User talk:Earthprophet

Welcome!

Hello, Earthprophet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Tommy2010 18:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

BNP
Whilst I have some sympathy with your opinions here I do not beleive that you are making the point. RS call them Fascist, and untill some RS can be found (and I have so far failed) that say they are not fascist (I am not sure even what kind of RS would say that) the label will remain. The fact that the BNP deny it (and that no one has ever shown were they claim they are fascist), the fact that they seem to be the only political party whoes views and stance are determined by those who have stated opposition to them (and the only instance I can think of where groups who are opposed to them are considerd RS) seems to breach many of wiki's rules yet cannot be dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My main problem with the BNP article is that, whereas RS call Al Qaeda terrorist, the Wikipedia article does not, because it is neutral whereas most RS are not. Wikipedia may state that said group is labelled as said label, as in the case of Al Qaeda, but it is not Wikipedia's place to repeat using labels itself as if it is a government institution. Downing Street says Al Qaeda is terrorist, Wikipedia says Downing Street says Al Qaeda is terrorist, not Al Qaeda is terrorist. Downing Street says BNP is Fascist, Wikipedia says BNP is fascist. Surely the BNP should be given the same footing that Al Qaeda, the most condemned terrorist group in the world, is given. When label is applied, Wikipedia should discuss the label, not go out of its way to implement the label itself again. Or in other words, I am not picking a stake with the Reliable Sources, I am picking a stake with the way that Wikipedia is presenting its information. The sources are valid and by all means ought to be used, but they are sources that tell us what people say, as all sources are, and not what something actually is. All that we know the BNP is, is a political party. Whether or not it is Fascist depends on the position in an argument, no matter how many reliable sources hold this position in the argument and even if there are NO reliable sources that have the opposing argument. Many RS say God is real out there, but we know it is more appropriate to say that people believe this, rather than it is surely the case. Or perhaps Al Qaeda has more online defenders than the BNP, and we have to avoid offending them by calling them terrorists when we all know that terrorist is just a label? --Earthprophet (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)