This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GDallimore (talk | contribs) at 12:57, 10 May 2010 (→Sources and numbers: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:57, 10 May 2010 by GDallimore (talk | contribs) (→Sources and numbers: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Fascism
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British National Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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, 27Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Anti-Semitic?
I think not, they have Jews in the party as the candidate for Neath, Michael Green, is Jewish; the candidate for Hastings and Rye is Nick Prince who is Jewish and for Epping Forest, Patricia Richardson is Jewish as well. So stop categorising the party as "anti-Semitic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 19:24, 26 April 2010
- That is not how it works. We report what is found in reliable sources, and do not conduct original research. TFD (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I do not care what sources you have used, to be anti-Semitic is to hate Jews, is that what the party has done? No, it has thrown no hatred to Jews at all and making references to Griffin makes no difference because he said that before he was chairman.
Much as I loathe the BNP, unless I've missed something it's not exactly well-sourced in the article that the party is anti-Semitic. Indeed, it claims "The party has stated that it does not consider the Jewish, Hindu or Sikh religions to have a significantly detrimental or threatening effect, having several members with Jewish ancestry". I agree with the Holocaust denial category though; sourced even without the Nick Griffin factor. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, NatDemUK has been adequately warned not to edit-war yet has continued to do so and is now blocked for 31 hours. Rodhullandemu 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh aye, not arguing that; I just wonder if he's possibly got a point about that category. Generally, pejorative categories need a higher bar of sourcing than most; I'm sure that there is a level of anti-Semitism in the BNP but it would still be OR without sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good block as (i) he was edit warring and (ii) arguing from his own personal experience. Holocaust denial is sourced, we need to look at anti-semitism. The BNPs claims here (especially in the build up to an election) are not a reliable enough source. There are plenty of references to say that since 2008 it has been trying to portray itself differently, however there is no third party source I can find which says its leader has actually changed. I haven't been able to check it, but this could be significant: "Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore.... when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on.... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness." Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP, writing in the Patriot, Spring 1999." --Snowded 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can one use a category for an article on a party based only on the views of its leader, though? That sounds very dubious to me - what if the BNP changed it's leader tomorrow to one that we couldn't source as anti-semitic? Just seems to me that we need a little more than Griffin's ramblings to source the category. Tricky one. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its a good (ish) point and I would prefer not to rely on it. However the leader has considerable power in the BNP (see the stuff on the constitution) and in the quote he is talking about what should be taught to the hard core. As you say, tricky!--Snowded 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- "The British National Party (BNP, the political heir to the fascist, racist, anti-Semitic National Front of the 1970s that temporarily gained some noticeable electoral support) today remains virtually the only relevant extreme right party in Britain. With the exception of a few local and regional elections in the 1990s, the BNP, which portrays itself as somewhat more "democratic" than its European counterparts, although it never really surpassed its original proto-Nazi mould, has always performed poorly." ("The New Politics of Prejudice: Comparative Perspectives on Extreme Right Parties in European Democracies". Contributors: Lars Rensmann - author. Journal Title: German Politics and Society. Volume: 21. Issue: 4. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 93+. COPYRIGHT 2003 Berghahn Books, Inc.; COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group TFD (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Its a good (ish) point and I would prefer not to rely on it. However the leader has considerable power in the BNP (see the stuff on the constitution) and in the quote he is talking about what should be taught to the hard core. As you say, tricky!--Snowded 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can one use a category for an article on a party based only on the views of its leader, though? That sounds very dubious to me - what if the BNP changed it's leader tomorrow to one that we couldn't source as anti-semitic? Just seems to me that we need a little more than Griffin's ramblings to source the category. Tricky one. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good block as (i) he was edit warring and (ii) arguing from his own personal experience. Holocaust denial is sourced, we need to look at anti-semitism. The BNPs claims here (especially in the build up to an election) are not a reliable enough source. There are plenty of references to say that since 2008 it has been trying to portray itself differently, however there is no third party source I can find which says its leader has actually changed. I haven't been able to check it, but this could be significant: "Of course we must teach the truth to the hardcore.... when it comes to influencing the public, forget about racial differences, genetics, Zionism, historical revisionism and so on.... we must at all times present them with an image of moderate reasonableness." Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP, writing in the Patriot, Spring 1999." --Snowded 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh aye, not arguing that; I just wonder if he's possibly got a point about that category. Generally, pejorative categories need a higher bar of sourcing than most; I'm sure that there is a level of anti-Semitism in the BNP but it would still be OR without sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The following links go a long ways toward proving the party's anti-semitism:
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article420930.ece
- http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/can+bnp+bury+their+antijewish+past/3202962
- http://books.google.com/books?id=qps14mSlghcC&pg=PA178&dq=BNP+%22anti-semitism%22&cd=4#v=onepage&q=BNP%20%22anti-semitism%22&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=8pqYrNcCj04C&pg=PA181&dq=BNP+%22anti-semitism%22&lr=&cd=26#v=onepage&q=BNP%20%22anti-semitism%22&f=false
---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. They should probably be mentioned in order to source the category, then. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article could do with more detail about the BNP during the 1990s, which was the period when they were overtly anti-Semitic. These days they don't tend to bang on about Jews as much (at least as a party, there's ample evidence of individual members talking too much) probably because there's no votes in it unlike banging on about radical Islam. The fact remains though that during the 1990s they very much were anti-Semitic (and that isn't just an observation made by editors based on their Holocaust denial) so the category is a valid one. 2 lines of K303
- All of those links were from the media which were clearly biased. "Denial" of the Holocaust does not make you a hater of Jews, it just means that you deny a historical fact. End of story. There has been no anti-Semitism at all in the BNP, so whatever the media says, it is pure rubbish.
- So everyone is biased except BNP members? WIkipedia works from sources --Snowded 09:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- All of those links were from the media which were clearly biased. "Denial" of the Holocaust does not make you a hater of Jews, it just means that you deny a historical fact. End of story. There has been no anti-Semitism at all in the BNP, so whatever the media says, it is pure rubbish.
I'm pretty sure that holocaust denial and the meetings with the KKK make decent basis to call Nick Griffin himself Anti-Semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.219.19 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Bringing in-line with SNP page
The membership figure is for April '09 and from here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/19/bnp-membership-list-constituency
Can someone please link the "Youth wing" bit to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/Young_BNP
Aas I can't get it to work. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
HQ
A post ofice box is a postal adress only. This needs chagning.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The SNP page is the same just a postal address. The one I put in for the BNP is the main address given on their webpage i.e. no road/street given. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Its not the same, the SNP have a full address not a PO box. The BNP) address is purley a postal address, it is not a physical HQ.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 87.194.46.41, 6 May 2010
The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party formed please change to: The British National Party (BNP) is a Nazi front formed 87.194.46.41 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Not done You cite no source for this, and such an edit would require a cast-iron source. Rodhullandemu 19:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
5th most popular party in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.18.126 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Election section
Is it just me or is the election section a bit of a jumble - it has a 'local election' and a 'local govt' section - maybe merge, rewrite and update (for example they were wiped out in many places yesterday). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Dead link
The link to the 2010 manifesto is dead. Can someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.241.177 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- The BNP seem to be running a post-election placeholder over their site. I've changed the link to a hosted version by Scribd, though when they have a proper website again it may be worth switching back to avoid third-party bias. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sources and numbers
Firstly, and most importantly, there is a edit war going on about the number of local seats the BNP currently has. The editor changin it to 28 is correct. The BBC source is misleading since it only includes the seats which were contested at the recent elections, not seats that were already held. However, a more reliable source is needed to confirm this. Until then, I suggest just stopping the edit war.
Secondly, there's disagreement within the article over how many parliamentary candidates were fielded. We have one unreliable source (a blog) which says 338 and an unsourced table which says 339.
We need to go looking for sources before doing any more editing about the election results, people! GDallimore (Talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Categories: