Talk:British National Party/Archive 5

message: the user talk has quietened down, no doubt because the page itself has little problems with it anymore. reading it..it seems to me to be almost all NPOV..(aside from calling it far right..which it is admittedly..but it isnt economic right..but thats a minor niggle that has been sorted out in an earlier discussion) thought id say..well done to you all who improved the page:) Fethroesforia 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will just respond to that..highly uneducated comment with an equally uneducated answer:
LOL
Fethroesforia 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking your talk page, seems it was me who has removed VANDALISM from this very article from YOU in the past..tut tut Fethroesforia 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems 

message: Can someone please explain to me with out the use of the political spectrum why these are notworthy enough to beplaced  in the introduction as denouncing the BNP, becuase if they are there it is justifiable to add Spearhead magasine as the otherside of the coin.--Lucy-marie 12:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spearhead isn't independent of the BNP. One Night In Hackney 12:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am well aware of that but the statement is like saying the far left opposes the far right which in my personal opinion is unecessary. If it is to be included it should be included later on in the article in the opposition to the BNP section and not the intorduction. Also it could be argued that UAF and Searchlight have a vested intrest in denouncing the BNP. Which makes having them in the introduction less noteworthy and less important. If something like all major newspapers dedicate the bulk of the articles to denouncing the BNP the maybe that would have some justification, but I personally cannot see the pount of the statement where it is.--Lucy-marie 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You find nothing notable about the fact that the BNP is the primary target of anti-fascist organizations? -- WGee 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I don't. I view it the same way as saying that the pressure group migrationwatch is mainly focused on reducing immigrants or that the ACLU is opposed to restrictions of civil liberties or the NRA is opposed to restrictions on gun onwership. I think the statement is stating the blindigly obvious and is in my opinion not completly neutral, as i have said i think it belongs in the opposition to the BNP section and not the introduvtion if it belongs at all.--Lucy-marie 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are ther objections to the removal of the statement and moving it to the oppositoin section?--Lucy-marie 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I object.  At present the article has a brief introduction to the opposition to the BNP which is wholly appropriate, which is further expanded upon in detail in the relevant section. One Night In Hackney 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The brief opposition to the BNP is covered by the politicans and i think that having the UAF section is unecessary and is linked to the below discussion and is slight over kill. If we allow this then we surly need a support of the BNP as well.--Lucy-marie 16:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we need a support of the BNP section?  The opposition to the BNP far, far outweighs the support they have. One Night In Hackney 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  not a whole section just the otherside of the coin in relation to the UAF sentence.--Lucy-marie 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok are we going to finish talking aboput what to do with this sentence. I propose that the sentence should be moved from its currnt position to a more apropriate position in the opposition to the BNP section or removed entirley.--Lucy-marie 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The references to Searchlight and the AFL indicate the BNP's connections to fascism, and they represent a common criticism that the BNP has not abandoned its fascist roots and is merely window-dressing. -- WGee 07:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so you support the retention of the most pov statement in the planet then? this is because you cannot say without concrete proof the comments above. It is also overkilling the introduction with faschsim and racism when the bnp is more than just anti immigration.--Lucy-marie 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UAF/Searchlight

