Talk:British National Party/Archive 2

message: The following sentence has now been edited three times to remove the bold words:
:"Unlike some of its European analogues, it has no presence in the national Parliament, and a small number of councillors in local government; supporters claim that this is partially because the UK's first-past-the-post system makes it harder for small parties to achieve electoral success than the proportional representation systems used in most of the rest of Europe"
Removing these words presents the statement after the semicolon as uncontested fact, which is simply unacceptable -- the implication is that under a PR system, the BNP would have as much influence as some of its European counterparts, some of which form part of European governments. No evidence (i.e., no citation) is presented to support this claim. I've restored the couching language and will continue to do so until whoever keeps putting there (User:203.206.234.21) sufficiently backs it up. Dogville 08:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportional Representation

message: Is anyone still disputing the neurality of this article. If not could the header be removed. G-Man 23:56, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that the article is neutral, assuming you continue to revert it back to your POV version. This contains a great number of highly POV statements which you keep trying to revert. You also keep reverting to a version which deleted a lot of highly relevant and informative text, and have yet to justify this. I shall continue to revert it back to the previous version until you state exactly which specific parts you believe are either inacurate or biased about it. I could certainly find plenty of such instances in 'your' version! 80.255 08:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute notice

message: I removed this notice as activity on this article seems to have decreased, suggesting that people don't feel too strongly about its contents any more. If you put it back it might be worth giving a brief justification here. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm putting it back as none of my comments were addressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dispute notice 

message: All Nazis are racists but not all racists are Nazis.  If they deny Naziism, then it's not right to include this article in Neo-Nazi Political Parties category.  The BNP are idiots, but not Nazis, and using the phrase "Nazi" to describe their fundamental core is, as per the spirit of Godwin's Law, vocabularily and journalistically lazy.  (lol, I know, if "vocabularily" is not a word, then this very sentence is ironic).  --I run like a Welshman 05:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia needs a Godwin's Law equivalent term coined... 

message: I might be digging up old arguments here, but I think that including this quote might be a bad example of the POV running through this article:
""On current demographic trends, we, the native British people will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years."
"They ignore the fact that immigration from Europe, and beyond, has always taken place and "native British people" is a fluid rather than fixed concept."
That's not a policy, that's their opinion. There's a difference. From what I remember, in terms of politics, an opinion is something that you believe in, whereas a policy is something that you intend to do with your beliefs. I think replacing this with a quote of their policy on voluntary repatriation (yes, they wouldn't make life easy for those who stayed, but...) would more appropriate. Without the POV comment. However, I can't see anything wrong with blandly quoting their policies on miscegenation - I think it's abhorrent (and genetically short-sighted), but they don't.
""The BNP pledges to restore corporal punishment for "petty criminals and vandals" and restore capital punishment for "paedophiles, terrorists and murderers".
"Their beliefs on punishment are not backed by any scientific evidence."
... which indicates again that whoever is quoting these policies from the BNP is doing so with the intent of invalidating them. This is not our responsibility as Wikipedians - our responsibility is to summarise what we know, not give our opinions on it in an article which is supposedly a part of a high-quality encyclopaedia!
I've made a few more additions also (mentioning their wish to increase defence expenditure), and my command of grammar is good, but someone might want to internationalise the blatantly British variation of English if that's what Wikipedia demands. (I can't bring myself to say it... "color" "honor" "armor" NOOOOOO)
I hope this attempt at NPOV doesn't get shredded... --Dizcorp 07:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In practice, opponents of the BNP might argue that the page mainly includes  minor politicians (some of whom have been absent from front-line politics for many years), people who were never charged and smears.
This is meant to be an encyclopaedia article; what opponents of the BNP might argue is purely speculative and strikes me as being solely the opinion of whoever wrote it. If someone wants to add a specific, notable opponent who actually does argue this, then by all means state it. 80.255 21:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the "Policies" section 

