January shall we? It looked like this. The relevant parts:

"Although not significant in terms of casualties, it has been viewed as the beginning of the BNP's status as a significant force in British politics. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 p. 131)"

"Dewsbury is a mill town in Yorkshire, England. It received large numbers of immigrants from Pakistan and the Gujarat area of India in the post-war period. Most of the immigrants adhered to a strict Deobandi variant of Islam. In 1982, the Markazi mosque, was built in the Savile Town area. (http://www.zmo.de/muslime_in_europa/ergebnisse/reetz/index.html Muslime in Europa) This remains the largest mosque in Britain as of March 2008. The number of Muslims in Dewsbury grew steadily as it gained a reputation as the centre of strict Islam in Britain."

"Some white parents in the town had withdrawn their children from schools in Savile Town due to opposition to the number of children of Muslim parents in the schools. The BNP organised a 'Rights for Whites' demonstration in support of the parents. This attracted an unusually high number for a far-right rally in Britain, and was the first time that the BNP were given widespread coverage in the British media. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 p.131)"

Now I'm willing to accept that it's perfectly reasonable for someone copying the text from another article to assume (until someone says otherwise at least) that it's accurately sourced, and I'm also willing to accept that someone may think that the reference at the end of the third paragraph sources the entire paragraph. Maybe I'm even willing at a pinch to allow someone to think it may also source the second paragraph, despite that using a web source in the middle. However for me to accept that, surely the existing text would have to be copied without any significant changes you'd agree? So let's just highlight the significant (there's other minor changes too, but I don't believe they are significant enough to focus on) changes made in the "copying" shall we? I'll also include the second paragraph which appears only in the "Notes" section at the bottom of the article.

"The breakthrough of the BNP into the wider public conscience was during the summer of 1989. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131) Dewsbury in West Yorkshire had seen large scale immigration from mostly Pakistan since the 1950s—Muslims adherents of the strict Deobandi variation—some native Christian parents as a result tried to withdraw their children from socially engineered schools. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131) The BNP mobilised a Rights for Whites demonstration in solidarity with the parents, attracting a thousand people; a clash followed, gaining widespread coverage and debate. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131)"

"During the time that David Ginsburg of Labour was the MP for Dewsbury since the late 1950s, Muslims from Pakistan and Gujarat began to settle the area, at a very high rate. (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131) Most immigrants in Dewsbury adhered to a strict Deobandi variation of Sunni Islam (Alan Sykes, The Radical Right in Britain (British History in Perspective), Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.131) and in 1982, the Markazi mosque, one of the largest in Europe, was built."

So we have "white parents" changed to "native Christian parents", "children of Muslim parents in the schools" changed to "socially engineered schools", and more importantly we have the addition of the BNP demonstration "attracting a thousand people" (note that was already in the BNP article as an unsourced claim, the riot article had a supposedly sourced but vague "unusually high number"). Even ignoring the highly POV changes to the text, how is it possible to add text when you are citing a source you have never seen? Sykes isn't available to preview on Google Books, but I travelled to a nearby library to obtain the book (a copy of the relevant page has been sent to ArbCom member User:SirFozzie, he'll be happy to confirm he's satisfied I've had the book and what the relevant page actually says), and this is what it says about the Dewsbury demonstration including both the text before and after to ensure it's in context:

"In contrast to the innovation of the NF in the 1980s, the BNP represented more of a continuation of both the issues and the methods of the 1970s. The combination of a sizeable immigrant community and government attempts to foster a multiracial society enabled it to present the native white population as an oppressed people in their own country. The BNP's 'Rights for Whites' campaign, which took off after a major demonstration in Dewsbury in 1989, marked the behinning of a more active approach. 'The real watershed', as John Tyndall observed, 'signifying the party's determination to enter mainstream politics occurred around 1990'."

