Talk:BNP Youth

message: Should mention be made of the Othala rune making up part of their logo? I can't find any references for it... yet there it is! Drett 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very poorly researched and sensationalistic write up to say the least. Please see the Wikipedia article instead. :bloodofox: 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Othala 

message: This is hardly notable on its own and only occupies a few lines and the BNP page is hardly bursting at the seams. Lets merge this page and not have it as a seperate page and then the quality of this section would increase.--Lucy-marie 14:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I do not see why it is necessary to put this in - there are very few similarities between the HJ and the young BNP. Infact, it could be considered slander to connect the two in such a way. The BNP are not Nazi, there is a difference between National Socialist, and Nationalist. I have taken the liberty of removing the libelious "see also: Hitler Youth" It may also be recommedable to remove the phrase "to brainwash the children of Neo-Nazi parents" as that's certainly not neutral, or even correct.
Geoff, 21st May, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.56.34 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your reasoning, please do not bring legal issues into it. This could be seen as making legal threats, which is a fairly serious thing to do. While I have no doubt that you were not making any threat of legal action, I must point out that your statement could be seen as advocating suing under English law.--NeoNerd 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Identifying a possible violation is not the same as threatening to press charges. Anyway, is it really a violation? forestPIG 19:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also: Hitler Youth

message: I'm not sure what this group is. Am I right in thinking it's just a load of organized racists? 82.1.68.117 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much. See British National Party Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Racists?

message: I'm assuming the majority of the (unsourced) 'Criticism' section, particularly the emboldened last sentence, counts as little more than vandalism in Wikipedia's rules? I'm not too sharp on them with regard to editing, but this example seems to drop below wikipedia's usual standards...
86.26.232.248 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Two users ( and ) have been repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from the article. Given that the tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" (my bold), this is curious behavior. In fact, in all of my Wikipedia years and in all of the numerous Wikipedia articles I've written, I haven't seen anyone attempt to do this. This doesn't exactly help your position on the matter, nor will such behavior lead to anything but arbitration (and the reinstatement of the tag until the issue is resolved). I suggest leaving it alone until it the issue is resolved. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problems with neutrality.  There is nothing in the article that is inconsistent with mainstream views of the group.  They are not Boy Scouts.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, there's currently a dispute about the use of the term "fascist" in the article on this very talk page, which is why the tag is there. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A dispute requires you to present evidence, not simply carry on saying that you don't like it.  In the absence of evidence (which means a third party citation) or any attempt to provide it the tag should not stand.  --Snowded TALK  07:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong: there are at least two editors here (including myself) arguing that the BNP themselves have responded to and deny the label (which goes conveniently unnoted) and that the term "fascist" is very vague. I suggest that you get over your political prejudices long enough to acknowledge the discussion on the matter. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is well referenced. If you still have a problem, please raise it at WP:NPOVN for wider community input and to address ways of improving the article, rather than replacing an unjustified tag seemingly due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Verbal chat 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there's discussion, the tag is supposed to remain. Anyway, with the repeated removal of the the NPOV discussion tag on the article and attempts at smearing editors who argue against those that oppose the usage of the "fascist" tag for the group as supporters of the group ("leads me to suspect that you are attempting to push your own political agenda, which I also suspect is not a million miles away from that of the BNP." ), count me out. While someone should bring this subject to WP:NPOVN, I have neither enough interest nor enough time to spare on this banality. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated removal of NPOV tag

message: Now the article is locked, conveniently just after Verbal Sceptre has come along and deleted fascism on the grounds that there were TOO MANY references and because he has read George Orwell, and not very well I would suggest. Emeraude (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note I didn't remove that, I added a wikilink. Verbal chat 17:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was referring to the first sentence and misread the diffs. It was removed by Sceptre. Apologies. Emeraude (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my explanation above: oversourcing is often a major indicator that a POV is being pushed (especially when said sources lead to papers in partisan publications), because the editor who oversources is—perhaps unconsciously—trying to hard to prove something. WP:CITEKILL has a message similar to this, although it stops short of saying that it may be indicative of (un)conscious POV. Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't prove that in this case there is a problem, and in fact it is clear that there is no problem. The oversourcing here is due to unreasonable objections being peddled on the talk page. The content is well justified and should be restored. Verbal chat 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; not from a "the word is bad" perspective as much as a "the word is unnecessary" perspective, from a couple of questions about the sources, given that they are slightly misleading in that the five sources only cite three people, and that they appear in publications that would be naturally anti-fascist (which is the worst kind of publication we can use [imagine if we used conservative journals to criticise the Democrats!], although I can't say anything about the sources themselves), and as a matter of consistency with the British National Party article. I think that the best way to improve on the sources is not the addition of more anti-fascist sources/publications, but replacement with more neutral sources. Sceptre (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Given that the references at on the BNP article, then surely the discussion should be taking place there.  This is a subsidiary article and inherits from the main one.  The use of the communist party claim above is very dubious (i) as an authority it does not stack up against the academics and (ii) it is if anything another source to support the use of the term (saying The BNP is a fascist organisation; it is not simply that there are fascists in it, but the fascists in it form the leadership and party apparat, with the non-fascists kept sweet at arm’s length).  Its perfectly reasonable (if sourced) to say that the BNP deny that they are fascist.  However the sentence proposed above is simply not compliant with Wikipedia policy.  Authoritative third party sources say it is fascist, so far the only sources which say it is not are the BNP ones and they don't count.  --Snowded TALK  00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "far-right" would still inherit from the BNP article, require less sources, and still be accurate. Sceptre (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Using fascist only really requires one source - the others are there in part to deal with people attempting to remove it.  We also have the BBC reference here which reports concerned about recruiting fascists.  The term needs to be there somewhere, if the article continues (see my comments above) --Snowded TALK  05:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that if you've no source, you're damned; if you've one source, you're damned; if you've five sources, you're damned! And then, if people don't like what the sources say, they damn the sources. The fact is, the sources are all entirely reliable (and are only a sample); a check in a citation index will reveal that they are highly regarded by other specialists in the field. There are not many writers in this field - modern fascism is not a major topic for political scientists - so it is not surprising that two of the major writers should at some point have collaborated. The criticism that the sources "appear in publications that would be naturally anti-fascist" is, quite frankly, bizarre: would it be acceptable if they were pro-fascist? If Sceptre wants other sources I can provide them, but if (s)he is going to suggest that peer-reviewed academic journals like Patterns of Prejudice, Politics Today, Political Quarterly, Race & Class or academic researchers from the School of Public Policy, University College London, are "naturally anti-fascist" and therefore unquotable, what's the point? Emeraude (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Sceptre's argument is unconvincing. Greater weight of RS means less reliable?? Er, that's not how it works. The "anti-fascist" sources comment also seems to be nonsensical. Please feel free to bring "pro-fascist" RS here for discussion, but that would only seem to confirm the label. What we have here is a minority of editors attempting to introduce bias and ignoring RS, therefore we've had to introduce a strong selection of RS to try to stop the removal of valid, supported, information. I would have no problem with only one RS being used, with the others left in as html comments for future reference. Verbal chat 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as this article is a spin off from the BNP where the issue is thoroughly dealt with, I'd be happy with just one, i.e. the status quo before the disruption started. If readers of this article want further info, that's where they will go to find it. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I'm saying there's a balance in the number of sources you need to properly cite something. I'd be better with one or two sources than five; hell, the BBC source might be fine on it's own. But giving five or six citations for something that would really only need one gives the impression you're really trying to hard to prove a point, and that you're cherry-picking sources that agree with you. And Snowded's assertion that "the term needs to be there somewhere" kind of gives credence to the argument that the term doesn't need to be there; it's indicative of some sort of bias on the editor. So basically, I'd prefer "far-right" and then "fascist" with no more than one or two sources if it is really necessary, but definitely not "fascist" with more sources than that. Sceptre (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please remember WP:AGF.  The origins of the BNP are in the British fascist movement and modern reliable sources say it is fascist.  The term therefore needs to be there.  I can't see how saying it should be there gives credence to an argument that it doesn't need to be.  That must be some strange new form of logic I am unaware of.  --Snowded TALK  14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because, really, nothing needs to be on Wikipedia; some people (even though they are a very small minority) even believe we shouldn't have biographical coverage of people who would normally be in an encyclopedia (say, Margaret Thatcher). While I am aware that the BNP is rooted in the fascist movement, it doesn't mean that we should use the word "fascist" if another word would be just as suitable and factual. However, you are now doing a reasonable job in explaining why "fascist" would be the most suitable word. This is basically what I'm trying to do here: trying to find the reasons below the argument of "well, reliable sources say so", because sometimes that's a smokescreen for an editor's bias. If you explain why and what the reliable sources say so, that works better than just saying they do. Sceptre (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text:  Sceptre, someone saying something should be there now means it probably shouldn't? That makes even less sense. Your argument is, as stated, illogical. The article should also state, indeed must state, that the young BNP is connected to the BNP. Should we therefore not state that, as it shows a bias towards the actual reality we are trying to document?? The removed text, or some variation, should be in the article as it s verifiable, from reliable sources, and relevant to the topic. Going on the bias of writing an encyclopaedia, it must be included in some form. Verbal chat 14:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't say it should be there; he was arguing that it must be there. See my reply above. Sceptre (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Young BNP's connection to the BNP must also be there, as I said. So, by your argument above, it should not be there. Your arguments are logically inconsistent. Verbal chat 14:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're misrepresenting my argument. We have no obligation to cover either the BNP or its youth wing. But, as we cover both, it's a good idea to show the two are linked. Sceptre (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please state how I've misrepresented your argument ("gives credence to the argument that the term  doesn't need to be there; it's indicative of  some sort of bias on the editor"), and please clarify your argument. I'd also suggest you strike your accusations and apologise to Snowed, in a spirit of WP:AGF. Verbal chat 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the manner of how he argued, in the first place, that the term needed to be there. His second argument, however, explaining why the term should be there, was much better. Sceptre (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you have no argument? Then I propose the material be restored with one or two sources. Verbal chat 15:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing for the complete removal; I'm arguing for careful usage. I agree that it would be acceptable to use "fascist" with one or two sources. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, that's well-balanced. Or do I mean unbalanced? Emeraude (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the proposal would you like to censure? The fact that the BBC states the comment was made specifically by political opponent Rhodri Morgan, or that the person who made it is a member of the Labour Party, which states constitutionally that is it a "democratic socialist" party? Context is good, context can only be neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your presentation disproves your thesis, or that you are not providing only context. Verbal chat 16:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Verbal, your comment is pretty much esoteric and translates as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rendering the position invalid. The BBC specifically and verifiably states that Morgan of the Labour Party made the comment. The Labour Party is an organisation which is politically opposed to the BNP. Negate, wriggle and writhe all you like, but that is the source used in the article and that is who the BBC says made "fascist" claim regarding Young BNP. Specific attribution is an essential requirement for Wikipedia when it comes to controversial claims for a reason, so that we do not fall into libel and avoid the potential of lawsuits. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: He does have a point, though. We should name Morgan in the article, but not as a "socialist"; most people will agree that, despite the Labour Party constitution, they aren't socialists anymore. Also, I'm concerned about whether this is genuine criticism or mudslinging by Morgan: Labour opposes the BNP, naturally, and someone high-up in the party would nearly always follow the party line, and we don't say that "Some critics have alleged that the Democratic Party are subversively introducing socialism to America", even though that's a party-line position among the Republicans. Sceptre (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC reports the concerns of the First Minister (he was speaking in that capacity), its not the citation to support the fascist label, there are plenty of others which do that.  It can support a sentence on concern over the recruitment.--Snowded TALK  16:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; I was referring to the citation supporting that sentence. I'm wondering if this is Morgan-the-person or Morgan-the-Labour-member who's saying this though; as I said, we don't say "some critics have alleged, etc" about the Democrats. Sceptre (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Morgan the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly --Snowded TALK  16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's Morgan-the-Labour-member, then I'd support removing it, as I don't think it's actual criticism; I think it's normal inter-party mudslinging. Sceptre (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Morgan the First Minister of the Welsh  Assembly views are notable and should not be removed. Verbal chat 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: John Boehner the House Minority Leader's views are notable and should be included in the Barack Obama article. Sceptre (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  Raise it on that article if you think so.  Morgan is FIrst Minister, not leader of the opposition, so his views are notable and he is clearly speaking as First Minister in that reference.  Calling it inter-party mud slinging is nonsense, given that all the main parties consider the BNP to be a pretty nasty bunch.  --Snowded TALK  17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The United Kingdom is a party-political, parliamentary democracy. Morgan holds office as a member of the Labour Party. The Labour Party could sack him and replace him with somebody else. People vote parties into office, not people. While I can see why anti-BNPs would be embarassed to mention the Labour Party as the critic, since most people consider Labour a pretty nasty and corrupt bunch, negating the party political position which Morgan's career and position is based on isn't neutral or balanced. The ideological context here is very important, especially as he is referencing political ideology. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I daresay Boehner has much of an important role in US politics as Morgan's is in UK politics. This is the point: a party politician, speaking in the capacity of their position in the party, shouldn't normally be cited with statements regarding another party. Of course, there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them; we've got enough neutral academic criticism of the BNP to not even have to resort to relying on mudslinging. And, for the record, I agree with a merger proposal. This article is too short, I feel, and I think that the vast majority of problems would be dealt with a merger. Sceptre (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Fully agree with merger proposal but it did not get 100% agreement when proposed above.  Yorkshirian you know enough about British politics and the way the system works to know that the officers of state speak in that capacity and WIkipedia reflects that.  This was debated on EDL and elsewhere and clearly established.--Snowded TALK  17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That request above was hardly an adequate conclusion. If someone would unprotect the article and add it with BNP to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers a more acceptable outcome should result and who knows, someone might actually see this article and add something to it... ~ R.T.G 17:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why should someone add something to it if it's going to be merged and swamped elsewhere? Especially if Yorkshirian gets his hands on it and carries out his protracted and controversial trimming of the BNP article. Look for a wider issue here guys. Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds well and good but in practice it is unlikely to find a link to this page from BNP let alone anything to describe this youth BNP. Whoever are the contributors here, they really should make something clear on the BNP article. The matter of it being swamped is of no concern. The matter of it being developed is. I don't know even know how old the page is I am just suggesting. ~ R.T.G 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked