I think the intitial problem here is a WIkiepdia-old ownership issue - the very language Parrot of Doom uses gives this away. Although I agreed with his revert in this case (there are better ways present the fact of Griffin's well known bigotry than just to define him a 'bigot'), when I read his "biased garbage" edit note I was appalled at both the rudeness and politics, and planned to warn him myself tonight. As with myself, Nfitz is an experienced editor (from 2005 in his case, 2006 in mine). Also, I am VERY worried about Parrot's real stance on far right issues, despite what he says about Griffin on his user page. It’s an unfortunate truth that many people who so foolishly support the BNP just want certain policies and issues to made more public, and are not at all Griffin fans. I hope people can digest that comment. The BNP are also very, very clever, and without question far right – so I think we are all entitled to be wary of them from a Human Rights stance, whatever some people might insist about dotting each ‘i’ of the WP:AGF policy. Parrot has reacted to edits in this manner before, and if he (or anyone else) does it again I won't hesitate to make an official complaint, both on the rudeness and bias in the content.

No matter what friends you make on Wikpedia, people like Slim Virgin (and others complementary of the trimming of likely problems from the Griffin article in time for Question Time) won't be stupid enough to defend totally uncalled-for civility indiscretions to time-served editors who are CLEARLY acting in good faith. Especially given the dangerous politics involved from one side only here, and considering what should be expected to happen from the middle ground with this article being so plainly lily-livered - about a terrifying political disease that so nearly destroyed Europe. They won't be so keen to line up, and will answer to people like me if they are too hasty. And Jews perhaps, Muslims, blacks - people like that? I'm still reeling from the 'mainstream' introduction I saw here last Thursday. I insist the BNP could not have come up with a better article themselves, as any showing less of their true values would hardly pass. The article had 100,000 hits (obviously - how can we be surprised about that?) and single-handedly proved right the nationally-made argument on why Griffin should not have been invited to the TV show: the irresponsible media (mainly Wikipedia, alas) will be able to casually present Griffin as a standard mainstream politician. And all in the name of supposed damage-limitation to Wikipedia's own credibility. 

Parrot please - take a step back from the 'tired owner' stance, or you yourself will cause the kind of editing problems you claim you've been striving to avoid.

One day on this encyclopeda the reader will come first. Any argument that says prospective far right voters (if I'm actually allowed to use that term 'far right'?) can cleverly ‘read between lines’ - or even bother to read to the end of articles - is simply fully naive. Besides, the introduction is king with the reader, as it summerises what is below it. The majority of BNP supporters are THE most vulnerable people in Britain – and often the least educated. Wikipedia consistently ignores both the reader and the subject in its self-providing calculations, and with this deliberately damage-limited article (to put it most politely), it has manifestly helped to ‘rubber stamp’ fascism in the UK. A lot of people (esp non-Europeans) won’t know what that means, but many of us would agree that Wikipedia can scarcely have had a lower day.