So as the book didn't source the existing text in the 1989 Dewsbury race riot article, it certainly didn't source Yorkshirian's amended/added version of the text, but he claimed it did (and not for the last time, more on that very soon). So I removed the offending text with an edit summary of "The stuff from Sykes is the most ridiculous OR and unsourced claims I've ever seen in my life, do you think people don't have access to sources?", which you would hope would be sufficient to deter anyone who hasn't seen the book from reverting you'd think?


 * 19 January 2010 Reverts my removal with an edit summary of "thoroughly referenced paragraph on breakthrough Dewsbury incident blanked". Thoroughly referenced eh? The evidence above says otherwise.

So I revert the following day with another clear edit summary of "rv edit by Yorkshirian. See previous summaries, fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:EGG". Do you think someone who hasn't seen the source would actually take notice of this and wonder if the information they are adding is actually in the source?


 * 21 January 2010 Not on your life, "rv edit by One Night In Hackney, blanking of referenced information and insertion of unencyclopedic slang" (note, the "unencyclopedic slang" is the wholly correct use of Neo-Nazi to describe Combat 18, which happens to be the correct academic term which gets over 10,000 hits on Google Scholar. Unencyclopedic slang eh?)
 * 21 January 2010 Right there, he admits that he hasn't even seen the book! So despite me twice removing it saying it wasn't sourced, I was twice reverted when he hadn't even read the book! Then to compound matters, he adds a source that doesn't even mention the BNP. Pure and utter original research, attempting to justify the BNP's 1989 demonstration by using a source that says there's a particular strand of Islam in Dewsbury. Unless that was reported in conjunction with the demonstration, it's OR to claim the two are linked in any way.
 * 22 January 2010 Adds a completely fake reference to the Dewsbury Reporter, which I knew was dubious the second I saw it due to the publication date being a Saturday when the paper is published on a Friday. Rather than re-hash it completely, see Talk:British National Party/Archive 15. Yorkshirian refused to provide a quote or even post in that section for over a week. When he finally did post, it wasn't to provide a quote from the source because he couldn't. There was no edition on the day Yorkshirian said, there was no story called "Saturday rioting" and what the newspaper did say about the BNP march didn't match the sentence that Yorkshirian added the reference to. Get a date wrong? Easy mistake to make. Get the title of a story wrong? Slightly more difficult mistake to make. Distort what the source actually says? Par for the course for Yorkshirian, as you'll know if you've read everything up to this point. All three together? "Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action" as the saying goes.

But there's more when Yorkshirian seemingly forgets what he's just admitted. At 05:41 on 22 January 2010 he says "The referemced information you blanked which details the led up to the Dewsbury incident, is also essential to the article and the presentation of events. "Native Christian parents"— ie, English parents of Christian families in Dewsbury attempted to remove their children from schools in Savile Town which had experienced extensive immigration of specifically Muslims from Pakistan and India. A religious and ethnic conflict. As a result the BNP launched a "Rights for Whites" campaign to support them. It is inherently POV for you to remove this reference information, because otherwise it looks like the BNP just showed up and started instigating trouble with no lead up or background of the conflict.". This is despite six hours earlier him admitting he hadn't seen the book (of course he's welcome to dispute that he meant he hadn't seen a copy of the book at the time, but then he'd have to explain why none of the information he's referenced to the book is actually in it wouldn't he?). Of course this isn't the first time Yorkshirian has lied about what sources say to try and win a content dispute, see Talk:Red Action where he tells the spectacular whopper of "Both book mentions Red Action explicity" which is proved to be a bare-faced lie.

Edit warring

 * 5 January 2010 - "undo damage to copyedit"
 * 7 January 2010 - "1981 Brixton riot was between black settlers from the Caribbean and the police. Thus why NF and BNP used the footage of that specific riot for their televised broadcast."
 * 19 January 2010 - "The hammer attack at Kensington is mentioned by the Independent reference"
 * 19 January 2010 - "Indepedent is a reliable source. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale. some background on why they felt protection was needed is important. + additional ref"
 * 19 January 2010 - "thoroughly referenced paragraph on breakthrough Dewsbury incident blanked" (note, this is the paragraph that is filled with fake references that Yorkshirian added, see the Dewsbury section)
 * 21 January 2010 - "rv edit by One Night In Hackney, blanking of referenced information and insertion of unencyclopedic slang", same as above
 * 22 January 2010 - "what are you doing?? Militant and SWP mentioned in the reference."
 * 22 January 2010 - "undo some destructive blanking"
 * 24 January 2010 - "sorted problematic wording and finished copyedit of 1990s history" (despite the summary, that's a revert similar to the previous one)
 * 24 January 2010 - "false, OR invention of events. No BNP supporters clashed at Welling (none were present). Only those groups and the police"
 * 24 January 2010 - "wording not supported by ref. extremely contentious OR to claim BNP clashed with police and socialists at Welling, when ref doesn't claim so"
 * 24 January 2010 - "indeed sir. also mention "suits not boots" approach"
 * 24 January 2010 - " +Plowright" (neglects to mention in his edit summary that he's also reverting another editor's removal of "intransigent faction")
 * Note that the last five reverts in less than 24 hours resulted in this 3RR report, which ended up being closed as "stale" due to nobody looking at it for days.
 * 1 February 2010 - "rvt, time wasting, messing about with copyedit.", after someone objected to this edit made without any discussion
 * 1 February 2010 - "rvt destruction of copyedit. read WP:Summary and WP:MOS."
 * 2 February 2010 - "waited for opposers to state rationale on talk, didn't happen. talk consensus achieved that article too long, needs to be summary style"
 * Note that the last three reverts were part of a brief edit war in which Yorkshirian issued level 3 vandalism warnings here and here to editors who had reverted him. Also bear in mind that when I removed "sourced" information clearly saying it wasn't sourced I was reverted three times for "blanking" or similar, yet when Yorkshirian believes referenced information should be removed anyone who adds it back is a vandal. Sounds reasonable no?
 * 3 February 2010 - "de-Verbalise as per two others on talk saying it must be summary/smaller", continuation of the same edit war above.
 * 3 February 2010 - "per previous.", more of the same edit war
 * 3 February 2010 - "two other users (including an admin) agreed consensus on the talk that article must be summary style. STOP tinkering, you have no intention of improving the article.", more of the same edit war
 * 12 March 2010 - "make intro include a broader over and less recentism in regards to membership. include European position (Alliance of European National Movements)", makes a drastic POV rewrite of the long-standing lead without any discussion, this edit started the edit war that resulted in the page being protected 8 hours later
 * 12 March 2010 - "politically motivated violation of the NPOV policy and the explicit WP:EXTREMIST policy. Certainly doesn't belong in the first line", more of the same edit war.
 * 12 March 2010 - "Strong BLP potential. Uber personally libelling members as "white supremacist" and "extremist" using Preston (a Marxist) as reference. Lets keep "far right" intro for now while dicussion in process.", more of the same edit war.
 * 13 March 2010 - "tend to agree with DharmaDreamer. the issue is whether "far right" is acceptable or not.", right after the page is unprotected with a warning that consensus needs to be obtained for any drastic changes, Yorkshirian reverts back to his new highly POV lead without any meaningful discussion about it, resulting in the page being protected again.
 * Just as a point of information, on 11 March Yorkshirian made two reverts on Catholic Church, the first edit summary was Last stable version by Tom Harrison. Numerous POV innovations raised on talk, still not tackled yet. WP:BRD. and the second edit summary was WP:BRD. You made a bold innovation. Numerous users have active sections which you have not discussed proper. Thus it is reverted, solve open issues on the talk before more bold POV innovations. So it seems Yorkshirian is more than aware of WP:BRD, but for some reason seems to believe it doesn't apply to his edits to the BNP article?