message: This is taken fron the 'Nick Griffin' discussion page but I think it is relevent here also:
"Its very debateable as to whether the BNP is 'Far-Right' or not. Freedom of Speech, Proportional representation, distributism, Bill of Rights... To me that sounds very much like a centre-left standpoint. I wouldn't say they fit anywhere on the traditional Left-Right political spectrum. I have therefore removed the 'far Right' description, as I don't think this fits."
          However, the fact he wants to move all foreigners out of the country and make gun ownership
               compulsory for anyone who has served in the army would push him more towards the right
 me thinks!
                      No, 'he' or rather the party does not want to move all foreigners out of
 the country at all, so removed again. I mean, with the Wikipedia article on the Labour party you
 havn't used the term 'Neo-Marxist' have you?
This is ridiculous, whoever made this section and the preceding edits are very ignorant of both the BNP's policies and political science in general.  Read the BNP's entire platform before making such absurd suggestions.  This is reminiscent of the sort of ignorance and naiveness the German electorate displayed during the rise of Hitler. -- WGee 01:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Far-Right?

message: According to the article, Griffin called the IRA "Marxist thugs who undermine true Irish nationalism". Can we get a source for this quote? I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true, but it helps to be sourced as far as possible with articles like this. Agentsoo 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the BNP can accurately be described as fascist is not as relevant as whether the BNP has, however inaccurately, been described as fascist, and it clearly has been by certain extreme left-wing groups. 80.255 21:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Griffin on the IRA

message: I have yet to find evidence of the BNP saying they would reduce unemployment and disability benefits.
So from the sentence below that appears in the article, where is the evidence?
"Other policies include the promotion of organic farming, increasing defence spending and ending British foreign aid, also reducing unemployment benefits and disability benefits."
:After 30 seconds Googling - we find the BNP manifesto from 2005  - "We believe that it is absurd that 38% of voters are now recipients of meanstested benefits while public services languish. While we do not believe in cutting the welfare state as an end in itself, we will reduce the number of people receiving benefits and reallocate the funds to the truly needy (especially pensioners) and to public services like the NHS, schools, and public transport." - not specifically about who the targets of the benefit reduction will be though. Jooler 20:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence? 

message: During the Stoke Mayoral Election of 2000, the BNP came third under a Transferrable Vote system. The returning officer eliminated all parties other than those who came first and second, took into account the second preferences for those who voted for those two parties and declared the result. He should have taken all second preferences into account. If he had done so, the BNP would have won. But, amusingly, the BNP polling agents were too stupid to realise this! However, their subsequent allegation is not 'without any evidence' as somebody keeps writing. There is very clear evidence and, in the interests of accuracy, I will keep removing 'without any evidence' whenever I find it reinserted.
Finnophile, 1st Jan 06.
:How do we know this? What is your source for the info? -Will Beback 17:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stoke Mayoral Election

message: I deleted the following from the section "Opposition to the BNP". It didn't seem to have any relevance to the section and also seems like someones narrative opinion. Wikipedia isn't an outlet for the newspaper columnist in us!
"The BNP calls, in common with other far-right organisations, generally accepted terms to describe people who hate, such as "fascist", "racist", "Islamphobe" and "homophobe", 'politically correct buzzwords used to silence free speech'. On the other hand, how else can the victims of hate crimes, rightfully describe such evil occurrences, other than with terms such as racist or homophobic attacks, when the colour of one's skin, or the orientation of one's sexuality, is the only motive in a particular crime?  "
HarryCharles 18:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small paragraph deleted 

message: There seems to be dispute between whether to describe the BNP as ideology: fascist, alleged fascist or fascist (disputed).  Who disputes this other than the BNP and sympathisers (cites etc)?  Certainly what the BNP claims to stand for seems classic fascist even if, officially at least, it lacks the outright racialism / racism of Nazism and similar fascist groups. Paulleake 00:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the BNP fascist?

message: I've removed the 'Annette's Knickers' link from the list of pro-BNP articles, as while it was obviously coming from the same perspective as the BNP, it didn't specifically refer to them, thus making it not a 'pro-BNP article' in the sense used here. --Apeloverage 08:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Annette's Knickers

message: I've started to try and pull this article into shape and edit out multiple redundancy (it's currently substantially over the recommended length). I don't believe I have made any substantial changes of POV or any substantial additions or deletions with this edit (apart from moving some detail on Griffin's history re anti-Semitism to his own page). Only the first sections have been properly edited; I've had to pause and file it now for reasons of time and because I was already in danger of losing track of concurrent edits like Apeloverage's (which I've incorporated). Dogville 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 00:13, 13 February 2006

message: I've re-added the paragraph, which I originally put in, about how the BNP being 'far-right' doesn't mean they're economically in favour of the free-market but that they're socially conservative.
I've put this in because I think it's highly relevant, given that a main source of contention about the BNP is whether they should be called 'far-right' or not, that the term 'far-right' is used in the article, and that the term is ambiguous.
I agree that the article is too long, but I think this particular element is worth keeping. My suggestion for reducing the length would be the list of crimes committed by BNP members - this could possibly be put into point form.--Apeloverage 11:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed this down - I figure with a clear link to the BBC's site people cna go look for themselves if they want a full list of every BNP-realted crime. I have, hwoever, kept some of the more violent incidents, or ones carried out by 'active' party members (e.g. councillors, candidates etc.) - rahter than anyone conencted to them Robdurbar 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on the Political Spectrum, Why Are They Far Right...

message: A party with over 7000 members, with this much written about it in the article and the discussion page can hardly be considered small.
They have no members of parliament. But very well, let's take out the word. 7000 members can be interpreted as the reader sees fit. Don't think that needed a POV tag; the article has been edited back-and-forth and there have been no major disputes recently. So will remove both "small" and POV. Dogville 09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Small" political party?? 

message: According to the BNP's website, the party's policies include:
    * The repatriation of all illegal immigrants and the ending of all immigration.
I added the part in bold because the party states: "We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home."  (Read point (1) under "Our Key Environment Policies")
They did a nice job of hiding this little tidbit in the environment section.  Most people, I suspect, don't need an official party statement to realize that the BNP is opposed to all immigration;  nonetheless, it's nice to know the party's official position on things.
WGee 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep; though i think you're repeating yourself with the second policy, so I've merged them into one Robdurbar 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK WGee 17:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, that was me. The previous merging of policies had confused "encouraged" repatriation of legal immigrants "and their descendants" with the compulsory repatriation of illegal immigrants. In separating the two out I forgot to remove the (already partly redundant) line that you did. Thanks. Dogville 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added something 

message: "Multi-racialism – a recipe for disaster"
"We are further encouraged to see this as essential by two other factors. The first is the truly gruesome record of multi-ethnic societies breaking down into hatred and mass murder. From Bosnia to Rwanda, Indonesia to Northern Ireland, one only has to scratch most of the conflicts in the world – ranging from low-level loathing to outright genocide – to find that at the root of the problem is the juxtaposition by past migration or strategic decision by a ruling class of two or more different peoples in the same piece of territory." -- From the BNP's 2005 manifesto 
In other words, the BNP advocates racial segregation as a central point in its policy.  Is racial segregation not racist?  Here's Wiki's definition of it: 
Racial segregation exists where governments have passed laws either allowing or requiring discrimination on the basis of race. 
Here's Wikipedia's definition of racism:
Racism refers to the meme, beliefs, practices, and institutions that seperate and discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race".  (i.e. racial segregation)
Here's the UN definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Thus, by all definitions of the word, the BNP is racist.  However, some people may rightfully object to explicitly referring to the BNP as "racist" due to the vitriolic nature of the term.  Therefore, in the "Alleged Racism" section, the first sentence should read: 
The British National Party advocates racial segregation, a type of racist discrimination.     
The fact that the BNP denies it does not make it false; Wikipedia is not a front of the BNP and its manifesto.  If an accused criminal stated that he was "not guilty", would we simply believe him and release him from custody without trial?
WGee 18:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNP = Racist? 

message: Pertinent to the "Violence and Criminal Behaviour" section of this Article, I hereby request a MUCH CLOSER Examination of this wikipedia article. I officially cite the July 7, 2005 Bombings in London perpetrated by OPPONENTS of the British National Party. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Parham (talk • contribs) 
This is not pertinent. We note the criminal activity of the July bombers on their pages. There is no need for it here. --Davril2020 11:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon complaint 

message: Might be worth mentioning...  - FrancisTyers 19:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to do this, and provide it in context too. Robdurbar 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced it is the right context though :(  The BNP leaderhip have argued that his candidacy is acceptable because he IS white, even if of partly non-UK origin. Paulleake 08:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian-Greek candidate