Talk:British National Party/Archive 4

message: I think that the Guardian article raised a number of ethical questions. The publication of workplace details of BNP members can only be seen as a form of McCarthyism, designed to incite harassment or victimisation. It's fine to scrutinize those who stand for political office but I don't see the public interest in the publication of personal details of ordinary members. I hope that they will not suffer discrimination or worse as a result. If they do then I think Ian Cobain will be directly responsible.
BNP weblogs are also saying that Ian Cobain signed a Data Protection Act form pledging confidentiality. Has the Guardian broken the law?
No one should be discriminated against on account of their political views whether they are Muslim activists, Socialists or members of the BNP.  - Art of War
217.38.66.18 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guardian's infiltration 

message: Im rather annoyed by the obvious but hidden prejudice and bias against the bnp throughout the article. Throughout it is portraying the bnp as thugs and skinheads. When in reality, this is not the case. Almost all violence in bnp rallies has been caused by anti-bnp protesters, mostly drunk, looking for a fight. The bnp has a voice and has a right to it. So this article being biased against the bnp is not only against wikipedia policies, it is against everything democracy stands for. I will be changing the article in the future to allow for an unbiased opinion on the subject (not me..im biased but will not hide it, unlike narrow minded communists who attempt to hide their poltical views whilst editing articles) (Fethroesforia 15:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *As someone who was 'guilty' of the same only yesterday, you really ought to be more humble in pointing out the oversights of others!  Can I suggest that when you start new sections in this or any discussion, you add them at the 'bottom of the page which is where people naturally look for new material.  Emeraude 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is horribly biased.. 

message: As a member of Solidarity who is also a Socialist I was intrigued to see the Union described as a 'BNP front'. It certainly enjoys both Third Way and BNP support. That is mainly because members of both organisations have been the subject of witch-hunts in the established Unions. Clearly their members still recognise the need for collective protection and organisation in the workplace (wasn't that why Unions were formed in the first place?).  It doesn't follow a BNP agenda and is not reliant for the BNP for funds. To describe it as a 'front group' is pretty simplistic in my view. Many people are disgruntled with the cronyism and corruption in many TUC affiliated Unions. I personally am interested in many of the political issues covered in Trade Unions journals (like the people who write them) but I dare say that many ordinary workers find them irrelevant and partisan. The fact that the likes of the CWU continue to finance New Labour with a reactionary, anti-working class, warmongering policy platform is a provocation. The established unions have really failed to effectively tackle cheap non-unionised labour and offshoring. They've sold us out. I feel that Solidarity will attract far wider support than the BNP ever could.
:The article simply states that there is evidence that they are a front group, but that this does not necessairily make them so. --Robdurbar 18:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you are relying on a BNP press statement for information as to who is on the Executive of Solidarity (as does Wikipedia)! Not a good idea. Pat Harrington has a quite separate position from that of the BNP and Third Way directly recruits amongst all ethnic and religious communities. Why not say that he is a 'close contact' of veteran anti-Fascist Larry O'Hara? Or indeed any number of other people of various political persuasions. Doesn't that fit the script?
- Art of War
'Why not say that he is a 'close contact' of veteran anti-Fascist Larry O'Hara?' Because this article is about the BNP and the connections between it and Solidarity - nothing to do with Larry O'Hara. That's just a ridiculous divergence in an argument you cannot win.--Ketlan 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Front' group

message: The BNP has a number of companies attached that can't really be described as affiliated. Albion Life can because it states its affiliation clearly on its site. However, Brightahomes and Skip Hire Register are companies that are run by the BNP as fundraisers but do not state their connection with the party. Perhaps there ought to be another section - Fake Companies.--Ketlan 10:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query about allied companies

message: Added link to Albion Life Insurance.--Ketlan 17:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New link in 'affiliated' section

message: In the section Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I've changed the link to the video of Young, nazi and proud on Google to the Channel Four page that gives a summary of the documentary. The video has been removed and the previous link went nowhere.--Ketlan 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video removed

message: The article says that the name BNP has been used on two previous occasions. Has anyone got a source for this?
RichardLangford 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous British National Parties

message: "Recently, the BNP has dropped explicit anti-Semitism in favour of attacks on Islam. "
Extremely non-NPOV. "In favour of attacks on Islam"? Puh-lease.
I also agree with the guy under me.
217.44.109.170 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be non-NPOV if it wasn't exactly what Griffin says in the cited speech. I think we can safely use the party leader as an authority on strategy. Dogville 08:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, having said which, your edit is fair enough. Dogville 08:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ... though I maintain unnecessary. The deleted sentence said nothing more than Griffin has.Dogville 08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Islam stuff

message: As an Australian I'm not terribly familiar with British politics but I must say the entire page seems heavily slanted against the BNP. Maybe the entire article should be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. Yes I do understand the BNP touches on controversial and sensitive topics, and some feel morally obliged to protest the stance of the BNP, but wikipedia is not the place. It's very unlikely you will change someone's views by writing a biased article.
:As an Australian, perhaps you could point to some factual inaccuracies or specific instances of POV? Comments like this are so vague as to be effectively meaningless, which I'm sure was not your intention. Dogville 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete lack of neutrality

message: I would like to point out that the position of the BNP on the traditional left-right political spectrum can be brought under scruntiny. It would be more accurate to refer the BNP as an Authoritarian Socialist party using a more versitile multi-dimensional ideological postioning system, as this quote from http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright illustrates:
"The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale."
The diagram is also useful. I realize that I'm not essentially criticising the facts of the article, but more the system used. This is however true of society in general. If a group is identified as xenophobic or racist they are instantly associated with the "far right". The authoritarian left can be just as bigotted and tyrannical. 
:I agree. Indeed, the BNP seems to believe in largely centre-left economics(in agreement with the above quote). Labelling the party far-right does seem incredibly naive, but then so does labelling it far-left, as some pundits have. To be fair, it's neither. 'Authoritarian centre' might be more accurate, but I'm just speculating.
:Furthermore, I'm amazed at this quote from the relevant section of the article - "Rather, the description of them as 'far-right' relates to their nationalist and collectivist policies". Surely, the 'left' can be just as nationalist and collectivist as the 'right'? For example, anarchism which is usually labelled as far-left, is the epitome of collectivism, whilst no-one can deny that figures such as Stalin and Gandhi were both strongly nationalist as well as left-wing, as it were. Consequently, any system which places these two individuals close togther on the political spectrum, considering their vastly different opinions on the state, needs a rethink. 
:Meiktila 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but most people recognise left/right easily and many sources call the BNP 'far-right'. However, to also mention something such as the political compass (which itself has its critics) to clarify for the reader could be useful. --Robdurbar 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think there's a certain circularity to the objections. 'Far right' is in common usage to mean the sort of politics the BNP espouses. 'Far right' does not mean and never has meant extreme economic liberalism. The political compass seems to be assuming the mantle of dogma here. It's a useful analysis but it's not [i]the[/i] analysis. Dogville 22:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Far Right Position Is Questionable

message: I would like to also point out that there is a British rock band by the name of British National party, which completely mocks the party of the same name. I don't know anything about the band other than the above info.
Don 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band by same Name

message: We have a lot of this info twice, in the history section and the electoral performance one. I'm not quite sure what to do about it. Dogville 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 election duplication

message: it says here that the BNP wants to bring Eire into the UK.Their website didn't give me much information on this ridiculous concept.If anyone knows anymore about this policy could they tell me here. Dermo69
In the 'Northern Ireland' section of the provided link: 'In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles. ' --Robdurbar 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eire

message: Needs citation. I thought it was a general comment; if it was intended as a citation go ahead. --Quentin Smith 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cited now. -- WGee 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've doubly removed. --Quentin Smith 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights for Whites 

message: Islamophobia is up for deletion.  Cast your votes
::Talk about slanted information. The CATEGORY is up for deletion, not the article. 82.176.211.33 14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim Vandals

message: The sun front page is POV, it serves no purpose in the artical and should be removed. It is very clearly one sided.
:Though I agree that the picture is POV, we can present the opinions of others, such as The Sun. The picture is useful as it indicates the coverage that the BNP receive from the mainstream press.
:However, it should only be reintroduced with an appropriate caption. --Robdurbar 17:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorly more than one paper (with one POV) should be shown. --88.108.234.169 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means find a cover story from a mainstream newspaper about the 2004 BNP documentary (or anything else) that provides a substantially different viewpoint. Dogville 17:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The black and white photo of Griffin is tagged as public domain, and therefore acceptable for use in Wikipedia. Please don't replace it with a different photo unless you also tag that photo with copyright info -- or what will happen is we end up losing both (because the new, untagged photo can be deleted at any time, and the old public domain one will be deleted as a matter of policy if it's not used in an article). Dogville 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Griffin photo

message: The BNP leader and the other women both look compleatly stupid in there photos, whether this was intentional or not i surgest that the photos are changed. --88.108.161.10 13:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is in finding free-use photos that are not under copyright, or have rights released etc.; if you have any then feel free to add them. --Robdurbar 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that the leader does have a glass eye. Hut 8.5 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Anti-BNP photos and other sources --Boris Johnson VC 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder - how is it going to be NPOV if anti-BNP opinion is excluded? Hut 8.5 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could be more specific here? Bear in mind that almost all mainstream sources - newspapers, television companies etc. - are anti-BNP. As for the photos; we are restricted by copyright laws, but if better photos can be found, please do provide them. --Robdurbar 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As for images; trust us it is. We need to find an image that has been released for free use, is owned by a Wikipedian, or one that is fair use (e.g. an image from a party conference that has been released for publicity). I can't find any at the BNP's website. --Robdurbar 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is POV: it's an accurate reflection of mainstream media coverage of the BNP. Note that the Wikipedia article doesn't say that the BNP are "Bloody Nasty People," but that the mainstream media is universally critical of the party. There's nothing POV in showing that. VoluntarySlave 22:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed that is true.  And please keep in mind WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  We must include opinions in in proportion to thier prevalence; thus, since the predominant opinion of the BNP is negative, most of the sources in the article will be negative. -- WGee 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must admit that it is probably one of the worst headlines that could have been found. That was the main thing that led me to believing it was POV. I think it would be better if something more reflective was found even if it is negative. Either that or another headline added with an opposing view alongside the Sun's, if one can ever be found. --Triedandtested 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: I have just reverted an alteration that was made in the first paragraph.  To describe the BNP as "rightist" and link that word to an article in Wikipedia which is tagged as disputed is not helpful; in fact it is downright misleading.  The BNP is, within the spectrum of British politics, on the far right, as were its openly fascist and Nazi forebears.  Emeraude 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  far right v. rightist 

message: In the first sentence to avoid the arguments i think the senctence should be changed from most prominent far right party to most prominent anti immigration party. what do other people think?--Lucy-marie 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucy, it is not tendentious to label the BNP a far-right political party when every reputable political scientist and news agency describes it as such.  Considering your age, your standard of English, and your earlier comment that the Labour Party was originally "ultra-left", you are uninitiated in the realm of political sceince; thus, you should be more humble in your edits and assertions. -- WGee 23:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: But the issue you raised is nonsense.  You've made an uninformed assertion that the term "far-right" is not neutral in reference to the BNP, despite the fact that all reputable sources describe it as such.  That is analogous to saying that it is not neutral to refer to the massacre of about one million Armenians between 1915 and 1917 as a genocide, merely because some Turkish nationalists reject the label. -- WGee 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I didn't mean to disparage you by mentioning your standard of English.  I merely used it to infer that you are not an undergraduate or graduate.  I apologize for offending you. -- WGee 02:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far right or Anti-immigration 

message: There are 106 website links and 44 refrences this cannot be good. The refrences also do not use a template, i am aware this is nt essential but would improve the refrences greatly and creat a more comprehensive list of refrences.--Lucy-marie 00:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better refrencing 

message: The part where it says that the christian council of britain is made by bnp members...says who? They deny it and the bnp have no mention of it being by them. This is ridiculous. Please someone make a change to this (I did and it got removed by someone) If it is true then fine...BUT SOME FACT TO BACK IT UP PLEASE (Fethroesforia 11:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I'm a Christian. :^)  And whoever claims to simultaneously espouse Christianity and racism is very confused and afflicted, for the two cannot be reconciled. -- WGee 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is RUMOURED, no citation or fact 

message: Including anti-bnp links in an encyclopedic article is surely against NPOV. I checked the labour party..guess what...no anti-labour links. I checked christianity, muslim, america..not a single one has anti-'insert person/place/party' link. So surely including them in a bnp article is..very one sided. Open to debate..and please someone correct me if Im wrong:) *puts open minded hat on* (Fethroesforia 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the obvious thing to point out is that there is no 'anti-Labour' organisation. As long as they're clearly labelled, I don't really see the problem? --Robdurbar 10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Very common on wikipedia pages are external links to "criticisms of...", rather than links to "opposition to..." as with this page, but it doesn't violate the NPOV principle to link to critical material. BobFromBrockley 10:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In any article, neutral point of view can only be given if pro and anti sides are represented and this applies equally to the links.  There are links to the BNP's own sites, so links to opposition sites are also needed.  It is up to readers to come to their own decisions about whether or not they are pro- or anti- having read the evidence/views.  To remove links to the antis would not allow this.   Emeraude 13:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the final part anti-bnp? 

message: weird paragraph under the links? about violence and criminal behaviour? whys it under links? Fethroesforia 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats with the =

message: The sun newspaper front page....
ive seen anti-muslim headline..never see them on wikipedia, ive seen anti blair headlines..never seen them....Im bound not to like them, im just wondering..why they are neccessary (im sure they are..im just..not thinking straight i guess) Fethroesforia 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its aim is to be indicative of the negative press coverage that the BNP receives. --Robdurbar 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that stating negative press coverage recieved by the party in the introduction as it almost tells the reader before reaching the main article the part has major detractors. I do however see a place for it later on in the article in the opposition to the BNP section.--Lucy-marie 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has been mentioned before..but... 

message: In the 2004-2005 section this sentenceis used. This move has been criticized by some as playing on people's high emotions and grief following a horrendous attack
I think the phrase "horrendous attack" needs to be directly quoted and who are some.--Lucy-marie 15:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read through this. The source after the sentence provides some evidence as to who the some is (it could be replaced with 'commentators', 'journalists', 'some, for example the Daily Mail' if we really want?), but the horendous can just go I think. --Robdurbar 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of weasle words 

message: Looking through the article theres a fair few points which can be changed/removed/citation..etc..I will run through the article in the near future and highlight the (probably) many bits that I believe are not neutral. Though I have exams coming up soon as well as finsihing off my personal statement for university, you will have to forgive me for not being paticularly quick about it:) Fethroesforia 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay... 

message: The intro concluded with the words: "Anti-fascist organizations such as Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial propotion of their efforts to denouncing the BNP. [8]"
I have corrected a typo in there, but have distinguished Searchligh as a magazine, not an organisation.  I have also removed the reference and footnote which refers to the website.  Searchlight is a magazine and its coverage is not (as previously suggested) mostly about denouncing the BNP, or even 'substantially' - articles cover the whole of Europe and the world.  Check the Searchlight website for indexes to issues.  This article is talking about Searchlight the mag, not its website.  Also, I think 'devote' reads better than 'dedicate'. Emeraude 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully minor corrections 

message: Im sure if i do it..it will be reverted immediatly
"The BNP is widely regarded as being racist, an accustation that the BNP strongly denies."
regarded by whom? any sources of widely (in my mind..meaning the majority..so im looking for a nationwide survey asking this very question if such a one exists) and..accustation..? who are they denying it from? searchlight? communists? mickey mouse? We need to expand on these things if this is to be NPOV..alas..im not going to edit it but im hoping we can have a CIVIL conversation about this..hopefully with something to back up wildly extreme claims and then someone can edit this part, which I find..wildly POV Fethroesforia 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have a look at the intro discussion and join in there. --Robdurbar 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please do something about this quote 

message: source 54..blank link..... Fethroesforia 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's nothing wrong with identical sources. --Robdurbar 14:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I didnt say there was..i merely misunderstood that the references had changed..i thiught it still had the number system with the listed at bottom where a letter was used if two sources were identical..I see now...geez... Fethroesforia 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken sources 

message: There is no rationale for reinstating Lucy-Marie's anti-consensual introduction.  I say again: her revision has no legitimacy because it has never been approved by a consensus of editors.  Therefore, until this dispute is resolved, we should revert to the only introduction to have ever been supported by a consensus of editors.  This is the first step in resolving the dispute. -- WGee 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support.  The introduction supported by consensus should be retained while discussion is ongoing. One Night In Hackney 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Im confused as to which version is being reverted to, but whatever, i support it AS LONG AS this whole mess can be sorted out kindly and appopriatly Fethroesforia 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh..WGee, could you copy and paste an introduction that we agree on (last conensual intro or whatever) rather than reveting all the way back? so we wont lose valued edits (spelling, hyperlinking..etc) thanks :) Fethroesforia 13:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'll only revert the introduction: everything else will remain.  I'm glad that we can overcome this initial barrier to a resolution. -- WGee 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok..fine by me..id just like a discussion about some of the things which could be changed..rather than lots of reverting (ive seen..both pro and anti bnp reverts without much discussion [i dont think anyone is absolve from any blame]) Id like a further discussion on the word use in the article, but Ill let myself calm down first (not over this..over a seperate matter right now). But for now..i support any reversions (as long as its been mentioned on talk page first..as has been done here) :) Hope theres no hard feelings Fethroesforia 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions 

message: I did live appropriate time..and surely adding sources to a controversial statement is common sense. Though if you can add sources to it being called racist..then i will be very grateful..having a slur without sources is just plain silly if not un-encyclopedic. Im not getting involved in the other quote. Im not bothered either way that one goes. As longas the 'bnp denies it is racist' is re-worded as it sounds like half a sentence..it needs 'such and such accuse the bnp of being racist' and then some sources to back that up..I think what you were referring to earlier was to my edits..if not..i apoligise Fethroesforia 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGee