Talk:British National Party

• Talk:British National Party/Archive 1
• Talk:British National Party/Archive 2
• Talk:British National Party/Archive 3
• Talk:British National Party/Archive 4

It seems

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)

Well done for supporting the BNP, but surely far-right would be parties such as the Nazis and the like. From James a true Brit a Welshman.

These aren't that far removed from the Nazis Ajuk 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will just respond to that..highly uneducated comment with an equally uneducated answer:

LOL Fethroesforia 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Direct descendants on the British side of the family. Emeraude 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

UAF/Searchlight

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)

Spearhead isn't independent of the BNP. One Night In Hackney 12:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Are ther objections to the removal of the statement and moving it to the oppositoin section?--Lucy-marie 15:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

not a whole section just the otherside of the coin in relation to the UAF sentence.--Lucy-marie 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• I think Lucy-marie has a valid point. The intro appears to suggest that the BNP are substanitally opposed by Searchlight and the AFL. Whereas they are, in fact, substantially opposed by most of the electorate, the media, Searchlight and the likes of the AFL as well as the entire political establishment. So somehow that bit of the intro needs rewriting to show just how opposed the BNP are by the vast majority of the British populace rather than implying they are opposed by just left wing groups and organisations. It doesnt do this at the moment. Marcus22 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Hmm.. well the BNP certainly are more than just anti-immigration; they have policies to "encourage" women to stay at home rather than take up jobs; they plan to reintroduce compulsory national service for all men and - incredibly - allow all men who complete national service to keep an armalite and live ammunition in their home. As if that was not enough, they also plan to "re-unite" with the Republic of Ireland. I'm not sure the Irish would want the same thing.... So Lucy-marie does have a point: one needs to be wary of portraying the BNP as "just" anti-immigrant when they are actually far more dangerous than that! Marcus22 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hear! Hear! Emeraude 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• So how do we acomplish this then?--Lucy-marie 15:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing out some overkill

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)

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)

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)

• Thanks for the comments and advice. I certainly dont want an edit war but its very depressing to see every edit one makes reverted wholesale without any aspect of any edit being kept. (I dont agree that any/all edits need consensus either - which is the point that the other editor concerned seems insistent upon. This is certainly NOT the way Wikipedia works). But I'll take the time out to try to explain the reasoning beyond my changes rather than go around in cirlces with pointless reverts and perhaps the other editor concerned can respond:-

The article is OK. But it overstates, enormously, the role of anti-immigration policy in the BNP. This does neither justice to the BNP - as they have more policies than just anti-immigration policies. Nor does it do justice to anyone who may wish to highlight some of the other extremist ideas of this party. Thus my edit to the intro is to remove excessive references to the same issue - which are, in any case, totally unnecessary and add nothing but clutter to an otherwise good intro. And thus my edits to the BNP's list of policies: let that list focus on their other, IMHO cranky and dangerous ideas rather than, once again, overegg the anti-immigrant aspects. In any case, there is, surely, no need to list the BNP's anti-immigrationist policies in their list of policies? Anyone who has read that far into the article can gather that they have such policies to list them again is needless repetition and the article is already overly long.

Having said all that, I'm quite prepared to reach consensus on any aspect of my edits which are controversial. (But is every edit I make really controversial? It may be so and I may well be wrong but it does seem unlikely). So.... over to One Night in Hackney to tell me how and why what I am saying is wrong and why each and every aspect of my edits must be reverted. Marcus22 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• OK, but what, specifically, is controverisal about shortening the intro by one statement which neither changes the sense of what is being said nor takes anything away from the intro, but merely makes it better to read? and what, specifically, is controversial about re-ordering the list of policies to try a: to avoid repetition and b: to focus that list on policies other than immigration? Please can this be explained? If nothing is forthcoming then I can get on and make those edits. I should add that I dont mind waiting a bit for an explanation, as I'm sure the editor concerned has other things to do than work on Wikipedia, but one has not been forthcoming so far and just to revert all edits on the grounds "discuss substantial changes there before making them" when a: they are not substantial and b: they are not being discussed is not good enough. Wikipedia does not work like that. Marcus22 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• OK, I see what you are saying. I'll leave it for a bit and see what is said. I certainly feel the whole 'BNP are against Immigrants' aspect of the article is overstated and people need to see what else they stand for. (In my view, that would be to the rightful detriment of the BNP but, even were that not so, I feel it should be done). regards Marcus22 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• OK, and that looks fine by me. So I'll go ahead and change the intro, but drop the bit I added about 'publicly' and, agreed, we need to redo the policies section i; to give more emphasis to other policies and ii; to stop it reading like quotes from the BNP manifesto. (For me, I would still drop the immigration issues from that section and cover it by saying something like "In addition to their policies on Immigration (see paragraphs above - always assuming those policies can be edited into those above) the BNP also propose the following policies" or something like that). But if the references to immigration were reduced elsewhere in the article - and the article is overly large - then I would also be OK to see them left in the policy section. Marcus22 16:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the "Griffin assumes leadership" section needs trimming down, and merging with the subsequent "Improved electoral performance and policy revamp" section. The first section seems to mostly deal with the "in-out-in-out" status of Tyndall and is adequately covered in Tyndall's article, although the articles do contradict each other over the exact dates. In the "Improved electoral performance and policy revamp" section I think this sentence should be removed

The party was accused, however, of exploiting the high tensions in areas that had recently undergone racially-motivated riots

The source provided is just a brief history of the BNP, and does not provide an adequate citation.

Is the "Run-up to the UK 2006 local election" section necessary? It seems to mostly state that support for the BNP and/or its policies was increasing according to polls, which is supported by the subsequent "The UK 2006 local election results" section. But do we need both? Obviously if there's anything in the first section that needs to be kept it could easily be merged into a "The UK 2006 local elections" section.

The "Local government" section repeats a lot of information that is in the article already, so that can be removed (or from the earlier sections obviously) to trim the article down slightly.

That's as far as I got through the article before getting tired of thinking, more comment to follow but there's some things for discussion at least. One Night In Hackney 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned you can make any/all of those edits. I'll try to remove some from the local government and history sections now.. Marcus22 11:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have had a go at these and the policy section. It looks quite different now but is not - I hope - changed in a substantive manner. Shant do any more until I get feedback - just in case... Marcus22 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (Oh-oh, in making the above edits I have (temporarily) lost the bit about the BNP being 'not-exactly-right-wing' in terms of economics. This does need putting back in but I'm not sure quite where. But please note that I havent edited it away for reasons of censorship or anything like that!) Marcus22 19:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

ITS

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)

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)

Radical right populism

Instead of referring to the British National Party as simply "far-right"—which a rather imprecise term used mainly by the media—we should describe it as "radical right populist," as per many academic sources. Before anyone gasps in horror at describing the BNP as "radical," one must note that the term is more or less synonomous with "anti-establishment" as used by scholars. In addition to being placed in the lead section, the term needs to be expounded in a separate section entitled "Radical right populism." Since it is increasingly used by academics to classify the BNP and other European far-right parties, there is no reason not to mention it somewhere in the article. -- WGee 07:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, i think its best to keep them 'far right', we all know the bnp is reather economically centre nleft but the left-right positioning in populat culture is based on the parties view of immigration (or so i find). Im for mentioning it, but the term far right is widely accepted (however incorrect) by just about the whole world,removing it is..not wrong..just a bit..unusual. To be honest im not fussed either way, the term far right is accepted, the extreme minority who argue otherwise (myself..lol) can see past it..:)Fethroesforia 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Radical right populist" is not exactly definitive either, in fact, it is more vague than you think 'far right' is. I'm guessing that just about everyone knows what 'far right' means - on the right, and further on the right than mainstream parties such as, in the UK scene, the Conservatives. Exactly where you pin it down on a sprectrum is vague, of course; these things always are because there is inevitably a good deal of overlap in politics and political positions, but the average reader does understand the term. So what does the average reader get from 'radical right populist'? Well, firstly, they will probably need to look up radical as used in this sense. Then populist. And then they could conclude that the modern day Conservative party is radical right populist! It is not the case that the 'far right' term is used mainly by the media either, although the BNP and its supporters like to pretend that this is so because it supports their argument that 'the establishment' is ganging up against them. Leave it as it is (though personally I would prefer extreme right or, to be honest, neo-fascist). Emeraude 09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Radical right populist" is definitely more specific than "far-right." Whereas "far-right" and "extreme right" simply denote positions on the political spectrum, "radical right populist" denotes that the BNP is anti-Establishment and populist. I understand that most readers cannot immediately grasp the meaning of the term, but that is not an excuse not to use it. Not only are encyclopedias supposed to introduce readers to new information, but I also said that the term (as a whole, not in its individual parts) would be elucidated in its own section, dispelling any confusion. Regardless of whether or not readers like the classification or agree with it, the fact remains that it is widely recognized in academia and should not be ignored.

As for the term "far-right" being used mainly in the media, that is true. Rarely will you come across an oft-cited scholarly essay that describes political parties solely by their position on the political spectrum. I'm not saying that the media is incorrect in referring to the BNP as "far-right," but among academics more precise and objective terms are favoured. -- WGee 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• We had a similar debate on the UKIP page. For 'Political position' I wanted to use the term "Right Wing" and someone else wanted to use the term "Libertarian Right". In fact it seems to me that there are clearly two different headings here - and maybe that should be reflected in articles on political parties - namely, i: where a party stands, in popular parlance, on the Left-Centre-Right spectrum (thus the BNP are "far right") and ii: what a party's ideological position is. (In this case, "radical right populist"). Would having these two headers not resolve this point? Marcus22 11:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tend to go along with Marcus22 on this. If it needs changing (I'm not convinced), how about something along the lines of describing the BNP as a far right party and its policies as radical right populist? Emeraude 11:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The two terms are certainly not "clearly different": the far-right is intimately intertwined with radical populism. In any case, since you are concerned about the obscurity of the term among laymen, we can keep the term "far-right" in the lead section but still maintain a section for "radical right populism." Moreover, "radical right-wing populism" does not refer only to policies, but also to political strategy. That said, if there is any confusion about the term and whether it is merited, I suggest you read this (pp. 2–4). Unfortunately, though, Google doesn't offer access to the chapter on the BNP. -- WGee 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are absolutely spot on WGee, Far Right parties are indeed, typically, both radical and populist. But I didnt mean to imply that that was where the "clear difference" lay. All that I meant was that a 'position' is clearly something different from a 'policy'. (eg. we can all understand what we mean by a position being Left or Right, Up or Down or whatever - but what position is 'Radical' or 'Populist'?) In short what I meant to say was that your and Emeraude's views are not mutually exclusive. You are both properly describing (different) aspects of the BNP. They are Far Right (in terms of Position) but Radical Populists (in terms of much of their policies). Marcus22 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revrsing the tide statement.

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)

I don't see that at all. The issue is the one for the which the BNP is best known, the statement is a quote from the BNP, and this early on in the article (starting line 7) how can it possibly be overkill? Emeraude 11:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

UAF

Why do UAF a pressure group opposed to the bnp keep on cropping up in the article. Its like having migrationwatch crop up ina pro-immigration article pointless, pov and bias. I do not care what they say they are allways going to say the same BNP bad, BNP wrong, destroy BNP. It is just a covert way of promoting the far left in a far right article in my opinion. What next we say the conservative manifesto contained unworkable and racist policies on immigration. whlie quoting the green party website. If that was added it would be remved instantly but because this is a fringe far-right party, the quality of the article suffers due to people either knowingly or unknowingly being prejudiced, in my opinion agains them.---Lucy-marie 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

true..but then its like searchlight being in there..its like quoting the redwatch website in the communist wiki article!!!! its bound to say anti-commie things so its pointless. also..notice the following = 'It also includes faith and community leaders and politicians from the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, RESPECT, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party' says who? ive bought this up before but people said it doesnt need sourcing! when it clearly does! Fethroesforia 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wholey agree I just usd the UAF as they were the first that I came across. I mean the article quality neds as much refrencing as possible. Especially on the controversial issues such as immigration. I also think the slant of the article is anti-BNP with a large opposition to the BNP section. You don't see an opposition to the Labour party section or an opposition the Conservative party section, so why is there one needed here. I admit they are not the most likable party but in some people's eyes the Conservatuve party are still 'the nasty party' that was run by a 'vampire'(micheal howard), but it isn't brandished all over the article like the BNP's anti-immigration stance is. Also why are pressure groups cited in this article and not as close as possible independent sources (I would classify the BBC as a neutral source, even though they did the documentary they never said that this was anything but a representation of their recordings). Can we please not use pressure groups it is what is holding back this article.--Lucy-marie 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Id do some myself, but im busy doing last minute revision (I have my chemistry and modern history A level exams tomorrow and human biology on wednesday). I agree with you all the way lucy-marie:) Fethroesforia 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would start to make some changes right now to the article, but I am almost certian they will be reverted by the morning.--Lucy-marie 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It isnt okay for us to make any changes..yet it is okay for others to make drastic edits or reversions of the article without prior warning! seems unfair. It seems wrong for names and sources being thrown in. Lets think of a well hated political party..the tories..like you proposed. checking their article...i see no criticism or anti tory material. yet the tories are widely hated..up north here they are hated anyway..(vile creatures they are). Cameron makes me feel ill..anyway..to the subject..im always reading criticism of the tories or any other political party, usually by obvious sources (red watch on commies and lib dems.. the daily mail on labour, the morning star on the tories) it seems..wrong..plain wrong for it to be included. though i agree lucy-marie, everything i wrote will fall on very deaf ears, check their contribution list, i know at least one has a history of vandalising or hasty editing of right wing articles and is very left wing in their views....so they will make real fair edits? hmmmm Fethroesforia 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I claim to be neither left wing nor right wing just objective. I also woulld like to see the removal of any slant weather it be pro or anti-BNP. I think the section is far too big on the oppostion and the policies are hardly givven an adequate chance of being explianed coherantly. I found one edit particulally infuriating when It quoted a qoute from an article this can hardly be a good thing where the rest of the article was opposed to that quote. So can we plase just try for once to remove all politics from our edits and be objective. (I know for some this will be especially difficult for them to see their anti-BNP platform dissapear).--Lucy-marie 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i try to be as NPOV as i can and i can point a few fingers are people i dont think do NPOV. good luck with the editing (is off to sleep and think of chemistry related thoughts for exam..with a burnt tongue (long story..hot pasty..burnt tastebuds..ow))

good luck with it..i hope it isnt hastily reverted in the morning by revert happy commies Fethroesforia 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But isn't the existence of the likes of UAF a defining point of the BNP? In the end there are no groups (that I know of) who go around actively protesting at Labour Party meetings, just because they're the labour party? I don't think any other British political party has any groups who so vhemently oppose it. --Robdurbar 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good points here. It is true that the article has to be as NPOV as one can make it and I too am unhappy at the coverage given to other policies and believe the "opposition" section is too large and rather unwieldy. But let's not get carried away. An article on the BNP has to reflect i: the existence of the likes of UAF (for the reasons just given by Rob above) and ii: the enormous extent of the opposition to the BNP. Why? Because the BNP are not just opposed like the Conservatives or Labour they are completely and utterly reviled by a substantial part of the populace - not only in the UK but elsewhere - and this has to be reflected in an article on them. As has, to some degree, but to a lesser degree than is currently the case, the reasons for this opposition. Marcus22 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i see where you are coming from but certain publications which are going to be biased against the BNP surly cannot be quoted or even mentioned outside of an opposition section. I had never heard of UAF or Searchlight before reading this article, so giving undue weight to a minor publication which only appeals to a minority of the public surly cannot be good in the article.--Lucy-marie 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the following necessary oin the introduction, I think it belongs in a more apropriate section such as criticism of BNP policies or something similar.

