Talk:British National Party/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Wrong number of councillors 2 Round and round we go 3 Vandalism (May 4) 4 Policies section 5 NPD 6 Anti-Semitism 7 News 24 Interview 8 Use of the term "UK" 9 Kriss Donald 10 BNP And Homophobia 11 Dave Midgley 12 Praise for the handling of a tricky article... 13 Discussion of controversial section: Violence and criminal behaviour 13.1 'Similar lists' 13.2 Some more edits 14 Referencing and External Links 15 New Section: BNP claims of oppression of free speech 16 Front groups/affiliates 17 New paragraph: Football hooligans 18 Tidy up 19 Right wing or authoritarian? 20 Links to Neo-Nazis 21 Election News Wording 22 Congratulations to the BNP 23 Link 24 What is "ethnically British"? 25 Racial/Ethnic Nationalism 26 Far right 27 About Footnotes 28 Leigh Jones 29 The Absurd Lack of Logic in BNP Ideology

Wrong number of councillors

32 not 53 source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2006/locals/html/region_99999.stm

I think the 53 claimed by the BNP including incumbent councillors -- not all council seats nationwide were contested in the last elections. Can anyone confirm? Of course, if 53 was right, it may now be 52 as one was lost in a recount/challenge somewhere. It would be good to clear this up Dogville 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

53 refers to the total number of councilors, not just sets won on May 4th 2006. If the Barking and Dagenham result is changed from 12 to 11 then it will be 52, but this is still pending. Ms Ebanks (Kingstanding) was sworn in but I cannot find any info on 12th councilor for B&D. Someone has altered the local results to count 11 for B&D so this is inconsistent with 53! It probably should say 12 for B&D as the councilor in question was declared (but I cannot find any information to say whether or not he has been swore in). When the courts sort out the mess we can make the results tally.Paul 20:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. The Trevor Philips piece someone has linked gives a figure of 46. This Guardian blog piece says 32. Where is the definitive answer?

Meanwhile according to the BNP themselves they currently don't hold the 12th B&D seat [1], and as a search of Google News gives 11 as the number being reported at the moment I have edited to 11 and 53 (53+1-1) for now. Dogville 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the obvious problem is that no-one knows for sure how many councillors each party has! --Robdurbar 07:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add more confusion but the BNP are saying that Robert West's defection gives them 55 councillors.DWC LR 11:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

'About 50'? --Robdurbar 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

They’ve changed it to 54 councillors now so I would say that 53 is the correct number as there is the dispute in Barking where they won 11 but could end up with 12 and Birmingham where they could end up with none, so we could just leave at 53 and wait and see what happens in Barking and Birmingham. DWC LR 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the British National Partys website they have 55 Councilers, they had 21 before the election, returned 21 and gained 33 leaving them with 54. Shortly after a conservative counciler, some minister, joined their ranks making it 55.

Actually, no. The BNP website says they had 53 after the election and that the ex-Tory makes 54.

The BNP's figure of 33 new councillors includes 12 in Barking & Dagenham, whereas it seems that they still have 11. It also includes Sharon Ebanks in Kingstanding, Birmingham, whose election is now being contested because her apparent result was halved in recounts. I think it makes most sense for us to reflect the status quo -- that is to exclude the contested Barking seat and to include the contested Kingstanding one.

The BNP's own numbers cite 53 before to the ex-Tory (not a defection) joined them, and 54 afterwards. As we know those numbers include Kingstanding and the 12th Barking seat, subtracting the extra Barking seat gives us 53 now including the ex-Tory. Hope that makes sense. Dogville 11:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Round and round we go

I had changed the party to a socialist/ far-left wing radical party but it has been reverted. It is NOT a right wing part, it is a racist left wing party. Like the NAZIs in germany, they are the national socialists. As you may be aware, socialists and those on the far right have much in common but the BNP is definately a left wing radical party

86.17.121.156 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Safwaan Zamakda

No, you're just ignoring the endlessly repeated clarifications herein. 'Far-right', in English usage does not necessarily imply economic liberalism. As for the canard that the far left and far right are all the same, no, they're not. Dogville 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The BNP has both left and rightist views. It's views on welfare etc. - leftist, it's views on immigration and law and order are rightist. Stop trying to compare the BNP endlesly to the NSDAP because they are nothing alike.

I haven't made that comparison once. Please read the Wiki entry on far right. Dogville 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologises, but that wasn't in refference to you, it was to the first poster.

Vandalism (May 4)

I have reverted several edits (vandalism) by User:Shweeney666 over the last few days. Can't figure out how to report vandalism, so if someone can do that and try to get the user banned, please do so. Cheers. User:David L Rattigan 14:07 04 May 2006 GMT

It is not just the economic policies of the BNP which are socialist. Their views on the welfare state and the party ideology is left wing. Please read it, it is on their website and will give you an insight into their socialist aims.

Policies section

I'm having a bit of trouble validating a couple of the BNP's supposed policies; the one which talks about the withdrawl of rights from conscientious objectors, and the one about the mandatory automatic rifle in the home of everyone having completed national service. Can anyone else find information validating those two claims? Chue03 13:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They're on the website, in sections of the manifesto. I added refs to the article. Dogville 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NPD

References to the German NPD being 'swastika waving' are clearly wrong. The use of the swastika is prohibited by German law and any such display is an arrestable offence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Taboo_in_Western_countries 02:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There may be a law prohibiting it, but it doesn't mean they don't do it anyway. Also, could you please sign with 4 tildas so people can attribute edits to you. If you don't feel comfortable revealing your IP address, sign up for a user account; it's a very quick and simple process. -- WGee 06:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think 'swastika-waving' is a bit over the top. Do we feel that with the raft of recent editing, a period of semi protection may be called for? These edits are often bad faith pove pushing and I think it could be justified. Robdurbar 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea Robdurbar. This recent string of POV edits by anon IPs is compromising the quality of the article. -- WGee 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there have been a few ips who have made good contributions... I'd be tempted to give it a day or two and if it continues then apply. Robdurbar 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that with the coming council elections some people are purposefully editing this article with their own political objectives in mind. A block at least until then might be necessary. As I write this 82.38.243.43 is busy changing the article to an anti-BNP bias. For example:

“Griffin stated that” -> “Griffin boasted” 

and:

“They alledge this to be false” -> “They alledge (without proven evidence, or sworn testamonies) this to be false 

and:

“a viewpoint commonly regarded as white supremacy.” tagged onto a paragraph about the BNPs views on inter-race marrage.   

I will revert the article back once 82.38.243.43 has finished (unless anyone strongly objects). Paul 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Paul8046

I strongly object because I have made some important changes since then to try to make the article more neutral and accurate. Also, "a viewpoint commonly regarded as white supremacy" is not POV, in my opinion, although this claim should be sourced. The rest of the stuff is blatantly POV, I agree. -- WGee 17:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that that IP is skewing the article against the BNP. Just a few minutes ago he inserted "Neo-Nazi" into the infrobox ideology section. This classification is disputable and should not be included as fact.

It's also interesting to know that local elections in the UK are coming up. People in the UK feel strongly about the BNP, and this is evident is the recent string of POV edits. So I will again say that I think semi-protection is needed. -- WGee 17:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about not wanting to lose your edits. What about I try and merge the pre- 82.38.243.43 article with your new edits? Paul 17:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

OK, that sounds good, if you don't mind taking the time. Also, perhaps you and Robdurbar could request semi-protection for this page. I already started the request here: [2] -- WGee 18:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

have made a request too Paul 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Anti-Semitism

Who stealthily dared to deleted evidence of the BNP's anti-Semitism in an effort to sanitise the BNP, and will it be coming back, as it is very necessary? In the 2006 American Rennaisance meeting, Griffin mentioned what he called "The Jewish Question" several times: - (see the following report by far right researchers, Searchlight) [3] Please bring it back in the interests of fairness, or is this article merely a platform for BNP spindoctering, brushing the more unplesant details under the carpet?

I think you'll find it was the very last edit by an anon ip and will be quicklly reverted Robdurbar 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the section on anti-Semitism relies heavily on anti-BNP organizations. Searchlight, UAF and Stop the BNP are all biased sources and cannot be reliaed upon. Can someone find some neutral sources please? Paul 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Well it would be hard to find a source that is entirely neutral - most are against the BNP by deafult - but the Jerusalem Post mentions (As you might expect) Griffin's anti-semitism here. Though we could question the neutrality of an Israeli newspaper on the issue, its possible preferable to openly anti-BNP magazaines. The Observer mentions it breifly [4]; alternatively, we could go straight from the horses mouth - [5] or [6]. Robdurbar 09:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Source 4 seems the best to me. While we can’t rely on the BNP website for a neutral stance, when it comes to what the say they believe it, it has to be the gold standard. Do you think we should re-label this to “Claims of Zionist conspiracy” as oppose to “anti-Semitism”? I say this because I couldn’t find that they actually said that they hate Jews, just that they thought that there was a conspiracy involving Jews. I’m beginning to wonder if this section should not be included with “Claims of oppression of free speech” and the sections subject focus changed slightly to include the BNP theories on political/global/Zionist conspiracy. What do you think? Paul 12:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

How interesting. Muslims also hate Jews, yet the Labour government has been encouraging and increasing islamic immigration into Britain. By your standard, an article on Labour party should have a section on anti-Semitism, although they never said they "hate" Jews, it is just they are supported by muslims who hate Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.247.17.11 (talk • contribs) .

"Muslims also hate Jews" - can we delete this comment? It's factually inaccurate and not helpful. Edit: completely agree. Tom

Its not really our place to be removing people's opinions, I think anyone with a half a brain can see its just some nutter's rambling... I'm not a free speach extremist but I think its best if we just leave it ignored, removing people's comments for political reasons sets a poor precendent. --Robdurbar 10:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What Robdurbar said. User:David L Rattigan 11:42 04 May 2006 GMT

News 24 Interview

I havn't watched them yet myself, but apparently this interview on News 24 contains a few choice BNP quotes:

• [7] (9.9MB RealPlayer file, stream or right-click to download and save)
• [8]
• [9]

Like I say, I havn't watched it yet, but it might prove a useful source. Robdurbar 22:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the BBC anchor did a good job of making the BNP look foolish, there wasn't anything notable revealed in the interview, in my opinion. The BNP rep said that Britian is a one-party state, controlled by the "Lib-Lab-Con" which has been collaborating to keep the BNP out of power. He also said that the Church of England and the UK's major political parties are Marxist. Amusing comments, yes, but not relevant to the article. Any other comments he made, for instance his belief that "Britian should be as it has always been" (in terms of racial make-up), can be drawn from the BNP's website. In fact, the website is much more incriminating than this interview. -- WGee 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "UK"

The article frequently uses the term UK, but I feel that the term Great Britain would be more appropriate. For instance, can the BNP be said to be a "UK wide" party if it has never contested seats in Northern Ireland? The United Kingdom without Northern Ireland is explicitly not the UK, as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. I didn't want to go through the article changing "UK" to "Great Britain" without getting some feedback. Thoughts anyone? Does anyone out there really care apart from me? MartinRobinson 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A similar point was made in the Labour Party (UK) talk page. In response, somebody noted that, since the party wishes to govern all of the United Kingdom, it should be referred to as a UK-wide party. Read this: [10] -- WGee 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how the article can claim the BNP regard Ireland as being part of Great Britain, and falsely claim to represent the interests of Irish people. Loathed from Belfast to Dublin by Catholic and Protestant alike, how can this English natonalist party claim to be pro-Ireland, and arrogantly, assume the whole of Ireland is part of the UK? Most people in Southern Ireland loathe British nationalists after centuries of British oppression.

And a lot of British people arent exactly happy about previous Irish nationalists blowing up the uk for years and years - that does not make them automatic BNP lovers does it? Ukbn2 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_article.php?catID=12 - They organise in Ulster as this link proves Greener 11:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They do not however appear to be on the Northern Ireland register of political parties (so even if they organise there, you won't find BNP on any ballot paper). [11] Paulleake 01:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Kriss Donald

In the section entitled "BNP claims of Anti-White Racism", someone has deleted the strong wording in which the parents of the murdered teenager strongly condemned the BNP. Also, they have cleverly deleted the links to 40 NUJ articles about the case, which opposed the racist assumptions about the BNP surrounding the case.

Over the past two weeks, many links to anti-BNP/anti-racist articles have mysteriously disappeared. Call in Mulder and Skully....

Mark Collett and the rest of the BNP's internet-savvy "media team" have been busy cleansing the article of its incriminating content, with the elections approaching, and many voters, including first time voters, who don't understand politics, logging into the site.

One other relevant piece of information about Mark Collett, which vanished some time ago, relating importantly to both racism and homophobia (as the BNP deny they are homophobic), along with its link, was when young Mr Collett expressed sick delight of the people who have died of AIDS. "Blacks, drug users and gays get Aids - so really, I've got no problem with it. I would call it a friendly disease." [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.243.43 (talk • contribs)

I haven't noticed the edits myself, but I would encourage you to re-insert the information, provided it is sourced and written from a NPOV. Also, I noticed that you have made some clearly anti-BNP edits. While I don't support the BNP myself, I must remind you that all editors are required to abide by this policy: WP:NPOV. -- WGee 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

BNP And Homophobia

All references to the BNP's homophobia have been deleted, including Nick Griffin's reaction to the Admiral Duncan Pub Bombing, and Mark Collett's love of AIDS for the death of gay as well as black people. Green MP Peter Tatchell's website is a good reference point for studies about the BNP and homophobia, and must be referenced, if the truth about the BNP's homophobia is to be recorded.

http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/stopbnp.htm

Unless there is close scrutiny about the website, before long, there won't be anything incriminating left against the BNP, and all the anti-racist and anti-homophobic links will be trimmed down, and one-by-one, deleted, leaving the piece as pure BNP propaganda. Surely Wiki is not a vehicle for the political party PR machine.

Indeed. That is why I proposed that this article be semi-protected, although the request was turned down. Of course, semi-protection would prevent anon IPs like you from editing the article (until you sign up for a user account and wait 4 days), but that is surely a small sacrifice to ensure a NPOV this article. -- WGee 16:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The bias is not all from the BNP supporters, judging by his profile WGee is an Canadian ulta-leftist who is using this discussion facility for purely political purposes Garlock 15:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

At least he has a profile. How about assuming good faith? Bhumiya (said/done) 21:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Midgley

The BNP seem to think that Midgley was part of the Sykes, Gwynne group. They also suggest that midgley DID not post dog faeces through the takeaway letterbox (hence why he wasn't prosecuted) and that the takeaway had to close because of the BBC documentary airing rather than censoring out the name of it.

Why was this paragraph edited out, even if its incorrect it puts forward their point of view to counter any comments that Midgley was an authentic BNP member and that such comments were made purposely for the documentary. I have cited a source unlike some parts of the article and I think it is as relevant to the article as other parts.

The reasons given by the BNP for expelling Midgley were his comments to fellow BNP members about posting dog faeces through an asian owned take-away. They allege this to be false by stating he was working with Gwynne and Sykes and made those comments because of a lack of incriminating footage. They add that the take-away had to close through lack of trade. (Identity Magazine - P12 - November 2004).

-- Can any justify this being deleted several times or state why it should not be included? There could be a chance of the BNP being linked to such crimes when a) they were never committed according to the article and b) were made by someone on the BBC/Searchlight payroll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.243.92 (talk • contribs)

I have no objections to it being put back in the article. DWC LR 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---- Rather than debate this point, its just being ignored, surely this reflects badly on the neutrality of the authors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.243.92 (talk • contribs)

I haven't "debated the point" mainly because I' read the para several times and couldn't make head or tail of it. Do you mean the BNP claim that Midgley never pushed dogshit through the letterbox? What does 'because of a lack of incriminating footage' mean? That the BNP claim he didn't do it because they haven't seen footage of it, or the BNP claim that he said it because there was no footage of him doing it (which makes no sense)? What on earth does the reason for the takeaway's closure have to do with anything when it's not otherwise mentioned in the article?

The BNP claim that Dave Midgley was working with Skyes and Gwynne and that he never posted faeces through the take away. They also claim that the takeaway had to close through lack of trade because the BBC showed footage of the takeaway and allowed it to be named. (IMO a stupid decision). The lack of incriminating footage relates to the fact that if you time the amount of original footage in that documentary that isn't repeated, Gwynne appears to not have enough original footage to fill that hour slot. I thought the takeaway having to close through what Midgley said, as he apparantly never put forward those actions would be interesting, especially considering he was on the BBC payroll and footage of the takeaway and its name was included in the documentary. In my opinion it is detrimental to the actual documentary which IMO didn't uncover as much as it hoped. From talking to people about the documentary, the dog poo incident is the one which people seem to remember and is one always mentioned in the press. If this wasn't true and the documentary didn't mention it, what effect would that have had on the documentary.

The documentary used to be available on the BBC site and with hindsight was interesting to rewatch and analyse. Especially when Midgley starts quizzing people about Redwatch. Of course this is irrelavent but I thought the fact that the BNP have put forward these arguments against Midgley might be of interest. Even more so if they are true as the BBC will have scored an own goal there in my opinion. As for the actual magazine, I might try and request a copy of that page from the British Library.

OK, I'll try to look at the magazine next time I'm in the BL -- it is an issue they seem to have. I still don't quite understand the stuff about the timed footage but maybe Identity will clarify. My main concern is that this is getting into incredibly extensive detail just to rebut four words in the original article, which is meant to be about the whole of the BNP, and will unbalance it. By the way, please sign your comments. Dogville 18:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this seems far too long for what's already one small point in the article. But we could certainly include a short bit in brackets if there's some opposing claim that needs mentioning. Why not post here (in talk) the text from Identity in question, or explain more clearly what the BNP's position is, and we can try to do that without adding a whole para to take issue with about 4 words in the main article? Dogville 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no Green MP, and there never has been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:86.3.68.39 (talk • contribs) .

Plaid Cymru MP Cynog Dafis for a time sat in the Commons in association with the Green Party. Paulleake 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Praise for the handling of a tricky article...

I'm glad that some protection has been applied to this article. It's very difficult to make an objective study of the BNP and to find out what it's all about with the heavy amount of bias in the media against it and logical fallacies deployed in tirades about the BNP.

It's important that if people are going to challenge the BNP that they do so in as fair and objective a way as possible, lest they damage and delegitimise their own position and comments. We've seen what censorship has done to the BNP - it's resulted in a growth of support.

There's a sense that all those who oppose the BNP feel they "own" terms such as: "bigot, fascist, prejudiced, reactionary, etc...". When one looks in a dictionary for definitions of these words, one finds it just as easy to apply them to the opponents of the BNP; hence they lend legitimacy to the BNP's cause as a freedom-fighting movement fighting against pseudo-liberal oppression. Flabby, unsophisticated and arguably libellous remarks such as "the BNP are Nazis" by reactionary groups like the ANL hoodwink people away from debating the real problems that the BNP are a symptom of. We don't get to hear serious debates about: how enforced multiculturalism is essentially a form of neo-colonialism to serve corporate interests; or about white flight and the cult of individualism; muslim-immigrant rejection of western values; the culture of "iz it coz I is black-ism" and failure among black males; and the massive people-trafficking industry that all contribute to a gulf between the values and interests of the white-working classes and the middle-classes in Britain and the rise of the BNP.

With this in mind, I think it's unhelpful to apply such arguably meaningless and subjective terms such as "extremist" and "far right", because they allow details and complexities to be swept under the carpet, and instead of actually engaging with human beings about their concerns, opponents are able to dehumanise them as mindless thugs, when on inspection one can find highly-educated people amongst the BNP. We don't label all Tories as perjurers because of the recent high-profile convictions, and we should apply the same principle to the BNP. There is always a danger of becoming the enemy you seek to destroy.

Disagree, if your local political party held conventions where members had swastikas on there hands, t-shirts with "88" [heil hitler] on them and other members doing nazi salutes and shouting anti paki slogans, im sure you would call them racist - which the BNP is - we need to document fact - not make a racist party feel comfortable in our society.

Aside from that, the links to specific policies mentioned in the article were not specific enough, and I couldn't find them. This is a bit lazy, and should be seen to.

Yeah, I think the whole links and referencing bit needs a little attention (See my comments below) so hopefully this should all be sorted within a few days. Robdurbar 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of controversial section: Violence and criminal behaviour

The neutrality of this section is under debate. What follows is my suggestion to resolve this issue.

It is important that readers do not come away with the impression that this article is biased. We must be careful that we can not only justify what we say, but also why we have said it. With this later point in mind I raise the issue of why we comment of the criminal convictions of BNP members at all?

I personally feel that this is justified (provided they are significant members), but I do feel that to do so without justification is to admit bias into the article as we are effectively framing the information by omitting to explain its presence. We should be completely transparent with the reader as to why we are including this material. We should precede the list with an explanation that a similar list could be drawn up for any party, but that in the case of the BNP some of the convictions may be noteworthy. That way we allow the readers to come to their own conclusion without having framed the information ourselves.

I think that the contributions made by 82.14.84.130 on ths issues were essentially productive in this area. Under the heading of the subject a statement in the BNPs defence was first made, with the important point that:

“Indeed, lists of convicted party members of any mainstream party could easily be compiled. Nevertheless, it may be of note to mention the following list of BNP members who have at some point received criminal convictions.”

Then the convictions were listed, Then what critics say. I feel that if we are transparant as to our motives for inclusion of the section, and admit its shortcommings, then it will become less controversal, and we will hopfully see a end to the edit war.

With these points in mind I am thinking of tidying the section up. But before I do, what to people think? Any sugestions? Paul 17:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

I kinda agree here. I think convictions of 'prominent' members should be mentioned. By this, I would include any BNP elected councillor or position holder such as a president, regional leader, spokesperson or whatever. Outside of that, convictions for racially motivated crimes or for notably 'bad' crimes should be mentioned. Robdurbar 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All the violent and criminal acts have been carried out by individual members acting on their own initiative something which the BNP as an organisation is unable to control, I could see the sections relevance if they were carrying out criminal and violent acts on the BNP’s behalf which would mean that the BNP itself was a criminal and violent organisation, but just listing convictions of people who happen to be members of the party with the possibly of some of the convictions received before they were members could be seen as just an excuse for a cheap shot at the party, no other UK political parties entry has a section listing criminal convictions so I believe that the whole section should be removed unless this type of section is added to other parties entries but I imagine if this type of section was added it would be viewed as vandalism and removed.DWC LR 00:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robdurbar. However, I disagree with DWC LR for the most part. While we should not include the irrelevant crimes of low-key party members, we should definitely include notable crimes that bear some relation to the BNP's tradition of racism and (arguably) fascism, or ones that are in some other way indicative of the party's ideals. For instance, a party leader (or other high ranking member) having been convicted of incitement to racial hatred suggests that the party may very well hold racist ideals. In most mainstream parties, members convicted of such haneous crimes would have their membership revoked, but in the BNP such members are allowed to stay: quite noteworthy indeed. Also, it is very inappropriate to compare the ultra-controversial BNP to mainstream political parties, especially since mainstream political parties do not have prominent members convicted of politically motivated crimes. -- WGee 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Tories have had one or two - Lord Archer comes to mind. But as long as we don't go overboard in listing all of the offences of every member... clearly there's a line to be found somewhere, we just have to be sensible. Robdurbar 07:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you WGee if their crimes come under racism or fascism then I can see its relevance to be in the article but we already have two sections were those crimes can be mentioned so why the need for a whole section on violence and criminal behaviour. Also lets not forget people like Barkham who was expelled for a violent act probably just because he was caught by the BBC but expelled none the less, but if the article must have criminal/violent behaviour section I think people like Barkham should be mentioned to show examples of crimes in which people have had their membership revoked. DWC LR 14:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

DWC LR makes some interesting points. It does seem slightly anti-BNP to just list convictions of people who happen to be members of the party. And I have thought before that devoting a special section to this list is a bit dubius. I do think a section on violance and the BNP is not inapropriate, but maybe we should reconsider the list of individual convictions.

For example: “Kevin Scott, the BNP's North East regional organiser, has two convictions for assault and using threatening words and behaviour”. Maybe so, but this is after all an article about the BNP, not Kevin Scott. And besides, as DWC LR points out “criminal acts have been carried out by individual members […] something which the BNP as an organisation is unable to control”. I’m not sure that the inclusion of most of the convictions on the current list adds anything to the informative nature of the article with respect the the subject of the article (ie the BNP as an organization).

To mention the convictions of the chairman is relevent, and I am in favour of this, but its inclusion should be alongside an appropriate quote illistarating the BNPs response to his conviction. Prehaphs something about how the political ellite are sensoring the BNP (there must be a quote like that somewhere).

Finally, I was reading the Wikipedia guidelines on WP:NPOV for some inspiration as to how we can help ourselves in structuring this article. The following sentence caught my eye: “Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.” With this in mind I think we should be strict in only addmitting to the artilce information that deals with the article subject. That is, lists of individual members of the the BNP who have convictions may be seen as biasing the article.Paul 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Regarding the use of the word "however" in the intro: I've read the quote you cited along with its context, and the NPOV policy does not discourage the use of the word. The word "however" does not refute an opposing view; it simply indicates contrast. "Nevertheless", on the other hand, would belittle the opposing view. Still, this is quite a trivial issue, and I'm really concerned with making the paragraph flow better. -- WGee 21:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with having Tony Lecomber in this section; his crimes were not commited whilst he was associated with the BNP, so their relevance is questionable. We should resepct that he served his time and comes out of jail with a clean slate. 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. In the case of the latter crime (the assault on the tube) Lecomber was not only involved with the BNP at the time, he was its Propaganda Director -- and it was in response to the victim removing a BNP sticker that he committed the assault. In the case of the former, I contend that it is entirely relevant that someone with a known record of that kind of conviction -- related to attempted terrorism -- maintained a leadership position in the party for so long. With due respect to Robdurbar and all the good work he's done here, I'm reinstating the para given that the above reason for its removal (presumably someone else's) is factually incorrect. Dogville 14:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Any mention of Tony Lecomber should mention the fact that he is no longer a BNP member. Suitsyou 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also I could find no evidence in the sources given for the assertion that Lecomber "nearly killed" someone in the assault case for which he was convicted. Indeed, had that been the case he would have been charged with attempted murder. Also I could find no evidence for the exact circumstances of the attack, so I have edited it to simply state the facts, i.e. that this man has a conviction for assault. Suitsyou 16:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting a bit upside-down. You object to the use of Searchlight as a source because it's biased when all the source does is provide a quote from a BNP newspaper. Are you suggesting the quote is invented? I don't think we have uncovered single instance where SL's quotes from BNP members/papers have turned out to be false. Meanwhile, you want to report Griffin's claim that Lecomber "defended himself" -- when a jury found precisely the opposite, as self-defence would have been a defence against the charge he was convicted for (at the same time as asserting that a conviction for assault proves that he couldn't have "nearly killed" his victim). There's zero consistency to this logic. Dogville 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the above debate seems to explain the removal of the paras citing official BNP publications' glorification of violence, so I'm reinstating those too. Dogville 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Another comment (sorry, there has been a lot of change to this article since I last checked in): can we stop repeating, as if it's actually true, the BNP's (alleged) line that "similar lists" could be compiled for the major parties? Unless someone can point to Blair or Cameron being given prison sentences, or recent cabinet/shadow cabinet members having committed violent assault or getting explosives convictions, it's obviously nonsense. (I'm less interested in people who are not members of the BNP leadership in this respect.) Suggest unless somebody *can* show similar records for other party leaders, we remove this 'argument'. Dogville 15:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I included this sentence to try and make it sound less like we were using the list as an excuse to bash the BNP. I don’t think one needs to justify the point (though members of other parties do have convictions – remember Archer?), it was put there mearly to sugest that the lake of inclusion of similar lists on other pages doesn’t mean that the BNP is alone in having ex-cons as memebrs (though it does have significantly more).Paul 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Here is a link that could be used to make Similar lists for the main parties.[13] DWC LR 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

@DWC LR -- We've seen that link several times. A list of Labour and Tory local councillors is not the 'equivalent' of one in which the party leader and close aides have criminal convictions.

@ Paul -- I don't think we have to account for "other pages", just the entry in question, no? Dogville 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the vast majority of our people listed are 'regional organizers' and the like; I think its a reasonable balancing comment to make - and as has been noted before, the Tory's have had a number of convicted members; though you're right that we dont have to account for other pages here either. Robdurbar 17:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

@Paul: I strongly disagree with your removal of the para re BNP publications and violence. Far from being "simply repetition of reference source", this para made the point -- utterly absent from your edited version -- that violence has not only been carried out by party members, it has been advocated/praised by official party publications. This is important. I've reinstated. Dogville 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dogville, sorry to hear you didn’t agree with my last edit. I agree with you that the points you are making in that paragraph are important. I removed the section because having read the sources you provided I could not find anything to back up the claim that the BNP had “glorified racist violence”. Your first source (s-light.demon.co.uk) reads:

“In 1991, the BNP newspaper gloated after several BNP supporters stabbed an African immigrant at London Bridge station. The victim had his ‘kidney surgically removed’, […]”

The source itself does not quote the BNP newspaper in question except for the words "kidney surgically removed”, so it is impossible for the reader to make up his or her own mind as the whether or not the BNP did gloat over, or glorify, the event. In effect the only thing we can say objectively about this is that the BNP reported on the issues, but you have gone further in this section, by saying that “Past BNP publications have glorified racist violence”.

I agree. The source itself is biased and doesn't include the necessary information to back up its assertions, so I removed it. Suitsyou 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your second source is the Guardian. The only relevent section I could find was:

“[…] in The Rune magazine, Griffin himself wrote about the need to defend "rights for whites" with ‘well-directed boots and fists’.”

Again, to see the original source we be good. From the quote above we cannot understand the context of “well-directed boots and fists”, The Guardian itself does not use this source to make the point that you are making. Did Griffin mean it metaphorically or literally? Both you and I may well suspect literally, but the point still stands that we need the original publication before we can make objective statements about it.

In essence, I agree that your points are useful to the section on violence, but with the present sources I do not feel that you are justified in saying that “Past BNP publications have glorified racist violence”. If we can find better evidence for your assertion, then fine. But if not, then I think it should be removed.Paul 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

@Paul: describing someone getting stabbed as having their "kidney surgically removed" is not reporting the facts; and calls to defend things with "boots and fists", are not metaphorical. I should say that I was so baffled by your response that I took a look at your other user contributions. They start eight days ago and focus exclusively on the BNP and Nick Griffin. You removed a reference to holocaust denial because you didn't like the source, when a quick look on the Griffin article would have given several others. You removed a para on Griffin's view of non-whites in the UK as 'permanent guests' without explanation when the source was the BNP's own website. You removed a para on the party's founder's own account of its difference from the National Front, sourced from the Times, again without explanation (unless it was what you referred to as 'speculation'). I'd hate to accuse anyone of acting in bad faith, but while this burst of editorial energy is commendable, it might be done more carefully, and perhaps on more than those two tightly-linked articles. Dogville 22:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dogville, I guess I should explain myself! I joined Wiki several months ago but didn’t make any contributions for a while. I am interested in British politics (though don’t support any particular party) and after seeing a news item on the BNP decided to check out wikipedia’s article on the subject. I was slightly disappointed by what I felt was not an entirely neutral article and so started editing it to remove parts that I felt could not be substantiated by the sources given, or changing phraseology that I thought was subjective in nature. You are right that I have also made an edit to the article on Griffin after following the link from this article.

I hope that you do not feel that my contributions have been in bad faith, or that I have a political axe to grind, for my edits have been for the enitrely opposite purpose. Perhaps you would allow me to justify my edits.

With reference to “kidney surgically removed” and “boot and fists”, its not that I don’t necessarily agree with you in principle, its just that i think its POV. You have used a source in the Guardian article to prove a point that the article itself doesn't try to make from it. And as you have not referenced the original source it is impossible for readers to form their own opinion as to whether or not you are right in your assertion. My point about “boots and fists” is perhaps a little facetious, but I’m trying to illustrate what I feel is an important point: The quoted article is from an openly anti-BNP source, which does not quote the original article in full, and quotes it out of context. How can the reader know whether or not the BNP incite racial violence from reading the source you have given? For example, the word ‘surgical’ used in this context (as I understand the context) may well be taken to mean ‘with surgical precision’ – which if anything highlights the abominable nature of the crime, rather than glorifying it. The point is – I don’t know what they mean.

With reference to the other edits you mention above, the first was because it said [the BNP published the journal Holocaust News; a newspaper whose sole purpose was to deny the Holocaust.[14] but i could not find that the link given supported this claim. To be honest I don’t know whether or not its true, so like any other reader I have to rely on the authenticity of Wikipedia references and I didn’t feel that this one carried enough weight. In retrospect Mark Collett’s quote should probably have stayed – i was too overly zealous in removing this. However the rest of the section mentions SS symbols and tattoos, neither of which I could find in the source.

In retrospect removing the paragraph on Grffins view of non-whites in the UK as 'permanent guests' was not justified. The final edit was made because I felt that this should be in the article on the national front – though maybe not (please note that the majority of the text in that last edit was moved, not removed).

I hope you do not still feel that i have acted in bad faith. I hope that we can come to an agreement about my edits. Paul 12:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul: OK, I accept your account and apologise for implying bad faith. I'll take your responses in order, but first let me make an overall comment about this subject, Wikipedia and sources. The BNP, like many far-right parties, has always presented a more acceptable face to the outside world than it does within. That's why there are regular TV exposes, in which what party members say in private are revealed. It's reasonable that a Wiki article, as well as reporting on the BNP's explicit policies, addresses its history where that is appropriate. But the *only* source for a lot of the BNP's history is either the party's publications themselves (which are often night-impossible to track down historically), or organisations like Searchlight. The mainstream media does not cover the BNP in detail on a day-to-day basis except when it gains the limelight, as at the moment, or during exposes like the C4 and BBC programmes cited. But some people have taken a line that Searchlight, being 'biased', is not an acceptable source. I think this is simplistic. Searchlight is *the* major source of info on the BNP. It is not always reliable, and where, for example, its claims are disputed by others, including the BNP, we should be very careful. But it's a magazine based in the UK, published continually for decades, and that means the same rules apply to it as to other magazines, including that anybody can sue it for libel if it publishes lies. So automatically to delete stuff where Searchlight is the primary source but where there has been no denial is to ignore the biggest source of info on the BNP in the country (and implicitly POV).

The BNP itself does not make all its publications easily available. Indeed, many (like The Rune) are not in the British Library, which the BNP should legally have supplied to them. So while I can give you the "source" of the kidney quote (British Nationalist, some time in 2001) neither I nor you nor anybody except longstanding BNP members, Searchlight researchers and probably the secret service can easily double-check it.

On interpreting kidney surgically removed, we simply disagree. I think, honestly, you're being naive. Obviously the victim's kidney was not surgically removed: he was stabbed. It's a joke, and a very nasty one. Perhaps we can rephrase without using the glorify word (anyone?).

On interpreting boots and fists, I have exactly the same interpretation as John Tyndall, who founded the BNP. But I've found another source which quotes the piece in more detail, and I'll update.

Holocaust News was widely reported at the time -- unfortunately it's pre-internet. I'll try to find some more detail. But (I think this is the key point): in situations where you are uncertain about the source of something so obviously significant, I'd suggest in future you flag it as needing more citation instead of simply deleting it. Otherwise Wikipedia can't improve, it can only be perfect to start with or go backwards.

I don't understand what you mean about the permanent guests para being better suited to the NF article -- it's from a piece written by Griffin as head of the BNP, about BNP policy. But I'm glad you accept it should stay. Dogville 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think much of the above is very intellegantly written and considers the 'npov' ideology from a very accomplished position. We should be careful when using blatently slanted sources but - given that noting is neutral - we can accpet 'biased' soucres, especially as critiques, as long as we explain that this comes from a certain veiw - see WP:TIGERS Robdurbar 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

@Dogville: Apology accepted. I take your point about requesting citation rather than simply removing. I shall bear that in mind in future. I’ve been away for a few days, and have to say that this article just keeps on improving! I think that the section on racism is now much better thanks to the reworking.Paul 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

'Similar lists'

I see that line about similar lists of convictions for other parties is back. I didn't remove it myself but I was glad it had gone. If we must include this can we at least be clear that the linked list is not "similar" in that the BNP's leader and his just-departed deputy have serious criminal convictions, whereas the same is not true of Blair and Prescott, or Cameron, or indeed any leaders of mainstream parties? (Someone mentioned Archer but his deputy chairmanship of the Tories preceded his conviction for perjury; he has had no role after it.) Dogville 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparable lists perhaps? Or maybe we could simply alter it to 'the BNP claims that similar lists could be made for other parties; in general, however, the offenders listed are much less senior in other parties than in the BNP'? --Robdurbar 19:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good to me. (The second suggestion rather than using "comparable".) Dogville 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

“[…] list is not "similar" in that the BNP's leader and his just-departed deputy have serious criminal convictions, whereas the same is not true of Blair and Prescott, or Cameron” If your concern is with the fact that the lists contain non-leader members, then let’s just mention the leaders and do away with the lists altogether. If you concern is that the lists are not comparable in some other way then maybe you will be reassured by my mini research below.

I’ve had another look at both the list compiled by the BNP and the list compiled by the BBC. I thought I would do a comparison between the two lists.

Method: I have assumed that the lists are factually accurate, and as the link to the BBC is not actually to a list I have done my best to extract the information by navigating the site. The tally counts the number of individuals rather than the number of convictions. Robert Richdale (Con) has 30 convictions to his name, but for the purposes of this investigation counts as 1.

BNP list:

   Councilors      MPs             MEPs            Other           Total
Con     7               2               1               7               17
Lab     38              6               1               5               50
Lib     10              0               0               1               11

BBC list:

   Councilors      MPs             MEPs            Other
BNP     0               0               0               12              12 

I fail to see in what way these lists are not comparable. I agree that sometimes the BNP convictions are more serious, but on a quantitative basis the BNP is a minor offender. It seems a bit harsh to dedicate an entire section of the article to how violent and crooked the BNP are and then ignore the fact that the BNP have responded to these criticisms by compiling a similar list for other parties.

I do take your point that some of the BNP’s convictions belong to prominent and currently active members. But in defence of the article as it stands, we have provided links to both lists and people can follow these up themselves and make up their own mind about the similarity, of lack-thereof, of the lists. I think it is reasonable and balanced to simple say that similar (that is, lists of bad boys) lists have been compiled for other parties too.

After looking at the BBC site again I’m beginning to wonder if the phrase “the BBC’s list is extensive” is justified. It is not extensive. Not, at any rate, as extensive as labours list!Paul 19:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I’m happy with “comparable” myself.Paul 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul -- you've inspired me to look into this in more detail myself, and my opinion has changed. I now conclude that this list is in no way comparable to that of the BNP members, and indeed is deliberately fraudulent and deceptive.

First, re. your analysis (the basic idea behind which I think was very helpful) -- of course no BNP MPs and MEPs have been implicated -- there have never been any. But the BNP list does include the leader, his recent deputy, and at least one member of the Advisory Council (the senior BNP group).

More important, however, is how meaningful the BNP list is at all. The list we have (and the BBC superset) has the following features:

-- all have actually been convicted of a crime

-- have continued (or started) as BNP politicians after that conviction (all of ours except Lecomber to date)

I spent the last 90 minutes going through the BNP list as best I can. Many people it mentions were never convicted of anything -- many weren't even charged, and some are not even alleged to have committed a crime.

Of the ones who appear to have been convicted, most resigned or otherwise ended their party political lives shortly after -- or I have been unable to find any reference to them on the web whatsoever apart from the BNP's list. Robert Richdale's criminal record preceded his selection and he was kicked out of his party as soon as his record was made known. The only ones who were actually convicted of a crime and continued to work for their party when the party was aware of that are:

• Michael Morris, a local mayor, who admitted groping someone in public, which is hardly comparable to the BNP crimes;
• and Charlie Preston, who seems to have disappeared.

That's it. One person we can establish is sort of comparable. The rest are either definitely not or so obscure I failed to find any info (corrections welcome).

I therefore conclude the list is utter humbug and we should delete any reference to it (and keep this discussion as it'll come back). My notes below.

Sex

Michael Powell - can find no reference; name too common and no info on when or where he stood as a candidate or when his conviction was

Roger Talboys - can find no reference on web besides BNP list

Andrew Baker (banning order) -- hasn't stood as MP since 1997; no available info on date of banning order

Harvey Proctor - not convicted, and resigned anyway, 20 years ago. No politics since

Christopher Pilkington -- convicted, resigned

Peter Stidworthy -- resigned

Chris Morgan -- resigned

Tom Spencer -- victimless offence; stood down anyway

Michael Morris -- "indecent assault" means he groped a drunk man. Admitted offence. Still working.

Douglas Campbell -- these are allegations and he's suspended

==

Boris Johnson -- not charged with anything

Robert Richdale -- "slipped through" vetting procedures (Telegraph) and kicked out of Tory party when record discovered

==

Corruption

Abdul Quadus -- no party activity since conviction

Jonathan Aitkin -- no party activity since conviction

Shirley Porter -- left country

Colin Kiddel -- resigned

Archer -- out of political life

Sex

Martin Locklyn -- can find no reference on web besides BNP list

David Spooner -- last web reference to political work is 1997

Nicholas Green -- stripped of position

John Winstanley -- crime committed 6 years after he was mayor. nothing since

Mark Tann -- this "prominent activist" was a babysitter who was a member of the Labour Party and once had his photo taken with the Blairs

Tony Page -- two convictions for victimless crime (cottaging) which are public knowledge and I'm unsure if still illegal anyway

Mark Swainston -- victimless crime but can find no reference on web anyway. When was he mayor of Burnley?

Mark Trotter -- actually may be something to this but no conviction

Raymond Coats -- no reference on web besides BNP list

Chris Bryant -- not even an alleged crime. He was on Gaydar in his pants. Subsequently reelected by his constituents. Good for them.

George Harding -- no conviction and can't find ref besides BNP's anyway

Ron Davies -- more random homophobic slurs. He was cruising. That's not illegal.

Derrick Payne -- didn't stand for reelection

Joe Ashton -- not even charged, no longer active in politics anyway

Derek Woodvine -- charges dropped

Tony Wright -- resigned

Clive Betts -- no charges or convictions, made two errors of judgement acc Parliament

Charlie Preston -- no longer in active politics as far as I can see, though was a councillor after his jail term

Denis Jones -- can find no record. Labour Councillor for "Wales"?

Ken Brookman -- can find no record

Keith Dobinson -- "investigated" is not a charge or a conviction

Tommy Graham -- expelled from party!

Brian Cotton and Tony Cooper -- charges dropped

Mohamed Niwaz -- disqualified on conviction 7 years ago, no activity since

Doncaster -- led to changes in Labour selection procedures

Mohammed Hussein -- can't find anything but no suggestion of conviction anyway

Mohammed Sawar -- no charges/conviction

David Martin -- no charges/conviction

Shawn Stringer -- resigned anyway

... that's it. Dogville 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting! Very interesting indeed. 90mins? You are a true Wikipedian. I’m almost tempted to e-mail the BNP and ask them to explain their list. Paul 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And let us know if you have any joy from them. Dogville 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more edits

I removed two sentences that have been sitting there marked ^{[citation needed]} for a long time.

The party argues that it does not and cannot completely vet every single member and that it's impossible to know the proportion of members with a criminal conviction in any party. BNP supporters also argue that members of the BNP are scrutinised to a much greater extent than members of other political parties and, as such, are more likely to have their offences discovered and publicised than other politicians.

The first is irrelevant anyway, as the criminal records of these people are obviously known; they've been reported on Panorama. Dogville 21:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part on football hooliganism because the opinions of an opponent MP and one phantom Liverpool fan are not reliable sources that prove any link between the BNP and football hooliganism. Suitsyou 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and it was discussing some stuff from over 20 years ago. However, I've reverted your other changes; I think those criticisms were relevant and we may as well mention what crimes were comitted, rather than the act people are convicted under; its clearer to the average reader. --Robdurbar 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to compromise on this. I must insist that the reference to Lecomber almost killing the Jewish teacher is removed as this is an obvious factual inaccuracy. An assault that leads to a person almost being killed will lead to a charge of attempted murder, which was not so in Lecomber's case. I see no reason at all why Nick Griffin's response to these allegations should not be included. Suitsyou 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed the claim that "BNP publications have glorified racist violence" because 1) there is no evidence in the source cited that it does and 2) there is no evidence that BNP supporters were involved in the alleged incident. If you insist on reverting this part of the article please justify this and respond to those 2 points. Suitsyou 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is clear evidence in the source that it has glorfifed racist violence - the kideny removed quote is that. It does not matter, per se, whether the individuals who did it were connected to the BNP directly - it did not matter, for example, that Abu Hamza was not directly connected to those people whose acts he glorified.

I disagree with both of these points. Stating a victim had his “kidney surgically removed” is merely stating a medical fact, which could be interpretted as the publication merely stressing the seriousness of the injury. You would need to see the context to assess whether there was any glorification of racist violence. Remember this publication (which no longer even exists) was a tabloid and the quote seems no different from the typical sensationalist reporting of crime you see in all tabloids. You could go through The Sun and find similar quotes, but would it be fair to say that The Sun "glorifies violence"? I don't think so. As to the second point, the paragraph was stating as a matter of fact that the crime was committed by BNP supporters, but there is no evidence that the crime was in fact committed by BNP supporters. For that matter there is not even any evidence that was a crime a of racist violence. Has it been reported as such in any mainstream newspapers?Suitsyou 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We're going round in circles on this. Of course it's not a medical fact, as of course the victim's kidney was not surgically removed; and no, you will not find The Sun describing street violence in those terms. Dogville 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It could well be a medical fact. The article could have stated "the victim was rushed to hospital where one of his kidneys was surgically removed". We simply don't know without knowing the context. Also Searchlight has a record of misquotation and getting its facts wrong (see the writings of Alexander Baron and Larry O'Hara and the libel case brought by Tory MP Neil Hamilton) so we simply can't rely on that source alone to back up the assertions in the paragraph I deleted. Suitsyou 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Now the only controversy is that the source is clearly biased. That, again, is not a problem as we're using it for the quote; it is only if we think that the creaters of the article have made up the quote entirely that we should remove it. I havn't reverted yet - but thoughts? --Robdurbar 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the main issue with bias was that the paragraph appeared to be making a statement of fact. How many people reading this article actually follow the links to the sources cited? Not many because it would take hours. As the source is biased (and also notoriously unreliable) we shouldn't be uncritically adopting it to make statements of fact. If you wanted to say something like "anti-BNP publication Searchlight has stated ..." that would be perfectly acceptable, but I don't think it would add much to the article. Suitsyou 13:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Referencing and External Links

These two really need to be cleaned up whilst the page is protected; I'm rather busy at the mo but will have time to do so at the weekend; but if anyone else wants to take this opportiunity to do so it would help the article a lot.

In paticular, links need to be checked to see that they a. say what it is claimed they say and are b. trustworthy. The referencing really ought to be converted into some sort of referencing style, rahter than just in-line links too. Robdurbar 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The referencing should be done according to the Cite.php system, which is the preferred citation style for Wikipedia articles. -- WGee 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New Section: BNP claims of oppression of free speech

I’ve moved a couple of paragraphs from “Opposition to the BNP” to a section of their own. Partly to make the former section flow better, and partly because the content of the paragraphs in question was on a slightly different topic. I have titled the new section “BNP claims of oppression of free speech”. The problem is that while I think that such a section is justified, I don’t like the way the current one reads. It sounds a little bit pro-BNP. Any ideas for making it sound more neutral? Perhaps what opponents say? This could then link in (or maybe be followed by) the section on opposition.Paul 22:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

Front groups/affiliates

The heading "BNP front organisations" was changed to "affiliated". This is incorrect; an affiliate is an officially linked organisation and orgs such as Civil Liberty explicitly deny "official" links to the BNP. I have edited to "front groups and affiliate orgs" to cover both kinds. Dogville 15:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph: Football hooligans

Should the following section be included?

“Public concern over football hooliganism frequently linked in with criticism of far right political activity. In March 1985 the Labour MP for Bristol South, Michael Cocks, claimed that there was a direct relationship between football hooligans and votes for BNP candidates in the areas the football clubs were from [13]. One Liverpool FC fan claimed that he saw BNP literature distributed before the Heysel Stadium disaster, where crowd disturbances led to the deaths of 39 Juventus fans [14].”

