Talk:British National Party: Difference between revisions

This article, British National Party, is currently the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. The mediation discussion is located here. You are encouraged to read current and past discussion on this talk page. Please read "suggestions for mediators" to get an understanding of what to expect from mediation. Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette. Links: Mediation Cabal case page • Mediation Cabal case talk page

British National Party received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	British National Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed July 23, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed August 25, 2008 Peer review Not reviewed September 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties }} Template:Controversial (politics)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Please note that this talk page is for discussion of changes to the British National Party article. Off-topic discussions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This is rediculous, it has already been proven by various non biass sources that third positionism isn't one of thier beliefs. We've been through this before. Take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.49 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Autosigned by SineBot--> [reply]

There are no sources to back it up.Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.203.153 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the intro on the third position article i dont see why theres much objection to the term, it is clearly the position held by the BNP. They are certainly not communists, they also hate capitalism... this is clear BNP policy (they want state owned energy companies and want to destroy supermarkets). Anyway some sources should be added next to the third position or it should be removed soon, no problem with it staying if correct sources are found. Its not as problematic as the fascist label. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with using websites as references is that they change or disappear over time. This is not a problem with printed resources - books, newspapers and journals are always available in libraries and archives. The problem is compounded in this article because the BNP completely revamped its website earlier this year following internal squabbles which resulted in the webmaster of the BNP's site leaving (or being expelled - depending on who says). Unfortunately, a large number of references in this article have now fallen foul of time, the vast majority of them from the BNP. Although all were live and perfectly correctly used at the time they were added, it may be that they now need to be updated. There are several ways this can be done I would suggest:

1 Find alternative sources for the points referenced (preferably paper resources).

2 Search web archive services to re-link the sources. This has been done by editors for some links already.

3 Delete whatever the referenced point is. (This is extremely drastic and a last resort only, especially as this could mean deleting things sympathetic to the BNP and leading to accusations of NPOV.)

I have gone through all the references and listed below those that appear to be dead. I will start to search for alternatives and invite other editors to do the same. Please strikethrough those you manage to sort out. I would suggest that in a few weeks' time we review the list and assess progress.

THE LIST

NOTE: Edits may cause these to be renumbered, so the reference numbers here refer to the version of the article dated 10:49, 2 October 2008, numbered version 242468527

Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with this reference: "Constitution of the British National Party. Retrieved on 2008-02-13" which is referred to 3 times. The URL is http://web.archive.org/web/20070629010001/http://www.bnp.org.uk/resources/constitution_8ed.pdf (8th edition) whereas the current one on the BNP site appears to be the 9th edition (http://www.bnp.org.uk/Constitution%209th%20Ed%20Sep%202005.pdf). Also the retrieved date is somewhat misleading since it's pointing to an archive.org URL which shows the file as of 2007. Perhaps both editions should be referenced, clearly labelling each one. Hubert80 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2 in the section "Opposition" reads as follows:

"Following pressure from Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, ¹⁹⁸ the major parties stand candidates in seats that they are unlikely to win. This is designed to enhance the choice available to voters in the expectation that this will reduce the BNP vote. ¹⁹⁹ '"

Some observations. Firstly, the reference 198 is a dead link to the CRE website (the CRE as such no longer existing), to a press release entitled "CRE Chair calls on Conservatives to see off the BNP", apparently at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, 2003. I have searched the CRE database of press statements and failed to find this. However this suggests that this press release does/did exist, but the link from there is to another item altogether (a PR for a speech to the CBI in Birmingham).

Secondly, regardless that the original PR is apparently unavailable, the assertion made here in Wikipedia is silly. The major parties have always stood candidates in seats they are unlikely to win - it's what elections are for!

Thirdly, the second sentence is almost as silly, but in any case is not backed up the reference given (an article by Trevor Phillips in the Observer).

My suggestion is to simply delete this paragraph. It really adds nothing to the assertion that the mainstream media and parties oppose the BNP. However, it might be an idea to move the final paragraph of the introduction to this section, which seems a more logical place for it. Comments?Emeraude (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian/Observer reference is worded quite weakly, and doesn't really support much - in the key paragraph says "early assessment" and only mentions the Conservative party (not all major parties). The other reference is very dead. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Employment Tribunal Redfearn was represented by Lee Barnes LLB Hons (or "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" as Adrian Davies refers to him ) the BNP legal officer. Barnes contended that Redfearn was being racially discriminated against for his membership of the BNP as it was a whites-only racist organisation. Presumably if one were to assert otherwise one would be accusing Barnes of perjury (although not actually on oath) which would be potentially libellous. I found the case on Cloisters website, but you have to click on a further link to go to the case http://www.cloisters.com/info_case_profile.php?caseID=177&returl=search.php%3F%26amp%3Bkeywords%3Dserco - --Streona (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) PS that's "Streona LLB (Hons)"--Streona (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)LLB (Hons)[reply]

The above cannot be implemented as it is POV, due to use of the words Racist and the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister." It is also OR as Streona is stating that they are a law graduate, this may also consitute a COI.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing the point here. Is Streona asking for anything to be implemented? Or merely making a comment. Comments in talk are entittled to be POV and COI. Note that the phrase "Bonkers Bagel the bogus barrister" is not Streona's, but a direct quote. The use of 'racist' is in no way POV - used correctly and accurately it is entirely neutral, but, in any case, Streona is simply reporting, not giving an opinion. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just my opinion, but it was central to the argument advanced by Barnes according to the judgement. Redfearn claimed that he was a member of a whites only racist organisation and was sacked, but that had he been a member of a blacks-only allegedly racist organisation he would not have been and that therefore he was racially discrminated against. Thus the conclusion that the BNP are a whites-only racist organisation is the opinion of the BNPs own legal officer (or "Director of the BNP Legal Department" whatever that is)and he argued that in court. Thus if anyone says on this talk page that they are NOT a whites-only racist party they are accusing Lee Barnes and Arthur Redfearn of lying to the Employment Tribunal, which would be defamatory and potentially libellous which would never do. I have stated that I am a law graduate in order to take the mick out of Lee Barnes who is apt to style himself as LLB(Hons) and takes on cases which he often loses leaving the likes of the unfortunate Sharon Ebanks to pick up the tab. Its nothing to do with OR or COI; I am not a practising lawyer. I could append it to the article, as a direct quote from the judgement (who are presumably not POV), but I thought I would put in talk first in order to resolve the colourful - and often personally abusive- debate we have so enjoyed here. I would not suggest putting in the "Bonkers Bagel" reference here but it is on the Adrian Davies article and variously appears on Stormfront etc. --Streona (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)LLB(Hons)[reply]

How influential is an employment tribunal? For example, would this set a legal precedent? It could be useful to have secondary sources to give more context. As the tribunal hasn't come up with an answer yet, it's probably premature to add it. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This post by streona doesn't make sense the BNP dosen't refer to itself as a racist party or hold itself out to be ( and when does any group want to refer to itself as racist to a court in this day and age ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It seems that the BNP's legal expert has argued before a tribunal that the party is a whites only party and that his client has suffered racial discrimination because he is a member of a whites only organisation. Seems like a potential case of shooting oneself in the foot. Emeraude (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the racist part. Which is obviously a abit of POV thats been bolted on somewhere inbetween the original statement and streonas comment. Which I think lucy-marie was referring to. One thing needs to be made clear did he use that exact phrase? I can't see how it can be a libellous anyway they're have been plenty of cases when ethnic-only groups comprised of different ethnicities have claimed racial discrimination or have come to the aid of one of their own claiming racial discrimination. For instance recently your black police association has had individuals who wouldn't be classified as black claiming members have been discriminated. Hmm but interestingly you have just argued for a reason to remove the white-only part of the opening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.3.132 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost the thread of the above argument in that 58.168.3.132 appears to be arguing with the previous post, which is also by 58.168.3.132.