The BNP is often described as racist.[3][4] The party denies this, however, stating that they are merely standing up for the white British working class and claiming that racism is a part of human nature and describes its supporters as "realists".[5]

The BNP is marginalised by the political mainstream. Conservative Party leader David Cameron, for example, has called on voters to "back anyone but the BNP,"[6] while Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has criticized "the politics of race hate peddled by the BNP."[7]

Anti-fascist magazines such as Searchlight and organisations such as Unite Against Fascism dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts to denouncing the party. --Lucy-marie 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a newe introduction after the bit on thier electoral performance: According to its 2005 manifesto The BNP is commited to reintroduce compulsory national service, re-unify the UK with the Republic of Ireland, reuce and eventually reverse the number of non-white immigrants to the uk prohibit the seeking of asylum, encourage women to stay at home and raise families rather than work and reintroduce corporal and capital punishment. --Lucy-marie 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bad - but I think you'd be in danger of underplaying the immigration issue then. I've rejigged the intro to reduce the paras. you mention - I think it looks better now. Immigration and racism is still prominent. But some other policies are also more obvious. I'm still not sure/not happy about the Searchlight bit though... Marcus22 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction should be just that a basic introduvtion and should outline the BNP and although immigration is a major issue it should be in a dedicated section and please can we get rid of the UAF bit at the very end of the introduction?--Lucy-marie 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the revised intor the word also is used, reading it now makes it fell as if these policies are secondary and gives more wight to the immigration policy which we need to avoid i think.--Lucy-marie 19:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go through this. Let's consider some FACTS. The BNP grew from the old National Front. The NF was exposed long ago (right from its founding in 1967) as a neo-Nazi organisation, led by neo-Nazis with a history of the vilest anti-semitism, racism and other fascist creeds. Some of its leaders were jailed for organising secret armies. They were getting nowhere politically and that's why they formed the NF, trying to keep the fascism out of the public view, though not very successfully. After a period of growth during the 1970s, they went into decline, got into a bout of infighting (because everyone wanted to be Fuehrer - a common enough issue in post-war British fascism). Eventually the BNP was set up by John Tyndall (one of those jailed and one of those who wore Nazi uniforms) and his cronies, including Nick Griffin who far from being a mainstream political innocent was a member of the NF's HQ staff. This is all fact.

Now consider this: The BNP, whatever its other policies are, is almost solely known for its anti-immigrant stance. It's a fair bet that most of its voters could not list any other issue associated with the party; they are attracted because of its racism. The same was true of the NF in the 70s. The BNP has been more successful, not because it has significantly shifted its policies - it hasn't, and I can reproduce NF election addresses from 1974 if anyone wants to see. It has been successful to the degree it has because Griffin has been more successful at hiding its true nature than was the NF.

As to opposition. Searchlight is not anti-BNP. It is anti-fascist, whenever and wherever it sees it. It is a respected and well-researched magazine publishing articles from academics and others covering all of Europe and the rest of the world. If it "opposes" the BNP it is because it is fascist. It's nothing personal! (And it would be a good gesture if those who accuse Searchlight of having a vendetta against the BNP actually read a few issues, just as those who accuse the BNP of fascism have read the BNP's publications, and those of Tyndall, Griffin and the like. Argue from knowledge, not prejudice.)

Where am I going with this? Well, it seems to me that there were things wrong with this article. It was confused, perhaps inevitably when written by several contributors over a long period, with sections almost randomly placed. It contained much that was contentious, again perhaps inevitable. It contained some assertions that were not fully backed up. But, what the hell, isn't that what editors are for? Most of these issues have now been addressed and the article reads much better. The one thing that is still wrong, in my opinion, is that it does not go far enough in explaining that the BNP, underneath it all, is a neo-fascist group and always will be. It is no good trying to play down its anti-immigration stance by listing all of its other policies. It is no good striving for 'balance' every time a criticism is raised by saying "but the BNP deny this" or some such. In short, stop trying to do a revisionist job on the BNP by portraying them as innocent players up against a cabal of opponents, a cabal that includes every mainstream party, politician, newspaper, journal and magazine in the country. Leave it alone. Emeraude 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound nuts here but it sounds as if you want an article which is basically a soap box and a collection of media reoporting of the BNP. The article must avoid both of these. You cannot claim that the "truth is they are hiding being fascist", because unless we start mind reading we cannot prove it. The article as it stands is basically portraying yhe BNP as a single issue party which upon reading the manifesto is untrue so can we plaes all get of our pre-formed views and try and write an article whihc is not written like a member of a far left group or someone with a vested intrest. As for UAF regardless of how respected they are it is like quoting Greenpeace in the exxon mobil article, biased as they are inherantly slanted against them.--Lucy-marie 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Lucy-marie

Lucy-marie, I assume your comments above are a reply to my comments immediately before. If so, you clearly have not read what I wrote. Some extra comments: 1 There is no way in which anyone can interpret what I said as wanting "an article which is basically a soap box and a collection of media reoporting". And we don't have that at the moment. There are links to press articles to substantiate parts of the article - that's proper citing of sources. If I want a soap box to condemn the BNP I can think of much better ways to go about it than through Wikipedia. 2 As to your quote of mine: 'the "truth is they are hiding being fascist"' - I didn't write it. Read me again. I didn't write it. Read the whole of this section again - no one has written that. I object to this most strongly. (As it happens, they are hiding being fascist as I and many other contributors to this discussion page and just about everyone who comments on the BNP, including politicians, press and academics has made clear since its foundation and before in the case of its predecessors. You may not like it, but that's the case.) 3 The article is most definitely NOT "portraying yhe BNP as a single issue party" and several editors in recent weeks have gone to great trouble to provide clarity on this. 4 You say: "can we plaes all get of our pre-formed views ". Good advice, and I feel you should take it. You have said, I believe, that you support the BNP and I have to say (and I'm sure that other editors will back me up here) that your comments in this discussion most clearly reflect your pre-formed views. I defy you to say which, if any, political party I support. Similarly, I would not be able to assign Marcus22, Robdurbar ,WGee, One Night In Hackney etc to a party. I have argued always from fact, not the position of who I may or may not support. I make no secret of my opposition to the BNP - but why should I, this a forum for opinions - but it does not cloud my view of whether this is a good article or not. 5 The article does not read like it is "written like a member of a far left group". (I presume you meant by a member). It is so balanced that I think anyone on the left, never mind far left, would regard it as more than generous to the BNP. 6 I'm not sure what you mean by "someone with a vested intrest" in this context. 7 You say "As for UAF regardless of how respected they are..." Are you misquoting me again? I never said UAF was respected, though I'm sure they are. 8. Why shouldn't Greenpeace be quoted in an article about Exxon? I've read neither article, but could easily see that if the article refers to a massively disastrous oil spill you would need someone with an environmental background to be included. Are you suggesting that only Exxon should be quoted in an Exxon article? Surely not. Are you suggesting that only the BNP should be quoted in a BNP article? I'm afraid it's beginning to look that way. Emeraude 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I expected better than that from your Emeraude. The bnp is not racist, if its members are..oh well..shame. I support the bnp..but im not racist..i like the bnp because of OTHER policies (nhs being one, capital punishment, longer jail sentences etc. And whether you like it or not Emeraude, we cant all go around throwing our opinions everywhere can we? Thats called vandalism of articles. If you think the bnp are racist, then fine..thats nice..but we should stick to the matter in hand (example..we all know the invasion in iraq was purely for oil..but i have no proof..which is why i wont make the invasion of iraq sound like a resonating anti-bush speech)

If you want to include anti patriotic, anti bnp qoutes then go right ahead, but if they are unsources, others (including NPOV people) will remove them. Fethroesforia 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Fethroesforia

I'm sorry, Fethroesforia, I don't understand what better you expected from me. Where did I go wrong? Anyway, the issue of whether the BNP is racist was more than adequately covered in a previous discussion here when WGee explained absolutely clearly that the BNP is racist and the evidence for this. You took part in the discussion, so I'm sure you remember it, but for other readers it is archived at Talk:British National Party/Archive 4#Use of the word racist in the article. I genuinely feel sorry for you. You say that you are not racist and have said before that you're not a thick skinhead thug - I'm not doubting you. But I feel sorry for you because the party you support IS racist and yet you still support them. You said that "we cant all go around throwing our opinions everywhere can we? Thats called vandalism of articles". Well, actually we can go around giving opinions and its called discussion or debate or argument. To put opinions into articles is not vandalism either; it is wrong, it shouldn't happen and it would soon be picked up, but it is not vandalism. (By the way, have a look and see how many time I have removed vandalism from the BNP article.) It doesn't matter if I thnk the BNP is racist (I think its fascist actually, with racism included); if everyone else that has studied it thinks it's racist, why should I be different. You say "If you want to include anti patriotic, anti bnp qoutes then go right ahead," but I have not said I want to include anything so what's the point of your comment? In any case, anti-BNP does not equal anti-patriotic (a ridiculous suggestion that sounds like it came straight from a BNP publication) and insulting to all the patriots who fought against fascism in WWII. Finally, your use of the phrase "others (including NPOV people)" implies that I am a POV person. Well, yes I am and so are you and so is everyone I have ever met. Wouldn't life be dull if no one had a point of view? Are you implying that my edits to articles have been contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality? If so, please provide the evidence but I fear you will search in vain for any. I do have very strong opinions on a wide range of subjects but I know when to express personal opinions (e.g. in a debate or on a talk page) and when not to (e.g. in the front of a classroom or in an encyclopaedia article).

[PS: Good luck with your exams]Emeraude 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to EmeraudeThose are my opinions and I am entitled to them. I am sorry if you feel misquoted in places but I have only directly quoted you in one place and I think I may have made a mistake there, so I apolagise. As for you saying that I need to remove my pre-formed views i try my best to, I admit I may go against the grain, but I truly believe that what I do is correct and an enhancement to the article. I also would not try and label anybody as being a member of a political party unless they branded somehwere a party they were a member of such as Fethroesforia who is openly a member supporter of the BNP. When i said the soap box stuff it was my opinion and i was not asserting it as fact. I think that you should net be able to give such prominanceto a pressure group we. letsuse exxon as the example again. Lets insert this in to the introduction Exon mobil are strongly and contiuosly denounced by Greenpeace. It is completly unecesary and would proberbly be instantly removed. I just want to be able to have an article whihc does not do the following things:1 Shout from the roof tops (my opinion) the anti immigration policy and the media coverage of the anti immigartion policy of the BNP,2 Not give prominance to pressure groups in the article wheather it be Spearhead or UAF. When you say we should only quote the BNP as what I want as refrencing this is utterly rediculous as i have asserted that i think media outlets are an acceptable refrencre and any publication would be acceptableas long as on the more controversial sections there was more than one refrence. I thank you for you time you have put in to give such a detailed reply to myself, I welcome this healthy debate of ideas becuase without them a nutcase party such as the BNP will eventually win through ignorance.--Lucy-marie 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not "feel misquoted". I was misquoted, but thanks for the apology. You say: "Fethroesforia who is openly a member of the BNP" - he's not - he is a supporter, so you owe him an apology too. Your facts are wrong. Spearhead is NOT a pressure group; it is a publication, it was John Tyndall's magazine and is virulently right wing. Perhaps you meant Searchlight - a careless error we can forgive.

I do not see where you think the article is "shouting from the rooftops" - it is a fact (please don't ask me to cite sources here) that the BNP is first and foremost a racist anti-immigrant party; it's other policies are mentioned sufficiently in the article. Besides, if you look at the BNP's full list of policies, remove the racist stuff and see what's left there's really nothing that makes it any different in total from the right wing of the Conservative Party with other odd bits thrown in. (OK - a bit hard to be certain now with Cameron conjuring up new policies all the time, but you see the point.) It is the race issue that defines the BNP. I was not saying "we should only quote the BNP" (far from it) - the point I was making was that the logical outcome of what you seemed to be saying would be that. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but it is the way you came over. I thank you for your final sentence. It is clear to me that you have thought about and understood what I have been saying.

However, and this is nothing to do with the article, do not think that the BNP is, as you put it, a "nutcase party" - its leaders are very smart and know exactly what they are doing. They need to be treated seriously. Emeraude 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So is there a way foreward which addresses my concerns about the use of pressure groups. Also is there a way forewards about addresesing my concerns that the article is to heavily slanted in an anti-immigration fashion and doesnot portray adequatly the other policies of the BNP. I am going to request that as UAF and Searchlight are pressure roups their statement in the introduction be removed from the introduction.--Lucy-marie 16:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, your concerns really are groundless. Firstly, as I have said before, Searchlight is not a pressure group, it's a publication and a perfectly reasonable citable source that has been around for more than 30 years. Secondly, the UAF, as others have noted, is an umbrella group bringing together such a wide range of political and social groups that it has not political stance of its own (which is not to say it is non-political but that it is non-partisan). Thirdly, the BNP is that is so WIDELY opposed, in a way that no other party is, as to make this opposition significant; so it must be mentioned early. Fourthly, I'm guessing you meant to say that the article gives undue emphasis to the BNP's anti-immigration policies and not that the article is anti-immigration. This is simply not true. Check the article carefully and you will see that whole chunks of it are not about policy at all (history, leadership, organisation, controversy, opposition etc.) Quite correctly so. As I and others have regularly said, the anti-immigration stance of the BNP is its main claim to fame and must therefore receive the emphasis of the article. It would be ridiculous to give equal space to every policy area and we wouldn't, for example, think about doing that for any other party. No, we would highlight those policies that define the party and say that the party also wants to...... . We have a good article here now which you must imagine being read by someone with no previous knowledge, say a young person in Canada or South Africa. The article gives a good description of the subject, provides both internal and external links to further information and explains the controversies. The balance of topic coverage is about right. Other editors have put a lot of work in the last couple of weeks into revising, and I think it's time to leave things be for now let their work speak for itself. Emeraude 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I hadn't before noticed Fethroesforia's comments in the "Revrsing the tide statement." section above. He makes the same point as me, as a supporter of the BNP. Emeraude 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure of the BNP - reduced list

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)

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)

• Happy to see those names back if you feel they are required. Perhaps some of the other 'red' links could be removed? (In all honesty I have no idea who the main players in the party are.) But it definitely read a little long beforehand and I half-expected to see the BNP's dog listed there too! Looks better now. Marcus22 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your comments. Thanks. (I wonder what kind of dog it would be?) Emeraude 17:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

lol..me thinks..a pink toy poodle;) lol Fethroesforia 00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to the BNP

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)

Interesting idea. Not sure that I agree though. Needs thinking about. Emeraude

I think it is a very interesting idea, but may difficult to impliment, but I would support its creation.--Lucy-marie 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Policies section

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)

I think the Policies section is about right as it stands. It is easy to read, balanced and, more importantly, concise. It gives an accurate overview of the BNP's stated policies without going into so much detail that readers without background knowledge will get lost; links are provided in the article so that one can find out more if required; it does not read like a BNP platform. I would be very wary of saying that Opposition to the BNP and BNP policies should have the same space. (Actually, if you ignore the picture in Opposition, they are remarkably close in length anyway.) They are not opposite sides of the same coin: opponents of the BNP may not oppose all of their policies e.g. support for the NHS which no party in Britain today will oppose. The oposition is based in philosophy, not policies i.e. the BNP is opposed because of what it IS, not what it SAYS. Be aware that, even if one is trying to achieve balance between two issues (and as I said, I don't think it applies in this instance), it is not necessary to give equal space. Emeraude 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations

I was looking at this section, and I think it could do with trimming down slightly. At times it seems like guilt by assocation especially with Roberto Fiore and William Pierce, and the allegations of involvement of or being the inspiration for terrorist activities.

The Fiore link looks particularly tenuous. Is there any evidence to prove he is actually linked to the BNP? An unsourced claim he was a close associate of Griffin back in his NF days doesn't really cut it in my opinion.

The Timothy McVeigh reference in the William Pierce paragraph is a bit troubling as well. It's an alleged claim, and one best covered in articles about McVeigh, Pierce or the book itself, not the BNP article which hasn't got any link to McVeigh to the best of my knowledge.

Redwatch was set up by an ex-BNP member according to the article, and the article states the BNP has warned its members not to use the site. So again the inclusion of this is tenuous at best.

The Copeland inclusion is slightly tenuous as well. I can see why it's included, but can the BNP be held reponsible or linked to the actions of every former member of the party? One Night In Hackney 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisley I have been trying to say that last line for ages. Please clean up that section.--Lucy-marie 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to, I'm just waiting for other editors to comment. One Night In Hackney 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A few off-the-top-of-my-head comments:

• "Guilt by asociation"? Only if you think having links to neo-Nazis and paramilitary organisations is a crime. Remember the title of the section: "Links to...", which of course, means 'association'.

• Fiore: Important to include this. Griffin, his predecessors and associates have maintained links with European fascists while denying they are fascists themselves. The title of this section is, after all, "Links to neo-Nazis....." and here is one.

• para 3, 1st sentence: No need to mention Tyndall was still leader; article says so elsewhere. Simplify this sentence as:

"The BNP's 1995 national rally was addressed by Dr. William Pierce, then head of the US National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries which allegedly inspired Timothy McVeigh, the Oklohoma bomber."

(McVeigh, I think needs to be mentioned to give context to why the link to Pierce himself is important, but this wording makes it clear that BNP and McVeigh are not linked. Otherwise, the connection with Pierce himself seems less significant.)

• Redwatch: Sheppard was expelled because he got arrested - embarrassing for the BNP - but there is no suggestion this was for political differences, so his inclusion here is relevant. Besides, it also says the BNP repudiates Redwatch, which is fair enough, even if no one believes there are no links.

• Copeland: His political "career" is not unusual - the BNP is a recruiting ground for more extremist organisations. He was not just a member of course, but a 'steward', i.e., a party thug, and the article on him is clear that he learned his 'skills' while in the BNP.

• Finally, once again remember that this section is entitled "Links..... " and that is what is covered here. It's a shame that there is not more on links to other organisations at the moment, which would make for an interesting expansion of the section. (I'll work on that if I get time.)

Emeraude 12:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guilt by association. The point I was making there was that we're making a tenuous link between the BNP and Fiore, then mentioning a 1980 terrorist attack that Fiore isn't specifically linked to, only the organization he was a member of. I'm also confused by the article stating Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari were alleged to have carried out the offence, as far as I'm aware two members were convicted of the bombing there's nothing alleged about it. But there's nothing to link Fiore to it, and at present nothing to link Fiore to the BNP only Griffin pre-BNP.

• McVeigh. Why him? Are we picking the most notorious Nazi terrorist possible? Why not Robert Jay Mathews and The Order? I'm not sure of the exact time line on this, so there's a chance there is a very good reason for McVeigh's inclusion. According to Pierce's article he first came to public attention following the Oklahoma bombing. How soon after the bombing isn't mentioned, but if it was before the rally he attended I'd say that's very significant. Anyone know the dates involved?

• Redwatch. Do we have an actual source for Sheppard setting up the website? Kevin Watmough recently claimed he set it up.

• Copeland. I've not got any objection to him being there, I was just trying to make a broader point that the BNP shouldn't be linked to the actions of every former member. One Night In Hackney 16:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The section clearly needs a clean up as it has caused gross ambiguity in two editors interpritation.--Lucy-marie 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't. Emeraude 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not had much time to follow up things, but I have got some more info on links between Fiore, the German NDP and Griffin both before and after becoming leader. Sorry it's a bit sloppy:

Sources:

Daily Mirror 30 March 2005

Searchlight, May 2005

Billed to speak on Britain’s “Struggle between Cultures” at rally “Germany will live – National Awakening in the 21st Century”. Other speakers were Franz Schönhuber (NPD media adviser and Waffen SS veteran) and Harald Neubauer, former MEP and member of the nazi NSDAP-AO and co-publisher of the SS-founded Nation & Europa. BNP told Daily Mirror: "Nick was invited to a conference of the NPD, who we don’t believe are Nazis, but was too busy to go."

He had attended previous NDP events, sharing platforms with NDP leader Udo Voigt and two convicted terrorists, Horst Mahler and Roberto Fiore. In Aug 2002, Griffin attended the NDP’s newspaper Deutsche Stimme (German Voice) festival; was photographed there with Voigt and ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Also in Aug 2002, attended NPD summer school with Mahler and Voigt. May 2003: scheduled to speak alongside Voigt, Fiore and NPD’s lawyer Jürgen Rieger, but didn't turn up.

While exiled in Britain, Fiore helped Griffin build his Political Soldiers group following its split from the National Front.

Perhaps you're right about McVeigh. Just thought it explained more about the book, but perhaps we don't need to mention that either. So, 1st sentence of para 3 could now read: "The BNP's 1995 national rally was addressed by Dr. William Pierce, then head of the US National Alliance." but this does seem rather tame, forcing readers to search through other articles for context.

Redwatch: There's an article somewhere I read recently (Searchlight archives I think) that covers this. Regardless,no one doubts it is run by people including BNP members, however clandestinely (because, of course, they are inciting to criminal acts). Will try to get more. Emeraude 16:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It still needs a clean up for the points raised . Also it has caused gross ambiguity as Two diffrent editors have read exactly the same text and interpited the content diffrently (a lot).--Lucy-marie 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Fiore being there now, as it's been adequately demonstrated that Griffin is prepared to share a platform with a convicted member of a terrorist organization. Obviously a quick re-write to document the ongoing association is needed, and possibly remove details of the train station bombing?

We could actually include a quick note about The Order with Pierce. Some members (I forget which, I'd need to find my copy of The Silent Brotherhood) were recruited from the National Alliance so there is a direct link between Pierce and terrorist/paramilitary groups. One Night In Hackney 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Lucy-marie, but I think you're wrong there. User:One Night In Hackney and I have discussed what is in or should be in the article; I don't see any evidence that we have interpreted anything that is in the article differently, (though perhaps I shouldn't speak for Hackney) so no ambiguity there. It seems to me that the two of us are reaching a level of understanding that could be described as consensus, excpet there's only two of us! Emeraude 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm on about the original statement before the discussions took place.--Lucy-marie 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any ambiguity there. My concerns were predominantly with Fiore and Pierce, and that we were mentioning terrorist attacks that strictly speaking weren't directly connected to either of them. For example I wouldn't recommend mentioning the Milltown Cemetery attack in the paragraph that mentions the BNP's connections to loyalism. I think we're better off trying to focus on the stronger links, rather than the more tenuous ones. One Night In Hackney 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Local government section

I've removed this sentence, which was flagged for a source;

However, the BNP's consistent good polling in some areas has led some to question this analysis.

What does good mean? Good compared to what? Which areas? Who has questioned the analysis? It's about as vague as it gets, so hopefully nobody objects to its removal? One Night In Hackney 08:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Im going to look through the article later, but i wouldnt call the bnp's results consistent, more like erratic. some of their vote count depends on the feeling at the time. im for removing it. (if it hasnt been already) Fethroesforia 12:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a valid statement to make in the article - the BNP thinks this is true - and it is certainly a view I have read in articles in the press, though personally I would not subscribe to it. However, sources not being to hand...... Emeraude 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't valid, just it was unsourced and full of weasel words. I've nothing against a properly sourced version with context being added. One Night In Hackney 15:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said: needs sources, but at this stage who's going to find them? Emeraude 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

After further review I'm unhappy with the sentence before that as well;

Many researchers have put the electoral successes of the BNP down to voters' casting a 'protest vote' against the perceived incompetence of local councils, and disillusionment with the mainstream parties, rather than as positive support for the BNP's policies [1]

The only people that seem to be making the claim are Nick Lowles, and to a lesser extent the author of the article. The author also cites other people who don't see it is a protest vote. I'm definitely not seeing "many researchers". One Night In Hackney 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's undoubtedly truth in the suggestion that there is a protest vote that benefits the BNP (sources: well, tons of press article, but don't ask me to list them, I don't have access or time). So how do we keep this idea in? (I will look through Politics journals, but I suspect it's too recent for any papers to have been submitted and published just yet). I don't like the phrase "perceived incompetence of local councils" - perhaps this whole sentence should be put in quotes. Emeraude 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Just noticed that this part of the article is set in 2004 or earlier, so there should be journal articles. Give me a day or two to search. Emeraude 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt there's truth in the claim, I just think we need more sources. I found this article from The Times regarding a report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, that's definitely a good start I think. One Night In Hackney 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done. The actual Rowntree report is here. Will do a quick check of journals later. Emeraude 10:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)