I’m against for the following reasons: 1) This article is already large and if we don’t think carefully about including new material it will quickly ballon; 2) Although the sources are referenced, the source itself is of insufficient authority – in each case it is one man’s opinion; 3) It is not sufficiently relevant to the subject matter to warrant its inclusion when consideration is given to point 1

What do others think? Paul 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

I think this article could do with a brief mention of BNP connections with football hooliganism and I don't suggest the current paragraph is the best that can be done. I'm also wary about looking for sources among anti-fascist journals and books, as they have obvious axes to grind. Interestingly Richard Thurlow's book "Fascism in Britain" ascribes links between political parties and organised football hooliganism to the consequences of not achieving influence through electoral means (p. 270 in my edition). From memory, Paul Mercer's mid-90s "Directory of British Political Organizations" has some interesting detail although I have not got a copy. David | Talk 17:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. A section on football hooliganism is probably not totally out of place, but perhaps it should go under the section on violence. It would add more weight to that section, and make it sound more objective as it would back up what is already being said there. However I’m still unconvinced by the current sources. Paul 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Paul8046

My impression (FWIW) is that the BNP had links to various 'firms' in the 1980s (or at least, some of its members happened also to be organisers of the firms), but that long before the early 1990s they had either left or the firms had closed. However finding sources is inevitably very difficult. David | Talk 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tidy up

This article has numerous spelling errors and needs updating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ukbn2 (Ukbn2 • contribs) .

Well a couple of users have checked the spelling, though bear in mind this is in British English, not US English - so spellings such as 'judgement' and 'councillors' are correct. Where do you feel it needs updating? If you're referring to the current local elections campaign, then I think its prudent to leave most mention of this until after the results; that stops this page containing too much speculation. Robdurbar 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob: paedophile is British English too. Dogville 15:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned something earlier, but good job on the intro. It now has a much more neutral tone. -- WGee 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Right wing or authoritarian?

The BNP is often called right wing, but like all neo-fascist groups it is not economically right wing, rather economically centrist (even slightly left wing due to it's protectionist policies) it is, however authoritarian. The Political Compass has some details, and also a good analysis of where the British political parties lay on the left-right/authoritarian-libertarian compass during the 2005 general election. Alun 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The justification for the term "far right" is briefly explained in the article, and after reading the far right article your doubts should be eradicated. Also, there are numerous reputable sources in the article and elsewhere that identify the BNP as far-right, so the term is certainly appropriate.

And your question is a tad confusing, as right-wing parties are almost always authoritarian (with regards to social policy, that is). You shouldn't rely on the political compass anyway, for though it is popular, it is not very authoritative or respected by academia. Right-wingers need not be economically liberal (you mentioned fascists, for instance); rather, the term "right-wing", in this case, refers to state and social policy above all else.

--WGee 23:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point, the political compass has re-defined the terms for it's own purposes. I would argue that parties like the Libertarian Party in the United States of America are more right wing economically speaking, but are certainly not authoritarian, they have a very strong respect for human/civil rights. Just an observation. Alun 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply that we live in an age of politics now where the terms left-wing and right-wing are such gross over-simplifications that they are more misleading than helpful. Having looked over a leaflet outlining their policies that I recieved in the post a couple of days ago, I would agree that their protectionist work and trade policies and the fact they want to quit the EU, make them what many would describe as far left-wing. It's only their immigration and repatriation policies that most would consider far right-wing.

Personally I think Wikipedia should stop using the terms right wing and left wing as they are so misleading. The only reason the BNP fits the criteria in the far right article is that the article's criteria has recently been made so vague that even most modern day Communist parties could be classified "right wing" by it. Canderra 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite your personal opinions and the simplicity of the left-right scale, it is widely accepted in academia. Interventionist economics combined with reactionary or chauvanistic social policy is basically the definition of the term "far-right" (extreme nationalism + opposition to laissez-faire economics = far right). And you seem to be unaware that the policy of protectionism is not exclusive to left-wing politics; in fact, its most vocal proponents are nationalists. Please read the far-right article if you are still uncertain about the usage of the term. -- WGee 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Left-Right politics is defiantly the norm in mainstream media, but I disagree it is widely accepted in academia, in fact I would argue it is actively discouraged due to it's over-simplicity. Referring to the BNP as merely a far-right wing party in an academic politics paper would have that paper laughed at all the way to the bin.

Protectionism maybe supported by traditionally right-wing nationalists but that only furthers the argument of the absurdity of the left-right scale. Protectionism of key labor markets in the sense depicted by the BNP is undoubtedly a left-wing ideal, after all in one form or another it forms a central pillar of almost all modern communist and socialist party manifestos. Canderra 03:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess people keep removing far-right because they feel it is a pejorative term. Personally I’m not too bothered by it, but we could use “reactionary nationalism” which is given as a synonym (ish) in the article on “far right”, and this is perhaps a more accurate description. Paul 15:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to Neo-Nazis

Would not the same brilliant logic that links BNP to nazis, link the Labour party to AlQueda. Labour leaders meet with islamo-fascist clericks, they get their voter support from muslim extremists and they pass all kinds of laws as not to offend the islamic minority in UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.247.1.125 (Talk • contribs) .

they get their voter support from muslim extremists, so about 35.3% of the British population must be muslim extremists by your brilliant logic.[15] You are also conveniently forgetting that the muslim vote (if any such thing exists) is rather anti-Labour at the moment due to the participation of British forces in the liberation of Iraq from another facist dictator, hence George Galloway's defeat of Oona King in Bethnal Green and Bow.[16][17] You are also ignoring the Al-Quaeda bombings of 7th of July 2005 by the very extremist muslims you claim support Labour, but these bombings were claimed to be because the UK government had committed atrocities against Muslims [18]. Your comment is spurious to say the least. The BNP are a Nazi Party, they espouse similar racist policies (for example the Nuremberg Laws to denaturalise certain racial groups) and have similar socialist protectionist economic policies (remember that it National Socialism) Please sign your posts. Alun 03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the Labour party's link to Islamic extremiststs 1, link to Islamic extremiststs 2. There is more if you search the Internet. For instance, why would Labour government ban St. George's crosses not offend those who call to "Slay those who offend islam", while it spares no money on persecuting those who call islam what it is - a "wicked and vicious faith". Anybody who has eyes and ears, understands that Blair's party is keeping the immigration door wide open not to offend muslims on whose support they count in the razor sharp margin elections. If it were not for muslims, Labour would be out of power. 1.2 million Muslims are eligible to vote, and 75 percent of those who turned out lent their support to Mr. Blair's landslide victory in 2001.. The funny thing about liberal intelligentsia is that one can have an opinion as long as it is the same as theirs, and if one says something they don't agree with, they smear them as racists, stupid, illiterate, ignorant, and nazi. Let not the truth get in the way of anything. Liberals think they are entitled to power and when they lose it, they claim it was stolen from them. I suggest you add a section in Labour Party's article describing links to Islamo-Fascists which are clear, obvious and undeniable. --RiseOfBNP 03:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost encouraged by this. Asking questions is the first step to freeing your mind. Anyway, in order, no, no, no and no. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is not an 'extremist', let alone an 'Islamo-Fascist'; Blair made a huge deal about the cartoon protests and prosecutions are now being made; Labour's support among Muslims has plummeted because of the Iraq war so they're hardly making policy solely to win Muslim support. Complicity in Guantanamo ditto. Of course Labour does care about the Muslim vote as it does its other areas of traditional support; that's democracy. I'm no supporter of the Labour party, by the way; their civil liberties record is appalling. As for Griffin and Islam, you must be aware that the National Front, under Griffin's leadership, forged bonds with the Nation of Islam and sold copies of their newspaper, and received support from and visited Gaddafi's "Islamic socialist" regime in Libya before the TV exposé of their terrorist activities made him too embarrassed by them ... he's attacking Islam because he an opportunist and anti-Muslim racism is the most widespread form in the UK at the moment. Dogville 07:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dogville said: I'm almost encouraged by this. Asking questions is the first step to freeing your mind. - Don't be so condescending and arrogant. I am not asking any questions and don't need to free my mind. I have freed my mind when I stopped watching BBC and CNN. But you may learn a thing or two, just rent a flat in one of the more multicultural parts of the country, and send your children to a diverse school. They will become racially aware suddenly and rapidly. RiseOfBNP 09:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The first comment in this section is nothing more than BNP apologia and should be disregarded as such. Such non-sensible, baseless rhetoric is counterproductive and only serves to annoy editors who are actually concerned with the quality of the article. Any person who has read the article will realize that the BNP's links to Nazism are not derived from logic, but from reputable sources, as per Wikipedia's No Orginial Research policy. -- WGee 20:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that official BNP policy is that all those who are not ethnically of these parts would still be British citizens and be entitled to all that British Citizenship offers. The un-PC bit is that the BNP wouldn't grant all British citizens, ethnically "British", I think the ethnicities would actually be English, Welsh etc. This is different to what I believe the Nazi's did, which was to take German Citizenship from those who were ethnically Jewish. --80.235.139.99 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The BNP considers non-ethnically British citizens 'guests' and wants to use 'firm but voluntary' measures to get as many as possible of them to leave the country. Read the article Dogville 07:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They'd still have British citizenship while "guests" though? --80.235.139.99 11:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Election News Wording

Sorry that I'm pushing a few things on you guys, but I'd rather not get involved in editing the article due to leaning towards the BNP's views on some things so i'd rather mention a few things and see if you think the amendments should be made. A lot of the media have been talking about single seats being picked up when in actual fact in some areas, seats have been lost but net gains have been made to win back more seats in other wards of the borough and this has led to what I think is incorrect wording on the local government section. Would it be fairer to state for example, that the BNP lost a seat in Burnley but gained two others, rather than saying 1 single seat was won? Maybe the problem here was getting the number of councillors elected confused with the net gains/losses numbers. --80.235.139.99 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "lost a seat but gained two others" is, I suppose, extra factual information, and as long as it's correct I doubt anyone would have a problem with that sort of change. I don't think it's really a POV issue though - whether or not losing a seat and gaining two is better or worse than just gaining one seat is down to interpretation. (Could argue that losing one seat shows that a BNP councillor isn't successful once in office, but could also be interpreted as more successful in gaining two seats rather than just one). Matt 08:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The other issue is, that in a page detailing the entire history of the BNP, we don't want to give too much scope to just recent evetns. An overall summary is best, rathern than detailing all gains/losses --Robdurbar 09:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At least changing won to gained would make it fairer? I feel saying in for example Burnley that they won 1 seat is factually incorrect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:80.235.139.99 (Talk • contribs) .