Lee Barnes has certainly held out that the BNP are whites-only (Rustem et al. notwithstanding)although only the decision is available rather than the text of Barnes' submission, as this is the nub of the case for racial discrimination. The finding of "facts"contains the following "...Unison, amongst others, complained to R'schief executive that C's continued presence within the workforce was a significant cause for concern, bearing in mind the BNP's overt racist/fascist agenda". I doubt that Barnes said that but I think it implies that the chair of the Tribunal characterises the BNP in this way as part of its finding of fact, not just the opinion of Unison. I shall look for such a reference in the higher courts as well such as ASLEF v UK.--Streona (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The details of Janaway's resignation from Manchester Police do not belong here. I deleted them with the comment: "If he wasn't a member, it's not relevant)" but another editor has reinstated commenting: "yes it is!". Now, Janaway's story may belong somewhere, but not in a section titled BNP Difficulties with Employment which leads with the sentence "BNP members have suffered various difficulties in employment". As the text says, it was accepted that he was not a member. His inclusion can similarly not be justified under the subhead Organisations which ban BNP membership - he was not a member. In light of this, I have again deleted any reference to him. Emeraude (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This construction ("although the BNP rejects a foreign policy that would support Israel") seems pretty clumsy. I doubt a party that is overtly rascist/nationalistic would be pro any other country. So to go out of your way to tenuously suggest antisemitism, (without a citation I might add) seems a stretch. Not that simply not supporting Israel would be antisemitic of course. Plus "supports Israel" is biased, "would not be pro-Israeli" seems more fitting. Not to mention the relevance of such a specific issue in the intro; Israel and (all)Jewish people are not synonymous. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've noticed that the word fascist hasn't been used to describe the BNP in the article. Shouldn't this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.108.101 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's alluded to in places. but stated and referenced specifically in the infobox. Emeraude (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys should look up the definition of facism, the BNP has no facist policies or tendancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.131.4 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it has. Policies and tendencies. And history. And ambitions. That's why it's described as a fascist party. Emeraude (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you can't use a party's past and previous ambitions as a moral weapon on them in the future. I noticed emmrulde you called everyone who dares say the BNP aren't the same as they used to be, "BNP apologists". Tut Tut! (xtheowlx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.172.158 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over this ad nauseam.If there is any more to add then, fine. I did find the website of the "American Fascist Movement", who would probably classify the BNP as Nazis (they don't like them). However this classification has also proved unpopular with a certain sub section of wikipedia users - unregistered as ever.--Streona (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really fascist? If you read their manifesto, they have very left-wing policies mixed with far-right racial policies. More of a National Socialist party than a fascist party (Kentish)

Well, exactly. The fascism of pre-war Europe is probably pretty close to the policies the BNP uses today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide a good definition of Fascism?. This article seems to be taken Fascism as any way of White Nationalism, which is not true.Eros of Fire (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because several reliable sources label the BNP fascist, it is labelled as fascism here. We don't make the calls, we just report those that do. Regards, the skomorokh 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, i think it is a problem in most other articles on white nationalism. Is there a standard for inclusion or something I should know?Eros of Fire (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with something as explicit as "Fascism is...". Eros of Fire (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a problem with Wikipedia's article on white nationalism generally. Wikipedia aspires to a neutral point of view, which in effect means a mainstream POV, and in most cases mainstream media have no interest in accurately reporting anything that can be simply labelled fascist/neo-Nazi/supremacist etc. The "standard for inclusion" is WP:WEIGHT, which warns against giving too much voice to minority viewpoints. The reason this article does not include a definition of fascism is because it would be out of place in an article about a British political party; similarly, our article on the Democratic Party (United States) does not include a definition of democracy. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with Wikipedia's article on Fascsim, though as a political scientist I would have to say that it is pretty basic. Get into a good libray and make use of the index. (Better still, study political science or philosophy!) I would add that Fascism is NOT synonymous with white nationalism and need not even be racist, though most European and North American examples have been. Emeraude (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if these will be enough arguments to remove the fascist label from Ideology'" infobox section of this article, anyways, here I go:

• BNP has not expressed any wish to create a totalitarian government on GB. If you can find a source where BNP accepts it is going to establish a totalitarian government, you are welcomed.
• Fascism is not the same of White Nationalism.
• The Media calls everyone from the right a fascist. I have read a lot of articles calling George W. Bush a fascist, even although he is a light-right neocon. If BNP is going to be declared a fascist by Wikipedia on these grounds, why not Bush. I think Wikipedia is not being fair with the BNP in this issue. I can bring lots of links of articles stating Bush is fascist if needed.
• I think the meaning of Fascism has diluted with time.

Should it be enough?

While I would accept something like "BNP was fascist" (Tyndall was probably a true fascist), I do not think the 200 000 persons that voted BNP on 2005 are a bunch of hateful jobless bigots, indeed, I think Andrew Glover is just an example of the current face of the BNP. To Keep the "fascist" label on this article is just to follow the game of the mainstream media Eros of Fire (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making things up. The media does not, as you claim, call everyone from the right a fascist. In fact, they rarely call anyone a fascist! Of course the BNP has not expressed a wish to create a totalitarian government. Its aim currently is to achieve power through the electoral system, so no way is it going to say "Vote for us and never ever vote again". The infobox refrences are cast iron, academic sources. Over and over again, those like you who claim the BNP is not fascist have been invited to provide a single contrary quality reference that it is not fascist - to no avail, quite simply because none exists, and, trust me on this, I've looked in the journals. (See the archives of this discussion page over the last two years.) I've also seen people say Bush is a fascist. They're wrong. There is no independent evidence to support this and that's why Wikipedia does not say Bush is a fascist. On the other hand, there is justification in the case of the BNP. "The meaning of Fascism has been diluted with time." yes, it has in some circles. That well-known anti-fascist George Orwell even said this 60 years, but that does not mean we cannot use it accurately and precisely. Emeraude (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK,. I wll search a high-quality reference that says BNP is not fascist. I hope there should be one! By the way, I am not making this up, I am presenting facts!Eros of Fire (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on what will be a fruitless journey. What you made up was this: "The Media calls everyone from the right a fascist". Perhaps you can find a high-quality reference for that as well. Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt whether or not the BNP is a "fascist" party. There seems to be a determination to label the BNP as "fascist" because of the overt negativity associated with that label. The BNP has very-left wing policies, according to the manifesto and website, mixed with racial policies, normally associated with the far right and far left. Shouldn't the BNP be considered a nationalistic socialist party rather than fascist? Mussolini's fascism wasn't hallmarked with racism until much later, after links with Hitler developed. (Kentish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Socialist Party is what the Nazis were called, im sure thered be some strong opposition to calling it that as well. I agree the term might be better than fascist, because despite the BNPs flaws and disgusting policies they do not fit the definition of "Fascism" on wiki. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a fault with Wikipedia's definition of fascist. It's used here in the BNP article as understood by political science academics, hence the citations given. I would be interested to know of these "cery-left wing policies" the BNP has,but, in any case, the fascist label concerns philosophy/ideology, not pragmatic policy, and in this regard the BNP ticks all the boxes for fascism. As fo "nationalistic socialist", is that National Socialism? Is that not fascist anymore??? Emeraude (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmeraude, you called us lot BNP apologists for saying the BNP isn't fascist. when a peer review was heald, the person agreed that fascism should be removed. Yet you put it back up.

Biass dummy- (chris) Signing anonymous edit by Special:Contributions/89.168.226.64 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008

This is a personal attack. I categorically did not say what you attribute to me. What I wrote, in connection with the not unreasonable request that references were needed to remove the fascism tag was that "These have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed". You will notice the word 'and' because I have bolded it for you. Secondly, regardless of what the peer review said, it matters not one jot that "the person agreed" - what person? To repeat, countless references all acceptable to the rigourous standards of Wikipedia, say the BNP is fascist. In fact, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it could be argued that one is enough, but in any case there at least four given in the article. And there is still no citation to say the BNP is not not fascist - nil, zero, nought. Until you or someone else comes up with a reliable, third party, independent, academic reference there is nothing to debate. Emeraude (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i am not a BNP apologist, i despise them just so people know my point of view but i dont feel there is much justification for keeping the term fascist. Whilst the BBC is meant to be unbiased its not like the organisation has no points of views be it on far right parties such as the BNP or climate change. Nobody could read this article and think its painting the BNP in a positive light, id support removing the fascist label as it is very controversial and debatable and for people to focus more on the article itself which is far from perfect. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we, the encyclopedia, label a group we need to be very careful to stick to terms that are not contentious. So I'd support removing "fascist" from the infobox. However to maintain NPOV we need to report on all significant points of view. So in the text of the article it's appropriate and even necessary to discuss the view that the group is fascist. In that discussion we can clearly attribute the views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, maybe after the bit saying "The BNP is rebuked and ostracized by mainstream politicians etc" something like and is labelled fascist by organisations and media such as the BBC etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This has been discussed ad nauseam - see archives. The questions to ask are really evry simple. Are there reliable, independent third party sources that say the BNP is fascist? Yes. Are they cited in the infobox? Yes? Are there similar sources that say the BNP is not fascist? No. "We, the encyclopedia", did not label the BNP fascist: the sources did. "Fascist" is not contentious - it is used here (and in the sources) in a way clearly defined and understood by political scientists. Whether it is "labelled fascist by organisations and media such as the BBC" (why BBC particularly?) is totally irrelevant - it IS fascist and is so labelled by the academic sources that we cite. Emeraude (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no one who has disputed the label then it probably isn't contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been disputed, but only with non-arguments such as "I don't think it should be there" or "It's sometimes used perjoratively" etc. No one has done what has has been repeatedly requested of the objectors - to provide sources that the BNP is NOT a fascist body. Emeraude (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources which give the definition of Fascist and comparing that to the BNP policies do not fit in with the term (even if they have a hidden agenda and secretly are fascist which i accept they probably are). Whilst i hate the BNP my concern is the lack of balanced view on this article (both the term fascist and the article itself) simply helps the BNP as they claim they are treated unfairly by the mainstream media and websites such as this which is justified.

The BBC is a reliable source on many issues but when it comes to the BNP they do show bias. For example information by the Israeli government may be used on wikipedia but it doesnt mean that the Israeli government would be a valid and unbiased source when it comes to issues on Palestine. There are certain instances when even reliable sources are bias sadly.

Lack of balance just leads to more distrust and isolates their voters who feel the only source they can trust is the BNP itself and that is far more dangerous. This article could present the BNP in a far more neutral way whilst explaining their policies and showing just how radical, crazy and impossible their plans and leadership really are. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there are plenty of sources giving a definition of fascism and some of them are even accurate! However, comparing those with the party's policies is not sufficient. The issue at stake is the party's idology - the two are not the same whether we are talking about the BNP, Labour or any other party. You have suggested that the BNP is secretly fascist which, in itself, means that looking at its public policies, as expressed for example in election manifestos, will not do. I'm still unsure what you're getting at with the BBC, but in any case the sources cited for the BNP's fascism are not the BBC or any other possibly biased media but reputable academics, so use of the term 'fascist' is definitely not unbalanced. In fact, as the article makes clear, the BNP denies its fascits nature, which I personally think may be taking balance a bit far the other way! As for your suggestion that the article could be rewritten in a way that would show "just how radical, crazy and impossible their plans and leadership really are" - surely to do that would in itself be tantamount to bias and original research. Emeraude (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the definition of fascism is so debatable why should we take a few academics view on this? How does someone define the BNPs party's ideology apart from looking at their policies and the statements and actions of their leadership? i have yet to see such things which fit with many descriptions of the word fascist. Radical, right wing, extremists yes... but fascist is far more difficult to pin on them. Just because people fear they are fascist doesnt mean its right to label them as such. The BNP policies speak for themselves, their policies are so radical if laid out clearly it would be difficult for most to support. Its like an article on child abuse, after reading such things you are going to be against it even if it was presented in a very balanced way.

I would rather see some of the BNP policies listed and then explained in detail including implications and views of both sides than just have a negative article labelling them as fascist. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their policies (from their elctoral manifesto and elsewhere) are listed and decsribed in the article. It would be wrong to label them all as "radical" (a term that is itself rather loaded). Support for the NHS? Funding for Special Schools? Hardly what is normally seen as hard core fascism, which is the problem with looking just at policies, and I repeat, this issue concerns the Ideology label in the infobox. Do not confuse the two.