message: This article is not at all bad and is the kind article that is very hard to reach agreement on.  So I dont want to knock it wholesale as I think a lot of good and tricky work has been done but... it is too long, there is too much repetition and there is a lot of unnecessary stuff.  (For example, the policies list which I have reduced in size was - or is, depending on reverts - far too long.  It overfocusses on one or two issues and tries to hide away others.  (Why 'bang on' about immigration in this section?  If anyone has read the article this far, they should have gathered that the BNP are kind of opposed to immigration.  Better that issues such as compulsory national service are made more apparent).  Ditto the intro., the version I have reduced needlessly repeats itself and is/was kind of illegible.  The shorter version reads better and makes the relevant point without repetition).  Well, anyway, as an outsider to the article I'd like to think that some of the other stuff can be carefully removed - the history section is too long, the many sections at the end of the article are too long - without previous editors being too offended?  Marcus22 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im for any edits as long as they improve the flow of the article, keep it as NPOV as it has become and dont remove any useful information Fethroesforia 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thought id fly this by..you seem to be making edits..which is what wikipedia is about after all. but almost all of this page has been agreed on consensus and even i agree the page is almost as good as it can get (me being highly critical originally). Your edits seem to be leading to an edit war, which may earn someone a warning on the talk page. I dont really care who is at fault, revert wars/edit wars are bad. I eagerly await discussion about how the article can be cleaned up Fethroesforia 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But it does say at the top of this page 'This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.' so whether i like it or not..I keep to what the box says.. Fethroesforia 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not for or against to consensus..and im not arguing either way..I know i knowingly edit things against consensus occasionally. Was just saying what i think other would say. I know the bnp is moe than about rulesof immigration..im a supporter of them. the other policies are overlooked and people say they only have one policy..which isnt true. As long as any edits are not removing potentially important information..then im okay with it. Im just thinking about what other editors would say :)
Fethroesforia 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly I'd like to apologise to Marcus22 for my delay in replying, I've had little time for more than simple Wikignome tasks in the last coupe of days, and I wanted to give this the appropriate amount of time.  The change to the lead doesn't seem too bad.  Reading it through it does flow better, and the objective of the BNP is still quite clear.  Regarding "the BNP has publicly become more moderate" - I'm not sure about the addition of publicly.  While it may well be true, the key is verifiability not truth.  For use to state "publicly" would mean we have to cite reliable sources that as a party (as opposed to any comments from individual members) their "private" standpoint is still the same.  After checking the BNP's site I think a thorough overhaul of the policy section is needed more than anything, and would welcome ongoing discussion rgearding this.  I haven't had chance to look through all the talk archives to see any relevant discussion regarding this, so someone feel free to point me in the right direction if possible please.  From what I can see the policy section seems largely comprised of select quotes pulled from the BNP's manifesto and policy page.  It looks like there's a reasonable balance of what could be seen as positive and negative (depending on your viewpoint) there, but there's plenty of other policies that might deserve a mention.  I'm not advocating a near copy of their entire manifesto, but I do think the section needs improving somewhat.  I'd ideally like to try and keep the policies in the same place if possible, so I'd prefer to keep the immigration policies in there.  If this means cutting down from other parts of the article that's not a problem, it's important to try and keep it balanced.  Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that information doesn't need to be reinserted.  We should not give undue weight to the opinion of a washed-up politician who likes to associate the far-right with the far-left for his own political purposes.  Lord Tebbit is not an authority on political science and has his own political agenda.  According to mainstream academic sourcebooks, policies of distributive justice are integral components of populism, both right-wing and left-wing.  Thus, the populist Far Right typically promotes "left-wing" economic policies; there is nothing notable or contradictory about it. -- WGee 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afarid it does need reinserting you may dislike the statement WGee but that statement give the other side of the coin. you may dislike the otherside of the coin but it does not mean you can reject it.--Lucy-marie 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing out some overkill

message: Can it be said that since the BNP has endorsed the new 'identity tradition sovereignity' group in the European Parliament on its website, that their 'European Affiliation' in the infobox is now the ITS, rather than Euronat?
Many parties who were in Euronat are now in the ITS, and this is the group the BNP would join should they get MEP's elected.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.3.65 (talk • contribs) 
In a way, it's academic, because, as stated, they are not represented in the European Parliament and therefore not part of ITS which is, as noted in the Wikipedia article ITS "a political group in the European Parliament".  It's interesting that the French Front National article gives ITS as their European Affiliation but has no subtitle for European Parliament Group at all.  Some confusion here, but it's probably too soon to be definitive about Euronat/ITS (the former a grouping independent of the Parliament, the latter a group of members within it.) Emeraude 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITS 

message: I think it is a form of overkill as it is giving undue weight to just one policy and that is there immigration stance. The BNP is more than just anti immigration. As is was said it in the UAF discussion. So if it can be justfied as not being overkill on immigration policy it can stay but I think it needs to go as it is overkill.--Lucy-marie 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought id say..the anti-immigration is indeed, what the bnp is most known for..and as much as it pains me to say so..it seems that it deserves a long chunk of the page dedicated to that (like..on a communist page, you would have a large section on state control..or on a nazi page you would have a large section on the holocaust). Though the bnp does have many other policies..some of which are pro-immigration, Griffin himself has admitted a bit of immigration is good. Though I believe he wants some sort of immigration co-operation with certain areas i believe. Anyway, if anything, the article deserves a larger section on anti-immigration as this is what the bnp is most well known for and has got it the majority of its supporters. Fethroesforia 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revrsing the tide statement. 

message: Marcus22 is correct in reducing this list for the reason he gave with his edit, though it might be argued that those who have separate Wikipedia articles should be put back.  However, in the case of two, John Bean and Martin Wingfield, I think there is a very strong argument for them appearing given their long history in far-right politics and that they are editors of BNP publications and not mere administrators.  I've taken the liberty of adding them back in - it's still a short enough list.  Emeraude 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh..seems i made [another] hasty message on this talk page. apoligies. exams and my university application plus my ocd and anorexia and all the rest have confused me as of late, not that they are an excuse. i actually think i forgot what i was supposed to be arguing about (in my last message). anyway..I still cant remember what my original point was. *hangs head in shame* (lol) Fethroesforia 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the BNP - reduced list 

message: I think that the opposition to the BNP section should be made into a seperate artical, as it is VAST and makes the whole artical unwealdy!  This post was by User:Boris Johnson VC who forgot to sign.
:Not sure i agree..but im willing to go along with it for the pure fact you have the best ever politician in living history as your username..lol Fethroesforia 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Criticism for a discussion of handling critical perspectives. Some topics have separate "criticism" articles but it isn't encouraged. -Will Beback · † · 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the conclusion I was coming to; it's positively discouraged in Wikipedia.  I think after reflection it would serve no useful purpose, so leave things as they are.  Emeraude 09:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to the BNP

message: I have finally worked out where i think the most work on the article need to be done. That is expanding the policies section. It is currently a small section, but is basically what the BNP are and not what they are portrayed as being. An ideal size would be the same as the opposition section to give them equal weight in the article.--Lucy-marie 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policies section 

message: Quickly highlight whats gone on recently on the page? Ive been awol recently (conditional offers from my university choices so ive been working harder than usual)I see a rather long...discussion/debate has occured oversomething I cant quite pick out at first glance.
Many thanks:), ps-welcome back emeraude
Fethroesforia 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Could someone...

message: that the bnp are known as far right because of their stance on criminals (hypocritical as manybnp members are criminals) and immigration. They are not fully right, as they oppose laissez faire apparently and are slightly less right than the conservatives economically. However, overall the bnp are far right, maybe not fully extreme right but it balances out. They are known as far right, and however much someone might believe otherwise, its literally, a million vs one arguement. Fethroesforia 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is that. Im not disputing they are far right, im merely saying i understand how the view may be disputed, though its widely accepted so its pretty much sound. Fethroesforia 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. There are a few (as in..a small few) who argue otherwise. I think some old tory argued it (hardly a non bias source though).
And yes they are thank you:) I handed in my application only a few weeks ago and have 3 conditional offers (all my applications are for History) Fethroesforia 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think what the far right objection is

message: During the string of edits made by IP 71.228.3.157, another editor (Reywas92) also made a substantial change.  71.228.3.157's edits were removed in several reverts, but Reywas92's were left. I have now removed them and invited Reywas92 to discuss his edits (see User talk:Reywas92) here.  It may be that some of the changes he made were useful, but given the heat surrounding this topic I thought it better to get some consensus first.  Emeraude 12:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Edits by Reywas92
 

message: Too many of the references and quotes and contributions to this page appear to be from marxist or neo-marxist sources. I also wouldn't describe the BNP as "fascist" as they have a greater commitment to democracy than the people who protested Simone Clarke Unsigned posting by  User:Davo698 13:39, 17 February 2007
Absolute bollocks. There are 67 references in the article which break down as follows:
::::
Source                	Number	Source                  	Number
Peer-reviewed journals	8     	BNP publications        	13
Daily Mail            	2     	Daily Telegraph         	2
The Times             	3     	The Guardian            	5
Sunday Times          	2     	Observer                	2
Yorkshire Post        	1     	Local papers            	2
BBC News and Radio 5  	7     	The Economist           	1
Various book citations	8     	Election results website	1
Unclear               	4     	Anti-BNP in some way    	5
Lib Dem website       	1     	.                       	.
So, the biggest single group is the BNP itself. Marxist? I think not. Or perhaps [User:Davo698]] thinks the BBC is Marxist, or The Economist! If [User:Davo698]] thinks the BNP has a greater commitment to democracy than the people who used their democratic right to protest against public money going to support a body which employs a member of a racist party, then he is entitled to that opinion, however wrong it may be. The BNP has NO commitment to democracy beyond using the democratic process to achieve their fascist ends. Emeraude 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist perspectives 

message: Hopefully this shouldn't be too controversial.  I think the quotes from Red Ken and Cameron should be removed fron the paragraph.  Actually I'd like to get rid of the Red Ken reference entirely, but keep Cameron and add quotes from Menzies Campbell (Those who seek to justify racism for political ends have no place in the modern Britain of today) and Tony Blair (..was important both in confronting the right-wing racism of the BNP...).  The paragraph would then become:
The BNP is marginalised by mainstream political parties, and has been criticised by David Cameron, Tony Blair and Menzies Campbell.(insert footnotes) Anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party.
Thoughts? One Night In Hackney 14:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with the proposed edit, as Emeraude comments, quotes from the leaders of each of the main parties seems to me more appropriate than from Ken. Adambro 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction - Part 687

message: Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc. "Sir" may be used in article titles as a disambiguator. Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare. Knights bachelor have no suffix. 
From:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) --Couter-revolutionary 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above shows Sir should be used. I give up, however, when administrators start showing PoV there's no hope.--Couter-revolutionary 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no pob here, I have no preference either way, however per the manual of style, I dont see why sir is appropriate.  You just threw a chunk of text at me.  please make an argument for why it should be included and I wont have a problem adding it back. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, the first editor who removed it described it, I believe, as an "honourary title", which it is not.  The prefix Sir should not be used re. Bob Geldof, who has an honourary knighthood, but there is nothing that says it shouldn't be used in other cases. --Couter-revolutionary 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I am guessing the first editor made a mistake (we all do from time to time).  I guess an important question is how is he referred to in other articles?  Do other articles refer to him as sir?  I think it might be important to have conformity across links.  I do see that the MOS pointed to above is talking about naming of articles.  I am tending to lean towards not including it, for the same reason the main article shouldent named "Sir person X".  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should conform.--Couter-revolutionary 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This is not the title of the article. It is without question on the first occasion the article refers to him. - Kittybrewster 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) seems quite clear on this. Sir should remain in the article. Munta 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as Wikipedia is concerned his name is Menzies Campbell, that is made clear by the naming conventions. Categories call him Menzies Campbell because of this. The argument that other articles call him Sir brings nothing to the table, that does not mean the use of Sir is correct in those articles. What does the addition of Sir actually do to this article? Does it improve it in any way whatsoever?  No. One Night In Hackney303 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knights are entitled to be called and referred to as Sir ... - regardless of wiki conventions regarding titles of articles (which are irrelevant). ONiH is not being neutral in depriving the man of something he has earned.  - Kittybrewster 09:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What I meant re. Rt. Hon. is that it is an honourific.--Counter-revolutionary 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knights are entitled to be called and referred to as Sir...in the UK. Wikipedia is not the UK, and Wikipedia naming conventions make it expressly clear that Menzies Campbell is referred to by his personal name, and inclusion of the Sir goes in his article. I am being perfectly neutral, he is fully entitled to be called Sir in his article. One Night In Hackney303 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that the Duke of Westminstr should be referred to as Gerald Grosvenor? - Kittybrewster 19:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dukes and Knights are two totally different things, please try and discuss the matter at hand rather than go off on abstract and irrelevant tangents. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir

message: I don't think that we should label the BNP as "far right" considering that ALL they're economic policies are far left.  I think we should term them "strong authoritarian" or something because in today's politics we rarely define a party as strictly left or right.  We add the labels of authoritarian and liberal.  I know most people will identify them as "far right" but maybe we should think about following it up with the information that their economic leanings are far left. Unsigned posting by User:SKC 20:03, 8 March 2007
: But the economic policies of the BNP are precisely the economic policies associated with the far right. It's true that the terms left and right cover a (sometimes confusing and confused) variety of topics, and that other elements of the right are often associated with economic policies very different than the BNP. Nonetheless, "far right" is an accurate description of the totality of the BNPs program, including their economic policies. VoluntarySlave 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "ALL their economic policies are far left"? You must be joking. Nationalisation of the economy? No. Nationalisation of the banks? No. Redistribution of wealth? No. Punitive taxation of the rich? No. Their economic policies, such as they are, in the tradition of the neo-fascist right in Britain since 1945; most of them are aimed at not alienating the popular vote (e.g. no party in Britain will propose abolition of the National Health Service, whatever it's position left-right) or subtle anti-Jewish measures (references to international financiers..). Emeraude 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hate to break it to you mate,but this arguement has been dont before, and the resounding opinion was that the bnp is far right. As said by a variety of people (including me). They are sort of opposed to total laissez faire but then almost every political party is as laissez faire is economic suicide. However they do believe in protectionist policies which is reminiscent of the rightist usa in 1920's. therefore = far right. Fethroesforia 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-think political stand