Yeah, it would be; does it say that in the text at the moment. --Robdurbar 14:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do people here, and also newspapers, keep writing that Barking and Dagenham Council are the first to have the BNP as the Official Opposition (second largest party). They were the second largest party on Burnley Council, briefly, after the elections of 2003 and I've changed the entry accordingly.

Might be worth reminding people that newspapers articles should be researched before being put on wikipedia with regards to the BNP as fact or cite the newspaper.--80.235.139.99 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to the BNP

To more than double your seats is a phenomenal achievement. The result in Barking is especially interesting, because it shows that the main obstacle to getting people to vote for you seems to lie solely in convincing them you can actually win - I guess the old adage that no-one likes to back a loser is especially applicable here! The Barking result shows the potential of the BNP if it can do this in every borough. ' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: 81.131.132.132 (Talk • contribs) .

Link

Just wondering, whats the stormfront.org link there for?

Where is it? --Robdurbar 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "ethnically British"?

This term has been used a number of times in the article and discussion. It's difficult to understand what the definition of the "national and ethnic character of the British people" is.

Its only a matter of time till racial intergration fails and the suppresion of free speech and will erupts and we are left with a british hitler leading the BNP to the same fate as WW2, a new WW3.

Racial/Ethnic Nationalism

The infobox is getting regularly bowdlerised by IP-based edits, removing 'racial' or 'ethno' as prefixes for Nationalism. This is really not acceptable. The BNP is founded on a racial-separatist constitution and it's dishonest to hide that definitive feature of the party from the summary. I'm reverting the last removal. As for whether we should call it racial or ethno-nationalism, I'm open to debate here. But I don't think it's a requisite that we follow the BNP's terminology if we don't think it's accurate. Thoughts? Dogville 17:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it should be nationalism. Why you may say? Well I believe that there can be many forms of nationalism. There can be regional nationalism, patriotic nationalism, economic nationalism etc. and the BNP are advocating nationalism in all factors and not only ethnicity. Claiming that the BNP policy is ethnic-nationalism does not explain all the other sectors of their nationalism in their 2005 election manifesto. These include the nationalisation of industry which the Labour Party previously submitted; but did they do this on ethnic terms? NO!

The BNP also bases its nationalism on its withdrawal from the EU therefore focussing on regional nationalism. Is this on ethnic terms? NO!

Of course it has got focusses on ethnicity but observing and analysing their manifesto reveals a diverse range of nationalist tendencies regardless of ethnicity and therefore I support that the true entry for its ideology should be plainly "nationalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Person of the People (talk • contribs) 19:50 2 June 2006

This doesn't address any of the arguments in this section. Please read it. Also, you seem to be confusing nationalism with nationalisation. Dogville 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with ethno-nationalism. --Robdurbar 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But hardly anyone has ever heard of pointlessly prefixed words like "ethno-nationalism". Nationalism implies "ethno-nationalism", they are the same concept, in the same way communism implies marxism and socialism. Should the description in articles for communist parties be therefor changed to socio-marxo-communist? Of course not, it's directly implied.

The 2nd sentance in the nationalism#Principles of Nationalism article even states:

"These criteria might include a shared language, culture, and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific ethnic group.".

The policies of the BNP in this area are pretty much the same as for every other "nationalist" party and are quite directly summed up within the relevant sections of the nationalism article. I think therefor the world "nationalism" is more definatly more appropriate because this is the common political term which describes the category of political belief which the BNP subscribe to. The reason anonymous users keep changing it is obviously because they have never heard of "ethno-nationalism" and so change it to the category the BNP are described as being everywhere else. Canderra 01:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Nationalist movements have included Gandhi. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are 'nationalist' parties, but they don't advocate the removal of non-whites from Scotland and Wales. The term nationalism in no way implies racial separatism, which is a fundamental element of the BNP's project. Excising race from the infobox is profoundly misrepresentative and it's outrageous to claim that it's "POV" to retain it when racial separatism is in their constitution and manifesto.

None of the anon removals have professed to be confused. They have, though, given explanations that haven't withstood any kind of analysis.

I'm going with to 'ethnic nationalism' as that's most accurate (because they are increasingly behind excluding certain kinds of whites, like Eastern Europeans) and it's the term the BNP uses, but less confusing than the 'ethno-' variant. Plus there's a wiki entry and Rob seems okay with it. But still open to debate as long as we don't keep censoring the obvious and not-contested facts. Dogville 07:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we could also list both nationalism and racial seperation seperately? Don't get me wrong, ethnic is fine, just another idea--Robdurbar 07:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was just about to suggest that. Nationalism and White separatism? Racial separatism redirects to segregation which isn't quite the same thing. Dogville 07:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree mainly with what Dogville is saying. But since race is important to the BNP's politics ([19]: see Multi-racialism – a recipe for disaster) and some of the BNP's policies and comments are clearly racist, I feel that "racial nationalism" is the most appropriate label until a "racial seperatism" article comes along. "White seperatism" is out of the question for BNP sympathizers because it is associated with white supremacy, which the BNP claims to oppose. -- WGee 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the BNP's constitution says that it "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". So clearly, race (not merely ethnicity) is central to the BNP's beliefs, and this should be reflected in the infobox. -- WGee 03:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the acutal link we want 'Racialism'? --Robdurbar 07:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

@WGee -- "Racial nationalism" is fine by me (well, no, of course it's not, but you know what I mean). I just think some consensus here would be good as a basis on which to revert the constant watering-down of the infobox.

@Rob -- "Racialism" is a difficult term, associated as it is with a kind of Powell-era old-Tory racism. I don't think it necessarily implies the severity of the BNP's ethnic-purity programme.

Have we heard any arguments against "racial nationalism"? Dogville 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Racial nationalism" isn't a real concept though (the fact there is no article on it should give a hint), it is just adding a pointless word to the front of the real concept which is nationalism. The nationalist parties mentioned here might not advocate the same racist policies of the BNP, but this is simply because they are not as extreme as the BNP. Mono-ethnicity is a central logical component of nationalist theory (as the quote from the nationalism article proves), in practise it might be at the extreme end, but none-the-less it's central to the concept.

In the same way that state ownership of all land, businesses and possesions is a central logical pillar of communism, even though not many communist parties in the western world advocate it fully. The reason for this is simply because they are not advocating such an extreme commitment to communism, not because state ownership of land, businesses and possesions is somehow a "different" type of communism, it's simply at the extreme end. I do not know who/which people keep on reverting the category (apart from my single, explained revert) but it is obvious that others agree with me on this, but possibly they don't know enough about Wikipedia to contribute to this discussion). Canderra 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that racial nationalism is best. The BNP define nation in terms of race, not culture as ethnic would imply. Paul 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Canderra has a point. Also, the reader only needs to get to the second paragraph of the introduction to understand the major emphasis of BNP policy. Paul 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We can't keep on watering down the infobox. By labelling the BNP merely "nationalist", you are lumping it together with moderate, non-racist nationalist parties like the Canadian Action Party; thus, the term is too vague and broad. As for now, I think "ethnic nationalism" will do; at least there have been no major objections to it and it has a decent article. -- WGee 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Canderra wrote: In the same way that state ownership of all land, businesses and possesions is a central logical pillar of communism, even though not many communist parties in the western world advocate it fully. The reason for this is simply because they are not advocating such an extreme commitment to communism, not because state ownership of land, businesses and possesions is somehow a "different" type of communism, it's simply at the extreme end.

First of all, state ownership of anything (in fact, the very existence of the state) is contrary to communism (please read the article, for you seem to be misguided by the erroneous Western concept of communism). Secondly, you said that there is only one type of communism, but after reading the article you will discover how blatantly false that notion is. Those "extreme ends" are exactly what constitute different types of communism (or different types of anything, for that matter). -- WGee 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot about communism having completed multiple modules on it at a well respected university. I was using the term state ownership to simplify matters, in the limited context I mentioned it in I do not see the source of any erroneous portrayal. I also do not understand what you mean by different kinds of communism; there is only one kind at the nation/inter-national level. Of course there's Marxism, Socialism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism and the host of Social democracy movements but I was not talking about them, I was talking about communism.

If it is felt Nationlism is not an adequate category for the BNP then add more categories, but it is standard nationlist policy that the BNP advocate, pure and simple. "Ethnic Nationalism" is not an ideology, it is Nationalism with the word "Ethnic" pointlessly placed on the front. We could all start calling "Nationalism" -> "Ethnic Nationlism" if we want, but what's the point, it's simply taking a well known ideology and giving it a new name for no good reason. If Wikipedia has a seperate article on it then it is obviously the result of some contributors not understanding proper political theory. Canderra 23:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism can be based on either ethnicity or culture, whereas culture is not innately tied to ethnicity and vice versa. How do you propose we differentiate between nationalism based on culture (the kind advocated by American paleoconservatives) and nationalism based on ethnicity? And what say you to reputable organizations (such as these: [20] [21]) that identify ethno-nationalism and cultural nationalism as distinct movements within an ideology? -- WGee 02:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

@Canderra: ahem. Dogville 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The BNP is racist according to most legal and dictionary definitions; however, many people (and news organisations) object to the use of the term for fear of being politically incorrect and because the BNP explicitly denies that it is racist. So perhaps we should use the term "racialism" to define the BNP's ideology, a term coined by white supremacists. Even though the "seperate but equal" idea is an oxymoron, it seems to be what the BNP advocates. About racialism:

In separatist identity politics, the term may be used to emphasise perceived social and cultural differences between "races". Separatists may say that although they do not see themselves as superior to — or feel hatred towards — other "races", they nevertheless believe that the races should not live together.

-- WGee 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As a description I like it because its closest to what they are saying. We could include both racialism and nationality, to indicate that their nationalism is a racist one (and not, say, a liberizing one). --Robdurbar 21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm giving that idea second thoughts, because it is not a widely used term in academia, the references in the racialism article aren't very noteworthy (some don't even use the term), and the dictionary entry cited at the beginning of the article [22] states that "racialism" is merely a variant of "racism". So obviously there is some confusion and ambiguity surrounding the term. And, like I said before, the term was coined by white supremacists in attempt to avoid the negative connotations of "racism"; thus, it does not have much validity amongst non-racists. -- WGee 21:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense (the second thoughts). Dogville 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok --Robdurbar 07:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite all the above, one IP address is continually removing "ethnic" from the infobox. When things are busy (s)he sometimes gets away with this for a while. Latest of these edits advises "give up", which sounds nakedly aggressive. Is there a remedy? Dogville 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If, by contrast, you have gone beyond the discontent of the nearly awakening masses, and want to have a better grasp of the principles of modern ethnic nationalism and the long-term aims of the BNP, then the things to study are Identity, our website and the educational series of Vanguard CDs. -- Nick Griffin, BNP website. Enough now? Dogville 19:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Far right

Is there any dispute that the BNP is on the "far right"? -Will Beback 04:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not scientific, but a google search for 'BNP not "far right"' brings up a number of results, and only one appears to claim the BNP are not far right, an opinion page which claims that their economic policies make them left wing. --Robdurbar 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazi economic policies were left-wing, but they were still rather right-wing:P HawkerTyphoon 10:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no dispute, for all reputable sources classify the BNP as far-right. This question has been brought up many times. -- WGee 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article on 'Far Right' highlights that this is a term that would not be used by those so described. What does the party themselves describe their position as, I can't actually find a statement etc Weggie 09:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The party describes itself as "ethno-nationalist" [23]. But what the BNP styles itself is irrelevant in the infobox, where we must describe the BNP objectively, not according to its propaganda. -- WGee 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If the party styles itself as Ethno-nationalist this should be in the article - I can't see it there. Really to be NPOV - the article intro should be on the lines of --BNP political party in the UK. Styles itself as Ethno-nationalist but opponents and most observers classify the party as far-right--. Weggie 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, ethnic nationalism is a far-right ideology, so the BNP can be ethno-nationalist and far-right simultaneously; there is no opposition between the terms. And ethno-natiolism is right there in the infobox, at the beginning of the article. -- WGee 23:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it can. in your/most everyones terms but that doesn't work as a universal POV as the BNP would not see themselves as Far-right. Far-right being an allusion not only their ideology but also to their extremity and unacceptability in political life. So an label like far-right in any context needs qualification with the groups own label Weggie 15 May 2006 (UTC)

All reputable sources classify the BNP as far-right, and that's all we need in the infobox, for the BNP's views are explained adequately elsewhere in the article. Also, you have yet to find sourced BNP statement in which they deny the label "far-right", so currently there is no conflict. Explaining the extreme viewpoint that BNP might not be far-right would be an NPOV violation, anyway (please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight). Finally, the notion that any description of the BNP needs to agree with their political propaganda is ludicrous. -- WGee 00:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Also, you have yet to find sourced BNP statement in which they deny the label "far-right" - that is an argument that I will take on - the assertion that I am somehow trying to re-define the BNP to remove the far-right tag is to completely misunderstand my argument and 'ludicrous' in the context of my previous comments and disingenuous to the point of incivility (please see WP:CIV#Examples) Weggie 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, calling an idea foolish is not uncivil, but if it offended you, I apologise. You said I misunderstood your argument, but I don't think so. Basically, you regard the far-right label as an opinion, and would like it presented that way; meanwhile, I say that when all reputable sources classify a party as something, and that party doesn't deny it, then that classification can be presented as fact. -- WGee 04:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/chairman2.php?ngId=14 , http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/brimstone2.php?leeId=36, http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:k45NvMFq5dwJ:www.bnp.org.uk/democracy/lettersmain.php%3FpageNum_rsletters%3D16%26totalRows_rsletters%3D463++bnp+%22far+right+%22+site:bnp.org.uk&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=21

The BNP does deny it is 'far-right' - far right being an reference to being outside the mainstream. Important Clarification! The view of all observers is that the BNP is Far-Right so in terms of the 'Political Position' classification and in the wider article then fine but it needs to be clear that the BNP does not regard itself as far-right as evidenced by the links if only for a basic understanding of the position the BNP adopts. This could be done very simply in the manner descibed in post: 23:04, 15 May 2006. 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

IF no-one is bothered, I'll make the change. If not please give me some feedback here..Weggie20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with WGee here. "Far right" is a factual description. I'd add that the three links you cite hardly make the point for the BNP well. Their argument seems to be that they have majority support, which election results hardly sustain (50-something councillors out of 20k is still tiny, however big their gain in Barking). The first link quotes somebody saying it's "increasingly hard to disprove" that they're f-r, not that it can't be disproved, and in any case calls all this 'terrifying'. The second link says in one sentence that the media can no longer call the BNP f-r and in the next sentence complains that they still do; the third link is merely a letter from a supporter and not a statement by the party.

If you feel it's important to say that the BNP disagree with the label, I don't believe that's important enough for the introductory paragraph, and may simply muddy the waters as it might require an explanation of why they disagree, which is unclear, and give reasonable grounds for others to put the obvious counter-arguments, and the whole thing will get long and stupid. Dogville 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

About Footnotes

The ref tags must come after the full stop or comma: The basic concept of the <ref> tag is that it inserts the text enclosed by the ref tags as a footnote in a designated section, which you indicate with the placeholder tag <references/>. Note that the ref tag comes after a period (full stop) or comma. Do not place the period after the tag. (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#How_to_use)

If anyone has the time, please fix this.

--WGee 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? What a stupid rule. I'm proposing that it should be changed at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. --Robdurbar 08:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, somebody went and changed the infobox; I'm going to restore it. -- WGee 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Leigh Jones

Is this really notable? A google search of Leigh Jones and British National Party brings up no results on this topic. I sniff original research and non-notability here, but I wondered what others thought before removing it? --Robdurbar 15:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I say remove it, since it adds nothing to the article and may be original research, like you said. -- WGee 23:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this yesterday before I removed it anyway. I don't think it's notable. Many people campaign against the BNP, and it seems utterly random to make a para out of one non-notable comedian taking the piss out of them. The para was also very NPOV, referring to said comic's "unflinching attacks". Dogville 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Absurd Lack of Logic in BNP Ideology

What's interesting is the use of the term "Indigenous Caucasians", with respect to the British Isles, is almost impossible to define. There are Anglo Saxons, there are French, there are Norse, there are Celts...at which point do they become "Indigenous"?

Furthermore, the Asian population - whilst constituting only 1% of Britain's population - actually contributes to 10% of its economy. Removing these ethnic minorities would set Britain back many, many years on the world stage and it would no longer be a primary competing power.

They say they want to remove immigrants, etc... But there are tens of thousands of open positions for labour work! We need immigrants to keep the bottom foundation of our economic structure afloat...else we will be ridden into the ground.

So with facts like these in mind, it begs the question: "what is the ultimate goal of the BNP and why are they really doing it?"

The fact that they are apparently willing to sacrifice the stability of the country's economy in exchange for creating a country whose sole populous is that of people who have to go out and get tanned instead of being born with a natural one, and to eliminate cultures that are far older and arguably richer than those of the British Isles (that have actually contributed to modern architecture, mathematics, economy, science, etc in an indispensible way), and to reap the rewards of years of Imperialism over those very same countries that have been sucked dry by British invaders and whose deprived populations would not even have thought about coming to Britain if they'd only been left alone in the first place...all leads me to believe that a innate and illogical hatred of non-whites is what fuels the BNP. The racist discrimination of the earilest non-Caucasian settlers by whites is what actually bred an internal fear into their expanding communities, therefore they preferred to keep themselves to themselves...which whites then like to interpret as the ethnic populations' "unwillingness to integrate".

Nevertheless, as time goes on and as the youths of various communities gradually begin to interact and hopefully break down such anti-humanistic divides, there may come a time when the world can be considered a haven for all human beings and not have it be divided off into ethnically-defined zones.

Hey, if White Britons can be forgiven for raping and ravaging countries and cultures that didn't belong to them, I'm sure that they can at least tolerate the populations of those same countries who have been forced into moving thousands of miles from their homes just to live with the dignity that was stolen from them.

Oh, and on using Islamic extremism as a tool? BNP people must totally love this. It's like thier own personal McGuffin to justify everything they do and say.

The fact of the matter is that Islamic extremists are the same as the BNP - they're the opposite sides of the same coin: intolerant, violent, inhumane, blind...

Someone should give 'em a deserted island and give 'em weapons so that they can make themselves happy an wipe themselves out and let the rest of us live in peace. Ooh...I feel like watching Battle Royale now!

--Max314 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When did wiwkipedia become speakers corner? Put your placards away....please do we have to have any more posts like this?Ukbn2 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well we can't stop people posting them. But it is time for an archinving anyway... --Robdurbar 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)