There is a very good reason why we "should we take a few academics view on this". That is what encyclopaedias do. To do otherwise is to risk error, opinion, accusation of bias. I am happy to debate the fascism of the BNP with anyone, but not in an encyclopaedia! The task here is to write Wikipedia, and to support its contents with learned citations, as we have. Emeraude (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i wasnt suggesting labelling them as radical thats for people to make up their own mind on but most would view them as such. I know their main policies are mentioned but it could go into more detail about the major ones rather than just mentioning it. To list it as fascist is opening up the article to claims of bias and is also just stating opinion, even if they are respected academics. Anyway i still think its place would be in the article next to the BNP disputing they are facsist rather than labelling them as such, which does seem to get questioned and rejected by different people. If in the future more seek to have the term removed from the list, it should be considered but im ok with it staying till then. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I gave the impression I thought you wanted to label them 'radical'. Remember this is an encyclopaedia and that although "Wikipedia is not paper" it is not necessary to give every bit of detail on any subject. This article is already too long and expanding on policies would make it even more unwieldy - that section has been longer in the past. It is open to any reader who wants to know more about BNP policies to go to the BNP website or other sources which are linked in the article, as is the case with other political parties. You are probably right that there should be fuller detail of 'fascism in the article, but that does not affect the tag in the infobox, which is supposed to give brief, not detailed, summary. As for respected academics, that it the whole point of an encyclopaedia - what we write is evidenced by the experts. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look I think we need to get something straight here. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source. I was told earlier, when I tried to suggest that the BNP should not be labelled as fascist, that the fascist label was "well-sourced". Under this logic, I could go onto the Global Warming article and write "imaginary" in the infobox, and pick out over a hundred sources on the internet claiming that it is a farce, and then say that it's fact. Fascism is NOT one of their policies. Since it is not one of their official policies, and there is a large section of their supporters who I wouldn't call "fascist", we shouldn't put that. Anyway, this is pretty irrelevent here. I shouldn't have to argue for the BNP on this one. The point is that a party has to go behind the banner of a fascist party to be labelled fascist. Continuing with ridiculous examples, I could go onto the Democratic Party (USA) article and write communist in the infobox and find another 100 sources off the internet all agreeing with me. That does not mean that it is true. Therefore, stating that the BNP is fascist in the INFOBOX is opinion. Wikipedians must know the difference between fact and opinion if we are to have a NPOV. There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it.

I think if you want a "single contrary quality reference" you ought to go to [1]. IT IS NOT FOR WIKIPEDIANS TO "DECLARE" IF A PARTY IS FASCIST. Nor is it the job of "respected academics". So are you saying that their word counts as fact. Hitler went to University! How "respected" they are makes no difference to whether their opinion counts as fact. I'm not sure what "no independent evidence" means. The words "no" and "evidence" are easy to counter, just go to [2]. But now you're saying "independent". Well if that means independent from governments or official institutions then I believe my source provides evidence. If, however, you are talking about "unbiased", then I can't really see how you can hide behind you're four "respected acedemics". I'm not sure if the following article counts as "reliable" to some of you but here goes. [3].

On the subject of the BBC, I would say that yes, the BBC are a biased source on certain subjects. This should not be a problem if editors can differentiate between opinion and fact. Bias alone should not be problem, if care is taken and the other half of the story is coming from elsewhere.

I don't want to go into arguing why the BNP doesn't resemble fascism because it isn't remotely relevant to what we put in the infobox. However, how can you call giving Ghurkhas full citizenship "fascist". [4] (It's about half way down).

I havn't signed in but I'm User:HandGrenadePins --86.148.145.163 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want a "single contrary quality reference". I said that no one has responded to the inviataion to provide even a "single contrary quality reference", and that is because there are none. Trust me (i.e. apply the Wikipedia principle of "good faith") - I have searched the literature and there are no reliable sources that contradict those cited in the Infobox. There are, however, many more that support them. Citing the BNP is clearly not acceptable in this respect, though its denial is of interest and is included.

The fact that sources exist does not mean they are accurate, reliable, honest, factual, accepted or anything. Your definition of my logic is in itself illogical: following your argument I could provide sources that fairies exist or that unicorns are alive and well, but do we want to put that in Wikipedia!?

The sites you link are totally unacceptable as reliable sources. Blogs and discussion forums are never acceptable as supporting evidence - by definition they are places where users post their own personal opinions. The best sources are always those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, regardless of the subject. Examples in this context would be Comparative Political Studies , Comparative European Politics, The Political Quarterly, etc., and I do research in these regularly.

As for what "independent" means, that is pretty obvious. It has nothning to do with being independent of government or official institutions. It means independent of the subject matter, i.e. the BNP is not an independent source on the BNP.

You wroye "There is certainly a place for calling the BNP fascist, as anti-fascist groups make up a large proportion of their opponents, but we must put it into context. We cannot state it as fact, simply because their opponents say it." No. The case for calling the BNP fascist, I repeat, is that academic sources apply the label. Anti-fascists oppose the BNP becaus it is facist; they don't call it fascist because they oppose it!

By the way, where is the evidence for your assertion that Hitler, a high school failure and twice rejected for the Academy of Arts, went to university? Emeraude (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is my definition "illogical"? You have failed to provide me with a reason why my description of your logic is "in itself illogical". Indeed, under your logic we could provide sources that claim fairies exist! I never stated that those sources are particularly "reliable" sources. All I used them for was to prove to you that a contrary opinion exists and should be treated with equal consideration. In what way would you say that something written in a blog is less "reliable" than something published in a journal. You are also suggesting that simply because these people are "respected", we must take their opinion above everyone else?

As already stated, this does not effect whether the sources are factual or opinionated. The truth is that these sources cannot be seen as pure fact. It is like people writing "The bible is entirely true", or "the bible is entirely false". Both are a matter of opinion and, however much people can support their arguments with facts, they remain opinions, and should not be stated as facts. The infobox cannot be filled with individual opinions on the topic matter, regardless of how "independent" the sources are. You have stated that the BNP is a bad source for their political orientations, yet if we did this for all political parties across the world we would find a large number of parties labelled "neo-liberal", "neo-conservative", "fascist", "communist" etc. It is not for "independent" people to decide what is placed on the official infobox.

Let us therefore be cautious when we think about writing unofficial and libelous comments on their infobox. I am not saying that the infobox should be biased in favour of the BNP; simply including White Nationalism, Far right and the like should not show any particular bias, whereas including unofficial labels which the party itself finds offensive is showing bias.

Oh, and if you want another reason not to class this as fascist, then read the following guidelines taken from the Wikipedia:WikiProject fascism page:

For purposes of this project, I propose the following criteria:

In the case of a movement which came to power, such a movement shall be called "fascist" if it fulfills all of the following criteria:

1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
3. using propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
4. engaging in severe economic and social regimentation.
5. engaging in syndicalist corporatism.
6. implementing totalitarian systems.

In the more common case that such a movement did not or has not yet come to power, it shall be called "fascist" if it meets six of the following seven criteria:

1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
3. advocating propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
6. advocating totalitarian systems.
7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist movement.

Obviously there will be many POV arguments, and much debate as to whether a particular person or movement is in fact "fascist" by the correct definition of the word. It should be noted for more specific fields, which are not one and the same as Fascism, such as Nazism has its own separate set of categorys. --HandGrenadePins (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in the section, BNP difficulties with employment, says:

"In the case of ASLEF v. United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights overturned an employment appeal tribunal finding awarding a BNP train driver damages for expulsion. It found that the union was entitled to do so, and that this was not a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights."

This is incorrect. The ECHR case was brought by ASLEF, not the BNP member, and concerned the right of unions to decide who could or could not be a member. The court was examining whether the UK government was infringing the Convention by allowing courts to punish unions for exercising this right, and found in favour of ASLEF. There was no question of the BNP member's human rights being breached. I will alter the wording to reflect this.

In the same para, another editor has tagged the phrase "many have expelled them from the unions", asking that 'many' be specified (not unreasonable) and for a citation for the whole. The citation is really not necessary, since the following sentence on ASLEF effectively covers ths. As for many, I feel that altering this to some removes the need to specify, the ASLEF case again providing sufficient background along with the following paragraph about Unison. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether we need to have such a section on difficulties with employment, or at least whether it needs to be as long and detailed as it is. I've trimmed it down slightly, but still, it's like saying we should have a section in the Christianity article on issues which have arisen in the past, such as the British Airways cross controversy, or a section in Religion as a whole which lists the people that claim to have been sacked/rejected on account of their religious beliefs. Gammondog (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The section is over long and detracts from the main thrust of the article. It was put in, I believe, to quell accusations that BNP members were portrayed negatively in the article and that they were never presented as victims, but there is far too much. Emeraude (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section has become long- for which i am in a great part responsible. However given the subsequent furrre over the membership leak, this has become unexpectedly topical.--Streona (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found any reliable sources, but if this is true no doubt they'll be along soon. Please note I'm not affiliated with the BNP or their views, I'm just a wikipedian on the hunt for knowledge. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me.

I have already cited it as a reference. It's a rather better reference than a news article! 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Arpitt (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from above: "why is the leak not on the main page yet? sounds like significant news to me." It is on the page now, but the second part of this comment is very telling. Yes, it's NEWS. But this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Better to wait and see how significant its is when the dust settles. Emeraude (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user was probably referring to the In the News section on the Main page. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky news is reporting that Merseyside police constable Steve Bettley mentioned in the BNP article has been suspended, the article will need to be updated shortly stating that. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. There is no justification for including a link to the membership list in the article. It's easy enough to find it online independently anyway, via wikileaks, many servers and mirrors, and even as a torrent. WKP is an encyclopaedia, and linking to the membership list does not come under encyclopaedic information. In addition, I feel it's morally wrong to promote the dissemination of such personal detail of so many people against their will and without their permission, no matter what one thinks of them. Centrepull (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed the membership list contains very private information on 1000s of people and shouldnt be linked. Any general reference to its location shouldnt really be accepted on the article page either in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice: Someone is posting links to the BNP membership list in this page. I do not think it is good and may raise privacy concerns. Should this page be protected? Eros of Fire (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is now on Wikileaks so it's effectively in the public domain for good. You may as well put a link to it on the article. Here's the relevant page [link redacted Daniel (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.176.154 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That list is intelectal property of BNP. The fact someone posted it in a wiki does not make it public domain. It is like saying of I post a whole Harry Potter on wikipedia it becomes public domainEros of Fire (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source details where to find the list, we shouldn't link to it, for that simplest of reasons. Once that happens, though, it can be discussed. UK law would have no authority here, as WP is not under any UK jurisdiction. It would be a strictly internal decision on US law first, and our policies second. UK law is irrelevant. rootology (C)(T) 07:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be taking things too far, and other articles don't do the same. For example the Orkut article links to the site and does not need a "reliable source" to tell it where the site is, the same for Microsoft, Wictionary, etc. There is certainly a discussion to be had about whether to put up the link, but "needing a source" for something that is self verifiable should be part of the discussion. Besides which we would logically get into recursion, we would need a reliable source to say that the reliable source is reliable. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what would constitute a reliable source in this case Rootology? It's been online on for over 48 hours. Sheesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.209.122 (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not relivant however. If we had a complete list of Labour party memebers would wouldn't link to that either.Geni 10:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property? This is obviously using the adjective in a rather specialised sense, isn't it ? Have you ever read Lee barnes "epic" poetry?--Streona (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very strange expert legal opinions here, none fo whose providers will be getting my business. 1 Publishing anything, anywhere, does not place it in the public domain. If it's copyright, it's coyright. 2 Wikipedia may not be subject to English law, but its editors in Britain certainly are. (And any non-UK residents planning to visit ought to check their liability in this regard.) 3 "Intellectual property": I very much doubt that a list can be defined as such, though the database it came from is. 4 Quoting from copyright material for non-commercial academic purposes is specifically allowed (and, let's face it, Wikipedia could not exist otherwise).

Incidentally, now that the list is available online at Wikileaks, and BNP Leader Nick Griffin has declared that is genuine in several papers and on TV, it ought to be acceptable to say that X is/was a member of the BNP, citing the list and Griffin's statement of its provenance. But I would like a real legal expert to confirm this. Emeraude (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude's right. At the very least it requires someone higher in the Wikipedia food chain to make a decision on this as there seems to be a weakness in the decision making process at this level. It's a shame such a fairly straightforward issue is taking so long to resolve as the list obviously doesn't invade privacy as the data has been mirrored relentlessly for a couple of days now. Yesterday the UK cops were supposed to be scouring the lists to see if any of it's cohort were members so obviously they believe it's real. Like Emeraude said even the leader of the BNP has acknowledged it's validity so where on earth is the problem? Another factor to put in the mix. The controversy about the list has become part of the BNP's history. Because the leak has become a phenomena in it's very own right it should be seriously considered for inclusion. Take the http://bnpnearme.co.uk/ that appeared last night. It's a unique example of information activism. Perhaps these novel behaviors deserve a page entirely of their own?Irritant (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that whether it is legal to view Wikipedia in any particular country. I don't think viewing the list is illegal in the UK as long as you don't pass it on, but if we were to limit wikipedia to only what is legal in the UK, the United Arab Emirates, China, etc. there probably would not be much we could say about anything. -- Q Chris (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, says that he knows who leaked the full membership list of his far-Right organisation onto the internet...

Mr Griffin claimed that those responsible for posting the 12,000 names, along with a wealth of personal details, on Sunday night were extremists who felt that the line the party was taking under his leadership was too moderate..." Times: BNP leader Nick Griffin says he knows who leaked membership list. Nov 10, 2008^[1]

"The list is essentially genuine, but has been slightly modified..." BNP Website: Membership List Leak – Urgent Update from BNP leader Nick Griffin. Nov 18, 2008 ^[2]

The list has been in the wild for four days. This seems an unreasonable amount of time for a decision to be made either way on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irritant (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "I don't think viewing the list is illegal in the UK.." Quite right, but that's not the point I was making. For the record, it is not illegal to read anything in the UK. The issue is the law of libel, i.e. writing things in the UK. This country is renowned for having very draconian libel laws (to the extent that foreign litigants have brought actions against foreign writers in London for books published in the US and not available here on the grounds that someone could order it via Amazon!). If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law. It is, and you are. Being anonymous gives a degree of freedom, but are you sure a litigant can't find out who you are if they really want to. The solution is to avoid writing anything that you can't defend in a court of law, but then that is what all Wikipedia editors should be doing anyway under the policies of providing reliable, referenced information. Emeraude (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you are in the UK, do not expect that anything you write in US-based Wikpedia is not subject to English law." If you live in Scotland, you are covered by Scots law as well as UK-wide legislation, but not specifically by English law except in unusual and/or near-unique cases. As far as I know (from a years' study of law, admittedly not much to go on), the information on the database is not anybody's intellectual property, as it is devoid of any creative or technical input which would render it so. It is not libellous to state that an individual is a member of a particular political party when this is in fact the case. However, distributing the information from the database is likely to breach the Data Protection Act, as the information both makes it possible to identify any included individual, and is not guaranteed to be used solely for legal purposes by someone coming across the relevant webpage.

Therefore, linking's not such a good idea, if only for caution's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.25.39 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification (and for correcting me on not mentioning Scottish law). Are you sure though about the Data Protection Act? My understanding is that using information does not contravene the Act; the BNP has though almost certainly failed in its duties under the Act to protect the data it holds on individuals electronically. Emeraude (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify linking may not be a good idea for anyone in the UK juristiction, but that should not affect people outside the UK. Also, as far as the fact that it is on wikileaks goes that is in the public domain anyway, so I suspect someone could defend posting a link. This may not apply to the less well known copies. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please undo the last version of the article update. It included two links to the BNP members list. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the direct link to a hosted copy of the list. One of our important policies, WP:BLP, governs all aspects of how Wikipedia covers or mentions living persons. It isn't limited to articles, but also covers talk pages like this and even external links. It essentially says that we shouldn't link to sites that are aren't in the spirit of the BLP. The membership list contains the names and personal information about private, living people. If readers feel a compelling need to obtain the list, they can find one easily enough elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia that strives to respect living people and provide information which furthers the understanding of a topic. Linking to this list does neither, in my opinion. However, if there are other opinions those are welcome too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will, would of done it myself but still not allowed to edit semi protected pages yet :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with the ability to edit the article mention that PC Steve Bettley has been suspended following the BNP members list leak.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7740817.stm BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too happy about that; an enquiry has started, that's all. For all we know, someone has signed him up to the BNP as a prank, and in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, my inclination is not to fan the flames, but then I've practised law in the UK and realise the pitfalls. If someone out of the jurisdiction thinks it's a proper use of an encyclopedia article, er, fine. --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not of mentioned it but there are details on the main article under the members list leak, stating that he was on the list. There should atleast be a general update stating he has been suspended pending the force learning all the facts. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he probably is a BNP member, but that's not the point. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about the BNP, not a current affairs headlines grabber. It is not appropriate to make any edits to any article based simply on response to the latest news item (however accurate it may be). Emeraude (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He could be suspended for weeks whilst the enquiry is ongoing. A suspension is still an important implication of the BNP members list leak which gets mentioned on the page. The issue is no longer "breaking news" BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be mentioned: it's factual, cited and significant. If we ignore it, the credibility of this article, and thus WP, is diminished. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? The Sun way or the Daily Express way? Let Wikinews deal with current events; we can, and should, afford to take a longer and wider view. --Rodhullandemu 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported by the BBC, not the Sun; and if people come here for more background, having read that, and see we don't report it, then they know we only have half of the story. As for privacy, that cat is well out of the bag. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he has been suspended is not gossip, a statement was given by the police force in question. In no way is it calling him a member of the BNP, it is simply saying he has been suspended whilst inquiries are ongoing. I agree with your tone when it comes to the gutter press, but these are reliable sources such as the BBC BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worthwhile to say that a police officer has been suspended. I don't see any value in naming him. It's his job that is relevant, not his identity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "if people come here for more background...." "and see we don't report it". Precisely. They've come here for background, not to read the same news here that they've already seen reported in the Sun/Mail/Guardian/BBC. Let's concentrate on providing the background, i.e. an article that explains what the BNP is and why membership of the BNP being revealed might be embarrassing. In a year's time, this will be a complete non-event. Leave it to the news media and let an encyclopaedia be encyclopaedic. Emeraude (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policemans name has been on the main article for over a day. It is listed under the BNP Memberslist leaks section. It states the police are looking into it, which is why it seems reasonable to add he has been suspended. If current news can not be updated or mentioned on wiki maybe the whole section on "Memberslist leak" should be deleted from the article. There are other parts of this article talking about employment troubles for BNP members. I dont see how its possible to view a police officer being suspended as unworth or not important enough to be included BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe the whole section on "Memberslist leak" should be deleted" Actually, I'm inclined to agree, or at least reduce it to the bare mention that the membership list was lost/stolen and leaked and this has caused embarrassment for the BNP and its members. No need for more at this stage: wait and see what actually happens and concentrate then on what will be of lasting significance. I'm sure something will be, but exactly what is significant in the long term has yet to emerge. Emeraude (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the fact suspended has now been added, but i do not see the need to remove the police officers name, which is now fully in the public domain. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What value does the name add to readers interested in the BNP? He is not a public figure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Up to a point. This article is about the BNP; notable members thereof have their own articles, but mostly because they have achieved notability through choice or otherwise; this guy, even assuming that it all falls into place and the name on the list is that of the PC, and was placed there by him, is not notable. There are plenty of other websites for witch-hunts, but I don't think this is one of them; WP:BLP enjoins us to be conservative, and in the case of doubt, we should refrain from identifying individuals, if only for our own legal protection. We are not a scandal-sheet, and as I've already pointed out, Wikinews is better at dealing with short-term issues. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing it will be easier to follow up on the outcome of the investigation if the name is included (which might clear him). If it was only the gutter press which were naming the man then i would agree with you. But this is mainstream press all across the United Kingdom, there is tons of information on wiki pages which may not seem important to most people but they still remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been named by his own employer, a police force. Somehow, I think that they will be fairly safe legal ground. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside Police on "safe legal ground"? Sorry, my experience working there says otherwise. And it goes back to 1974. --Rodhullandemu 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Do you wish to declare an interest? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i can live with the change that has been made, my main concern was the fact the officer had been suspended and it was not listed on the main page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that in the following days several more people will be suspended or fired from their jobs. Just because we're legally allowed to say something doesn't mean we have to say it. This is an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[EC] Note to Rodhullandemu: Referring to edits as "good faith" doesn't give you a licence to revert them as you please, nor does the fact that some people argue on a talk against the inclusion of a piece of cited information make it OK for you to repeatedly remove that information from the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is Rodhullandemu, the officers name had been on the main page for over a day and there was no consensus to remove it in the first place, infact nobody had even objected to it being on there (from what i saw) until i mentioned he had been suspended. There are certainly no legal issues with including the name, its fully in the public domain and again any change would not of declared him a BNP member, simply said he had been suspended whilst being investigated. If this issue was put to a vote for the time being there would be no consensus either way, but as its 1am and most normal people with any interest on this subject should probably be in bed we can wait and see what happens during the day and whats agreed. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested might happen, the next wave of revelations is coming out. "Former Labour, Tory and Lib Dem members on BNP list". If we want to "name names", then these politicians, already public figures, would be better candidates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't originally remove the name in any case. --Rodhullandemu 08:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who deleted the name originally, but I deleted it recently.[5] We don't need to get this right today. Let's be cautious and see how this develops. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly not to have something that is on the [Front page of the Sun Newspaper] complete with his photographs of him. They would certainly had their legal team clear it. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the Sun routinely prints pictures of people on their front page who are not mentioned in Wikipedia. They have different standards and a different purpose than we do. This isn't a legal decision, it's an editorial decision. This is just one incident in the history of the BNP. It may turn out to be pivotal or it may be a nine-day scandal, only time will tell. While our main job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, we also have to use discretion and judgment. If we're going to report on the elected members of government, then we ought to scrimp on space elsewhere. This policeman is a "nobody", thrust into fame. Other people, like the sports announcer and these party members, are apparently public figures. While the policeman's story is getting lots of press at the moment because he's the first to get suspended, I doubt he'll be the last. Let's see how this story develops and summarise the material with the weight it deserves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not just reports, like the ones on former Labour / Conservative members found in the gutter press. The specific issue of this police officer has been reported by the entire news media, including reliable sources used as sources on 1000s of wikipages. It is also not against the rules for "former members" of political parties to be members of the BNP, it is against the rules for a member of the police force. I do not see the danger of including his name which is fully in the public domain, wikipedia will certainly be the least of his and his families worries. There are no legal implications because the changes were not saying he "is" a BNP member, simply saying he has been suspended until the inquiry is completed which was a statement by a spokesman for the police force in question.

I do not understand why you seem so concerned to keep his name off the main article, it will make no difference to the person in question but as a couple of you feel strongly about this issue and in fairness to the guys family i accept the article can be left as it is until further details arise, such as the outcome of the inquiry. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we're so focused on this one person among the 12,000 names on the list. I don't have a problem with the name, per se. It's the amount of space we're devoting that is bothersome. I've been around Wikipedia for a few years and I've seen how articles evolve, including this one. This isn't a topic we can easily split off into a new article, ("2008 British National Party membership list leak"?) so it's best to keep it short enough to fit in the main article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I've added the name but shortened the text. While I think this guy is a minor factor in all of this, he is the first one to be suspended which may make him the "poster boy" for this incident. Let's see how it goes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that seems a good compromise and it fits in well with the section. Only other thing would be to include a source for the actual suspension as the other link was the day before. Either the BBC link i posted above or another reliable source. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies and verifiability, we should not add to the article anyone from the leaked list unless they have also been mentioned in secondary sources such as the media. A list such as this may contain errors or coincidentally shared names, or have other issues which make it a problematic primary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there is no grounds to name people on this article who were on the BNP members list that have not been the subject of huge media attention by the national press and whos names are clearly in the public domain (like the PC / radio DJ). The BNP members list is a gross invasion of privacy and should not be linked to on this website, i dont understand the need for the informal mediation, theres no justification for including the list. It should be pointed out for those who do not realise, the list contains not just names, but addresses, phone numbers and in somecases even lists minors. There has been no major debate on this page about including the list or linking to it, the consensus is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the list is quite another matter. Whether or not we approve of the content of any information in the public domain is irrelevant, the list exists and we must not pretend that it doesn't. JaneVannin (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list has to be mentioned and the effects of the leaked list has to be clear but there is no grounds for an actual link to a list which grossly invades peoples privacy. This would be the case if 10000s of names, addresses or phone numbers of any political party were placed on the internet. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are grounds for it's link - the list is the primary source for the part of the article which refers to it. As such it is normal to have a referring link. But, in either case, grounds or no, it's inclusion as a link is clearly something which - as you rightly say - needs debating here so that consensus can be reached. JaneVannin (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The list is a primary source for itself only and has no bearing on its leaking per se, which is the principal topic of that section. That it has been leaked is adequately sourced by reliable secondary sources, as are the effects it has had on some people on it. That is the extent to which this article should go, on the basis of WP:BLP, which here trumps most, if not all, other policies. --Rodhullandemu 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rodhullandemu. I've already given a complete explanation above, under #Protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

• Cohen, Noam (2008-11-24). "Link by link: In Britain, Outwitting Strict Laws Against Libel". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2008-11-24. A small computer file appeared on the Internet last week, purporting to list the 13,000 members of the racist, far-right British National Party. ... A host for the list is Wikileaks, a site that has become a home for orphaned material, ... (After much debate, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is unrelated to Wikileaks, has not linked to the material.)

I have no doubt that the WP article will be read by many people, including those involved directly or indirectly and even the press. Let's make sure we get it right. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny looking at the graph showing article traffic and the huge spike that took place on the 19th with over 50,000 viewing the page. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/British_National_Party BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's typical of topics which hit the news. The average last month was about 1000 views per day, so it's still running four times normal. I see some press accounts that mention other people, at least by occupation, and it'd be worthwhile to list those briefly. Something like, "Other people on the list have included a vicar, a prison guard, members of the Labour and and Conversative Parties, ..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful! You mean former members don't you? And, if you study the list, most of the sensitive occupations are actually prefixed with ex- or retired. Personally, I see no point in listing occupations at all. The signficant point about this episode is that the List was lost/found/stolen/leaked and not the detail of what it actually contains. Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us familiar with Redwatch will know that much of the material the fascist-right publish on their opponents is wrong or out of date. The problem with this list is that there may be people on it quite innocently or even with similar names. One of them even has my name - but its a different address. If people can be directed to another site fine, but I do not think wikipedia should underwrite the truth of this list without further verification. As far as I am aware I do not know of any attacks on BNP alleged members, but I understand that BNP sympathisers have threatened the host of the bnpmembership.blogspot and they have taken down the list If I can source this I can post it on the article. It is available elsewhere--Streona (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the introductory paragraph to Section 1: History, the first instance of the abbreviation NF should be clarified as NF(National Front). I would have made this minor edit myself had I the privilege level to do so. I suggest that someone with such privilege make this change to make the text clearer for those of us not already familiar with UK party abbreviations. Godhner (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the heads-up; I switched the sections around but didn't address the link successions. And don't worry about "privilege levels"; you will be able to edit semi-protected pages once your account is four days old and had made ten edits. Regards, the skomorokh 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhh. This really irritates me. Why can't people just look at EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view. No, they are not "fascists". They are only "fascists" if they call themselves that. The American Republican party call the Democrats "communists" but I don't see that on Obama's page do I. We are not here to teach people NOT to vote BMP. They can vote whatever they want. That's why the UK is a democratic institution and should be treated as such. Personally, I find the BMP a dispicable bunch of people, but they still have a right to be treated neutrally.--81.151.248.191 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term fascist is reliably sourced, i agree this page is hardly neutral but its like trying to paint the Nazis in WW2 as the good guys. If you can make suggestions on how to improve the article to make it seem fairer, u should suggest it here and see if theres an agreement. There is only 1 possible thing i could think might be added as a good thing for the BNP and thats their support for allowing the Ghurkas to get British citizenship and stay in this country. Im sure Griffin has said he supports that, but i cant find their actual policy committment on it, otherwise i would of added it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term fascist is, as BritishWatcher says, reliably sourced. But we need to get away from any suggestion that you can only be fascist if you say you are fascist. What next? You can only be a war criminal if you say you're a war criminal? You can only be racist if you say you're racist? You can only be tall if you say you're tall? This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Things are described as they are, not as the subjects would wish them to be seen! Emeraude (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that "fascist" is a potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory term, so it can be used to push agendas (in this case, the liberal one), breaking the NPOV. For a true fascist party, see National Front. They accept they are fascist. The BNP itself denies they are fascist, I read it somewhere in the official web site, I will put a link when a find it.Eros of Fire (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any word you use is "potentially derogatory/harmful/inflamatory", but so what? If I say that William the Conqueror was a bastard, I am not being insulting. If I say that Margaret Thatcher was a fascist bastard, I'm wrong on both counts. I repeat, this is an encyclopaedia; we are grown-up enough to use words accurately and precisely with their real meaning, and backed up from reliable academic sources. Incidentally, I don't think you'll find that the NF accepts (publicly) that it's fascist. And there's no need to link the BNP's denial; it's already mentioned in the article. Emeraude (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst us Anglo Saxon history types we only ever refer to William as 'William the Bastard'. He was never known as the Conqueror in his lifetime -either "the Great" by his supporters or to his face and "the Bastard" by everyone else.--Streona (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get back on topic... Streona, are you one of the people who can edit this article (seeing that it is locked)? Your open hostility to this group suggests to the observer that perhaps you should restrain yourself and leave this article to more neutral editors. Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.181 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem we have here is that to most neutral commentators, the BNP are seen as somewhat extreme, and this article will doubtless attract both opponents and supporters whose attitudes are proportionate to a perceived disparity of opinion. My experience here is that there is little new in this. This encyclopedia is littered with sorry histories of politically-based edit-wars, of which Liancourt Rocks is perhaps the most pointless in generating drama way beyond its actual importance - except to those with an axe to grind, perhaps. There comes a time when enough is enough, and edit-warring has to be "kicked upstairs" for wider review. For this article, I don't think that time is nigh; compared with some, it is relatively well-behaved. Robust debate is healthy, but pig-headedness isn't, in my view. As for "more neutral" editors, only those who are interested will edit the article, and it seems to me to be almost a given that a neutral point of view, at least among British editors, would be unlikely. So what matters at the end of this, is whether what is said here about the BNP is reliably sourced, and whether its inclusion is encyclopedic. I don't think, for the record, that personal attacks, however neutrally couched, are of much help. NPOV in this case requires give and take on both sides. --Rodhullandemu 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the arguement over the BNP aparently being a fascist movement. I suggest (again) that it be put in brakets 'Denied by BNP' OR 'disputed' with a link to this wikipedia article that argues over the definitions of fascism. I think this would be fair and make this article look a little less biass (which it very much is).

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.21.230 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See archive for discussion of this point ad nauseam - it has been rejected time and again for very good and valid reasons. To summarise: the infobox is the place is to give brief data; any debate over that data belongs in the article. The "Fascism" tag is clearly and reliably referenced. There are no references that the BNP is not fascist, despite repeated requests. What the BNP says about itself is not reliable in this sense and would be blatant POV. The BNP saying it is not fascist equates to a criminal pleading guilty; we would not put "Murderer (denied by XXXX)". Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right Emmurald the last time this article had a peer review fascism was removed, but you put it back on calling those who say they aren't fascists 'BNP appolgists' It wasn't rejected, but only stopped, by you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too much to ask the few who can edit this article to add a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? As a glance at this discussion alone shows it most certainly is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.70.151 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you give suggestions on how to improve the article and make it more neutral. I agree this article isnt neutral, but i am struggling to see what could be done to improve it apart from deleting everything and starting again. Make the suggestions and if they are valid they can be included, and if someone refused to allow it to be added we can stick the disputed sign up. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't though, the moment we dare hange it Emmeruld will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.136.175 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a suggestion about the general content (not how its described in the info box) and we will see if theres any support. If its a valid suggestion im sure Emmeruld wont block the alteration, this article is in major need of a cleanup so any improvements should be welcomed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the anonymous rants above refer to, but seeing as I have been personally attacked let's be clear about a few things: The citations attesting to the BNP's fascism are cast iron and there are no references - despite repeated requests - to the contrary!! None!! So the description stays until some reliable sources say otherwise, regardless of any opinions given in peer reviews. Incidentally, once again please read what I wrote: I categorically did NOT describe people who oppose the use of "fascism" as "BNP apologists". What I wrote was that sources for a change in BNP ideology "have been repeatedly requested from the BNP apologists and those who argue that it has changed" (see Archive 11). If you can't read what I wrote, and refuse to understand it, then you are hardly capable of engaging in meaningful debate. As to the peer review, which was conducted by Ruhrfisch and posted on 22 September 2008, he nowhere even mentions "fascism"; nor did he remove it. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to BritishWatcher, I agree that there is scope for improving this article. At the moment, many sections are unnecessarily long (e.g. BNP difficulties with employment), rambling and of dubious significance. Funnily enough, the main reason seems to be that editors have gone too far out of their way to be "fair" to the BNP, resulting in far too much detail being included. My own position is clear: I am opposed to the BNP because of its fascist nature and I make no secret of this. I'm not an activist though; I don't even always vote. I am concerned that all articles in Wikipedia are accurate and even-handed. As a graduate and one-time teacher of political science I am fully aware of the nature of bias, which is partly why I have never added or removed substantive content to this article: most of my edits have been removal of mindless vandalism, updating or finding of references, removal of unreferenced claims, copyediting to improve readability, punctuation, garmmar, etc.. I will support all suggested edits to improve the article that have genuine consensus, backed up with reliable sources, and my history in this page supports that. There have been efforts to do so in the past, but they have come to nothing because the "BNP apologists" always seem to leave the debate when they see what a consensus looks like! Emeraude (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraude, you must then agree that this article needs a, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" box? A look at this discussion shows it definately is disputed. Please add this now, Britwatcher, in the name of even handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.146.148 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I don't agree. I don't see anything in the article that can be disputed from a "neutrality" viewpoint. My point is to do with the quality of the article, which I have said suffers because a previous excessive attempt to make it appear neutral. Quite simply, the article is too long in many sections but earlier attempts to address this (see archives passim) have been resisted by people objecting that removing text would cast the BNP in a less sympathetic light; others have added whole chunks (e.g. to employment, policies and other sections) with the same laudable but unnecessary intent.Emeraude (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]