Talk:British National Party/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Ministers attempt to address fears over immigration in bid to counter BNP

November 30th 2009. Communities Secretary John Denham comments are the latest attempt by ministers to address fears over immigration in Labour heartlands, and confront the threat from the British National Party.They follow a speech by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this month in which he said it was 'not racist' to talk about immigration. Government bodies and councils have been 'blind' to the needs of white working class communities, a Cabinet minister said today. Communities Secretary John Denham called for a new focus on the needs of poor whites affected by mass immigration. Read more: [1] Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Something should be added regarding the mainline political parties, at least labour, (the tory party are already right wing), attempting to address peoples fears regarding immigration as a reaction to the threat of rise in support of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP does not own immigration as an issue. You are in danger of producing OR or a synthesis. You need to find more than one Daily Mail article on this, and you need to show the relevance to this article, then come up with a form of words which doesn't endorse the BNP. --Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The BNP might not own immigration as a policy but here in this citation the minister directly refers to the lack of immigration control and the rise in popularity of the BNP as cause and effect. There is absolutely nothing at all or or sy about it, all the comments are directly from the citation. It is actually very relevant to the article, I will post here more citations as this is enlarged on, the mainstream political parties accepting that their failure to address immigration worries has been (in their opinion) one of the reasons in the rise in popularity of the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable third party citation to support that so don;t synthesis reports. I also suggest you draft and edit here so others can comment. --Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly posted a citation concerning this position and all the comments I posted at the top of this section are from the citation. The daily mail is reliable, I am opening the discussion here, anyone who has more citations to support can feel free to add more links. Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Daily Mail is not always reliable; in fact it is probably one of the least reliable British dailies. However, this talk page is for discussing the BNP article, not the Daily Mail's comments on a Labour Party minister which do not belong in the article, so this whole section is really out of order. Emeraude (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not, in the lede and in the article, is comments regarding the mainstream parties ostracization and rejection of the BNP, so imo it is also relevant that the recent reaction and comments from the mainstream parties regarding the BNP are included as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It was pointed out previously that you are attempting to synthesise the Daily Mail article. Neither John Denham nor the Labour Party have stated that they have reacted to the BNP. (In fact, to be really pedantic, neither does the Mail - "in the face of" does not mean "because of".) Emeraude (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The BNP is clearly refered to in the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From the article...and this is the point...."His comments are the latest attempt by ministers to address fears over immigration in Labour heartlands, and confront the threat from the British National Party." . The point is that there is a reaction that is being commented on in the press that the mainstream parties are reacting to the rise in support from the bnp by trying to address the voters concerns. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But you are adding your interpretation. Also this has nothing to do with the universal condemnation which is not about immigration but relates to the fact the BNP is seen by all other parties as racist. --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for more equivalent comments, but it would not be sync or OR right now to say...according to the Daily Mail the comments from Minister Denham are the latest attempts by ministers to address the voters concerns as regards immigration and an attempt to confront the threat from the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See comments by Emeraude and others above. That type of statement is denigrated in wikipedia, the idea is to make a statement supported by reliable third party statements rather than a success if he said/she said comments. --Snowded ^TALK 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it is only opened here for added input, as you know there are comments cited and attributed in this way all over the wikipedia, I have simply opened the discussion here for editors to add citations and add comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war

In respect of the recent court case the main BNP line has been that they withdrew to avoid cost. Given that costs were awarded against them and the judge;s view is clear this is clearly an excuse and a way of handling their members. It is however worthy of note. Until the 25th of November we had the following: Griffin has written to BNP members preparing to concede the case, stating that it will cost £80,000 to proceed or potentially £1m if the case goes to the House of Lords, they also were qouted as saying that "that to continue fighting the commission would bleed the party dry", "and would strip the party of the ability to fight the next general election"

On the 26th of November the point about costs was repeated with an additional paragraph saying:He said that 'I believe the vote will go for yes. The first reason being that trying to fight this court case would bankrupt the party and we have more important issues to deal with, including elections.. I reverted that on the grounds that the material was already in the article.

On the 28th November the material was reinserted without discussion on the talk page, I reverted it on the same grounds

On the 29th November the material was reinserted. I attempted a compromise by editing out the first reference and generally shortening excessive quotations, but this was promptly reverted on the 1st.

In addition the following phrase was inserted (and went through the same reversion cycle): the BNP claimed that its decision to consult on changing its constitution had meant that it had "outflanked" the EHRC

Now we have a set of things "it will cost too much money" " we are withdrawing from the court case" and "it will persuade our members". While (given the award of costs) this is a dubious reason it is worth of note but it needs ONE sentence not two. The other phrase out "outflanking" is simply bluster and has no place here.

Aside from that we have in effect three reverts without discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The material added on the 26th did not repeat material already in the article, in was about whether the membership would agree to the new constitution (and why). This was not at this time in the article. The article only discussed why the BNP drooped the case

On the 28th you not only removed the material you called repetition but also additional new material, which you accepted was new and should not have been removed (and was added as per your request that it should be there in your revert summery of the 26th). Which you also re-inserted. Moreover you revert of the 28th undid two edits of mine, one of which contained no repetitive material (which you also accepted), effectively 2 reverts with 1 edit.

On the 1st of December you changed the material. You removed the line about the party almost certainly saying yes, reverting it back to talking about the court case and not the likelihood of the membership accepting the new constitution. You also in this edit do not object to or remove the line about ‘outflanking’ (which is be the way sourced, bluster or not it shows how the BNP regard this). Moreover I did raise this matter with you here[[2]] so I did not revert without an attempt at discussion.

This hinges on whether or not the same excuse being used for two related by different events is the same or not. It is my contention that this is not the same and that the fact that an offical of the BNP has stated that they wil almost certainly accept the new constitution is both important and relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I happily reinserted material that was not a repetition on one edit (although I was surprised you wanted it there), happy to admit a mistake if its made and correct it. The fact remains that you have inserted material three times despite the fact it has been disputed and without giving your reasons on the talk page until now. The obvious solution to this is to combine the two sentences (something I attempted to do on the 1st by way of compromise) and get rid of the bluster statement. Will you accept that? Happy to give this a day to reach agreement, but if none I will revert to the 25th version pending agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also raised it here (though this was today)[[3]] when i actualy realised this might be turning int an edit war. besides as only you and I wereinvolved I felt that your talk page was as good as this one. I do not see why the bluster statment needs removing, surley this shows the attutude of the BNP about this matter. I fail to see why the two sentances need combining, at the moment they are in their respective sections, the coourt case and the new constitution (I would like to know what the second reason they would agree is). Try this though.

"Richard Barnbrook said he believed BNP members would vote in favour of a reformed constitution. He said that 'I believe the vote will go for yes'. one of the reason he gave was cost"?Slatersteven (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved that up to the other paragraph so the statements are together and simplified the statement. The bluster statement is simply that, it is reported but in no way endorsed and its adds little if anything. There is more than enough bluster. Other editors may agree with you (which is why the discussion should be here), but pending a consensus and in the sprit of compromise I have modified that statement as well rather than simply remove it. --Snowded ^TALK 00:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I belive the outflanking comment has value becasue it shows the fact that the BNP are not only making excuses as to why they backed down, but are even trying to portray this as a victory. It also ties in with Ms Chakrabartis comments, That this has (the EHRC case) has not bowed, broken or subdued the BNP, ot fundamentaly changed them. I also fail to understand why you do not wish the comment about the membership saying yes to the new constution should not be attributed to Mr Barnbrook, I would have thoguth that his standing in thbe partry makes his views on this matter notable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

At present the article says that "and endorsed Did Six Million Really Die?, a neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial booklet" yet the source says that "Now Nick Griffin queried numbers... I've read a thing called Did 6 Million Jews Really Die?... If they'd have kept the crematorium going in this little camp for 24/7 for 50 years they still couldn't have burnt that amount of bodies." Firstly this is edited, secondly it seems to me (and without the full statement we cannot say) that she may be quoting what Mr Griffin said. She may not be endorsing the book, she may qouting Mr Griffin. Granted she seems to be saying she belives the book, if she is not quoting Mr Griffin).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like she is quoting Griffin, unless the newspaper reports are misrepresenting her. Which is not an assumption we can make. There's no quotes around any particular wording to suggest this, for example. What makes you think she might be quoting him? --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she says Nick Grffin querries the numbers, then we have an edited out portion, then her (alledged) comment. She may not say she querries the numbers, she may say Mr Griffin does, and that she belives him. Moreover the source says "Naming the BNP leader and a notorious neo-Nazi book, she said:" (followed by the quote), there is no claim these are her words (that is she is not quoting someone else about the book). All there is is the claim she "attempted to minimise the scale of the Holocaust." not that she was not quoting someone else. For all we know the missing text could have said "He went on to say about the book". The fact is we do not know.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is better, and makes it clear she did indead say it[[4]]. I would sugest using this instead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that an RS would not misrpresent her by missing out parts of what whe said to make her appear to say something completely different. --FormerIP (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't see your later response. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats OK but I think my doubdts were partialy justified, if the The Jewish Community Online can be considerd RS for this. The quoted artciel (and the wiki article) did leave out some material that puts some of here comments in a less dark (and just more stupid) light. For example she does not appear to endorse 'Did Six Million Jews Really Die?’, just that she has read and, and that she is unsure how many died (rather diffent from the impresion the article gave). Also the line about denistry seems to have been mis-represented, she does not appear to have said that it was a "positives to come out" what she said was "The only good that came of it was" (which also tends to imply that she considerd everything else a bad thing). So the article should reflect what she said. full interview here (it looks like the Jewish Chronical more of less quotes her in full)[[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that its not holocaust denial, but a rather crass challenge to the numbers. I inserted a better quote and removed material (like where she said it) which can be easily found in the reference. I also tried to tidy up the dentistry point. --Snowded ^TALK 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That *is* Holocaust denial. Claiming the accepted numbers are too high by a significant degree is denial in itself. In addition Griffin has referred to it as the "Holohoax" and said that "I have reached the conclusion that the "extermination" tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

She does not say that they did not kill 6 million she says she does not know, a bit of a differance. Moreover Mr Griffins opinion is not relevant as we are not discusing him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are, try reading your first post in the thread. It's quite remarkable that you claim Griffin's denial of one thing belongs in the article since he's the chairman, yet as soon as details of his holocaust denial are brought up you try and stifle discussion. Convenient.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Griffins denile is already in the article, we do not need repatition of material, it is not relevant to this womans views. I would also point ouot that the source does not say that good came out of the death camps “The only good that came of it was what they gleaned from what they did. Didn’t they get a lot of dentistry and plastic surgery – they found out by what they did [the German experiments].” is what the source says no mention of death camps. She also says that “I do maybe query the numbers.” note she may not, not I do, at the moment the article mis-represents what she says by cherry picking. Also given we like peoples past in this article should we not point out that she used to be a libral democrat?Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven, I'm not sure what your exact point is here, but I think the issue over whether this is technically denial or not may be purely a semantic one. I think it is clear that what she is expressing is (although she doesn't necessarily say it using the most inflammatory lanuage) that she sees pros as well as cons to the Holocaust. That's clearly an offensive view, and the correct term for this is probably "Holocaust apologism". She absolutely is saying that good came out of it - those are almost her exact words. She also says she queries the numbers, which is "Holocaust revisionism". --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy of the bnp and actually would be better on an article about her, but there isnt one, so actually it is already an excessive comment of little value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Its notable material from someone in an official position. However the level of quotation was a nonsense. Off2riorob you need to avoid misleading edit summaries, calling a revert a "tweak" is not on. The clear majority here is for a simple summary so I am restoring the position. --Snowded ^TALK 22:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not a revert at all, I am afraid yours was, please take care about claims of consenus for you position that are totally unclear, also take care you have reverted once and the article is on a 1RR condition.Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

My original modification was reversed, restored by another editor and then reverted by you with the misleading edit summary. Given the above discussion I have restored my simplified edit 30 hours after the original. Wikipedia is not meant to have extensive on line quotations - it is an encyclopedia. I will repeat my suggestion that time when the ANI case was raised against you - you need a mentor. --Snowded ^TALK 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional discussion about these accusations from user snowed took place on his talkpage if any one would like to read them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh --Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made were designed to reflect better what she says, and what the source says.

She says she questions the numbers, we should have that, and that she says that Dentistry and plastic surgery were the only good (she says only not some) we should have that too.she does not say they came from the camps. Use her words or do not use her at all. By the way why (given that the rest of the section says when and where is when and where she said this being removed. The clear implication being made is that she made these comments in 2009, she did not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I support this position, sample sections of her comments affect what she actually said, in the previous version she was being misrepresented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that I agree with Snowed and FormerIP on this one. Verbal chat 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying is that we should use her words (in context), and allow the reader to judge here. I am not saying do not include her appolagism, but use the words she uses so that the reader can see what she is saying (after all if its so obvious what she measn that will be apparent). I am not saying do not include her saying she does not kn ow how many died (by the way does any one actualy know exaclty how many died?), but use her words (more or less) in full so that the reader can deteremine the extent of her guilt (or stupidity).Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the woman-in-question, have her own article? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NO, and I really do not think she is notable enough to have one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns on long strings of quotations - it is meant to be an encyclopedia after all. I think the original summary was better, but given something that approaches a tag teaming set of reverts I have attempted to modify it to something simpler in the hope that will stop the edit war. If there is another revert to the extended text then I think we take it back to the position a few days ago and discuss it here. --Snowded ^TALK 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that her line about Denistry should be there, but it needs to reflect what she actualy says. As tol tag teaming, there were four edds making changes, two on each side.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Count the number of reverts :-) That said, while the Dentistry quote evidences either an inability to articulate a point or gross stupidity I don't really see what it adds. Its not at all clear what she was saying, it seems to be saying that some good came out of the holocaust which would be perverted, however it just seems to be a stumbling statement. Its not either for/or against Holocaust denial which is the subject. Well done on clearing up the other entries to remove the locations by the way. --Snowded ^TALK 19:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that her performance is at best rambaling, but all that does is reinforce the idea she shoulsd not even be here at all, her whole statment has that inability to striing two words together feel for it. But I think that if we are to have this womans comments in the articel I feel that the part out some good has relevacne, not only does it show this lack of cohesion to herviews, but also the fact that she does not seem to really know much about the subject (after all thre were more then one death camps, and not all the bodies were cremated). Now her otehr statments are not for or against denile, she does not say she bleives the figures a fake, she says she does not know, but based upon (obviousley) incomlpeate data beilvies thyat she does not know. If ramabling incohearency is the reason for rejection then this whole segmont should be removed. I felt that we need to follow the same layout, but I do feel that this article is in serious need of a re-write, tehre is material all over the place, and no cohearant format.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial articles get like that, best to let it get to a stable state then develop an alternative version , some piecemeal stuff in the meantime can improve it, but I'd wait on a major rewrite. I think the relevant material in this quote is the "numbers" issue which is a variant of holocaust denial, the dentist stuff is stretching it I think at least if you want a full quote. A short sentence summary possibly. --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need the full quote, as long as the abridgment does not distort or alter the source. Example, She has also said that Dentistry and plastic surgery were the only positivs to come out of the holocaust. Its what she says, but its not the full quote.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems in local government

Not a good section title, and it may need to be moved as well. I think that all ssues of poor performance in office need to be i a separate section, not randomly placed wherever it seems most convenient at the time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

electorial demons

Is this RS ([[6]] (I do not think so) for any ellection results (especialy as it its self says it mighyt not be accurate? Also this source [[7]] makes no mention of the BNP, so whats it exaclty sourcing?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

fasionism

I have reinserted the material from teh gaurdian interviews in then fascism section. I was not aware that material had to say the BNP wer not something to be incluyded in this section. Moreover the views expressed were in repsonse to the question "Does the election of two BNP MEPs and the success of the far right elsewhere in Europe mean we are facing the threat of fascism? Or is this just a protest vote that will quickly fade?" as such the comments are about teh BNP and facsism. the first makes it clear that the author does not consider the far right to be fascist in the sence that there is nothing like true facsism (and the question was about the BNP, so its included in the answer IE the BNP are not fascist in the sense a histortian would undestand it). The second says the same thing. That it is diffent from the fascism of the 30's. Niether say the BNP are fascist, both imply that there are similarities, not that they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of some politicians calling them "Nazis" (in the fascist-section) to classifying the party as "fascist". Also, by this logic, why isn't also "Nazism" included in the infobox? -TheG (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Its more then a few politicans. The interviews above make it clear (as does the new line I inserted into the section) that historians and a number of political thinkers and social commentators consider them a form of fascism or Neo-fascism. I agree that it perhsaps is not a clear cut enough fact to be in the info box without some kind of "contested" tag, after all tehy themselves do deny it. Ironicly Nazism is probolby closer to what they are, as they are (in a sense) a left of centre rascist party (nationalist socialism).Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Culture of Fascism

Just a note. I reverted Voluntary Slave's removal of the cite from The Culture of Fascism, but messed up my edit summary. The source clearly is talking about the present-day BNP...is what I should have said. The 1960s BNP are indeed mentioned on p70 (as is the later NF splinter-group), but the relevant part of the text is at the top of p 71, which is clearly talking about the subject of this article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking again, you're quite right. Sorry for removing the text incorrectly.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs. --FormerIP (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

EDL

The text says "EDL spokesperson Paul Ray confirmed this" but it is impossible to verfiy this as its a radio show, can we have the text of the interview, or a link to the actual broadcast episode?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to link to YouTube, but you'll find the radio interview used there under the title "EDL Humiliated in Swansea + Newport". The source passes WP:V regardless of the link, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that it appears (including the times source) that it was not "the EDL website" but a website linked to (the times source) or another (the Guardian source) EDL website. So in the ninterview he seems to say that the website was set up by Renten, but other RS say that there appears to be more then one website. Moreover it would appear from these same RS that there has been a split between these two.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Its a weak statement with weak references - the only relevant material is the BNP activist setting up the web site --Snowded ^TALK 17:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He set up one of two websites, the other was set up by Tommy Robinson (the self confessed leader of the EDL) The whole things looks very confused and rahter ramshakle. So the part about Mr Renton is the weakest part about it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim that it is a BNP front has one very weak source in support. I doubt it is by the way, I think it is and will be exploited by the BNP. However opinions aside we don't have clear evidence that there is a substantial view that it is a front. The web site "tiff" is minor as far as I can see. I suggest wiping the whole paragraph if there are no more sources. --Snowded ^TALK 18:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is one reason for it to stay as it shows (or at least shows an accusation) the BNP trying to hijack a nationalist group. Moreover it has two source for teh claimk that an EDl website was set up by Renton, both the times and the gaurdian report this (and the hijack accusation). Moreover the section has say unchallenged for sometime, I fail to see what has changed about it other then more sources have been added.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been other concerns on the article. After your amendment today I checked the sources and the accusation of it being a front is based on a web site - not a RS. The stuff on the web site being set up is a side remark in an article reporting conversations without and attempt to validate it. Its weak, does not stand up with the evidence currently available. --Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusation is reported in RS. Which website by the way?. its reported in two seperate RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Indymedia is not the strongest of sources, but this does not seem to me to be a dubious claim (Google and you'll find many similar claims made on politically-aligned websites), so I'm not sure it really needs the highest standard of RS. Perhaps this would be better though: [8] It's worth noting that the EDL reference these claims themselves in a number of different sections of their website, such as here: [9]

The website is referred to as "the EDL website" in the radio source. I think the EDL moved their site to a new URL after the fact that a BNP activist had set it up was discovered through a whois search (I'm sure I read that recently, but can't find it now). Hence, perhaps the unclear wording (does that make it a different website? - I don't think so, but the Guardian may have been unsure). I think this is too trivial a detail to get into, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Gaurdian says that Mr Robinson set up his website in March (which is odd as the organisation has only existed since June). It seems that his website was a kind of proto EDL. Here is his website [[10]], sadley there apears to be no similar website run by Mr Renton, nor any clear indication that this is the website set up by Mr Renton. this says that the EDL have tried to distance themsleves from MR Renton, but that her appears to still be active with them[[11]]. There is this [[12]] but its very iffy, but it does claim a falling out. We also have this, which puts Mr Rays position into a very iinteresting light [[13], now the EDL website says that "Only statements found on this site, or spoken by Tommy Robinson are the statements of the English Defence League.", so my Ray does not appear to be thier spokesperson . [[14]] says that "One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.", this cannot refer to the current site. By the way here is the full Talksport radio interview, it is very interesting [[15]]. Its all very murky indead.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Steven, I think we need to be careful about OR here. We shouldn't try to establish or disprove what website or websites Chris Renton was responsible for by looking at actual websites. It seems to me reasonable to suppose that he set up englishdefenceleague.net, which looks to have had its whois lookup anonymised on 12/10/09. Whatever, the nature of the allegation is clear from the sources (eg The Times think he set up the EDl website: [16]). Our job isn't really to test that theory, just to report it. It doesn't look as if he is still running the EDL website, but that's not what the sources claim anyway, just that he origianlly set it up.

Regarding Paul Ray's status, there's a bottom line that I don't think we can allow the EDL website to tell us what sources we are allowed to use. All they need to do is never have Tommy Robinson (if he exists) speak, and they've got us snookered. I believe Ray has fallen out with the EDL and is no longer their spokesperson. But he was at the time. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its triva at best. The material supported by Indymedia is not reliable, we really need something else as well. The material supported by the Guardian is a side reference. Per comments above I think there is an OR danger here. --Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say it is trivia, Snowded? It looks significant enough to me. Anyway, I've swapped the cite so it is not Indymedia anymore. What do you mean by "side reference"? --FormerIP (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was mearly pointing out that ths is not a lone issue. Moreover a number of sources seem to be saying (not just the gaurdian) that it was one of the websites linked to the EDL, that is not OR. So it is not clear from the sources which website it was, but it was one that was taken down. By the way that is what your Times source also says "One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.". So from a (if you will) conglomerate of unrealated, independant RS it would seem that a website with liniks to the EDL was set up by Mr Renton, and then when his BNP affilaintions were made public it was taken down.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To work our way around the doubt, the article(s) could say that he "set up a website on behalf of the EDL, which was later taken down". --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not what many (perhaps most) of the sources say. "He set up a website linked to the EDL, which was later taken down." Perhaps adding "When his links to the BNP were made public".Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "linked to" is too weak. One of the sources has the guy from the EDL calling it "the EDL website". If it was only "linked to", you would expect him to make that point. "Linked to the EDL" sounds too distant, as if it might have been independent of them. Not sure about adding "when his links to the BNP were made public". This might be true, but I'm not sure it is what any of the RS's say. However, since I think it probably is true, I don't mind it going in if I'm outvoted. --FormerIP (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "set up an EDL website", as i sas at present?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

honestly. someone set up a web site, someone else set up a web site, one may have been taken down. And you don't see just how trivial that is? --Snowded ^TALK 00:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You can explain why you think it is trivial, if you like. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't. The EDL have been accsed of links to the BNP based on that evidance. By the way what is trivial, that the BNP set up thier website, or that the EDL have taken it down?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see we have a former BNP member who sets up a web site in the early days of the EDL formation. Then people from the EDL set one up. All of this based on a one sentence reference in a wider article. It doesn't show BNP involvement, maybe opportunism by one BNP member during a messy formation period. So I think the web site issue is trivial. The question of BNP involvement in the EDL would be non-trivial but requires a reliable source for inclusion. This is all 101 stuff guys, please --Snowded ^TALK 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One none of the sources say which website came first, so your genisis is a best specualtion. Two it is based on more then one sentance from more then one source. Two the sources all claimed that this does show BNP involvment (that is the whole point of the articles), but that the EDL have tried to deny (or hide) this (there are far more sources that claim this 'proves' BNP involvment I shall post them if you wish). Many also say that the BNP tried to hijack the EDL (according to the EDL). So the website issue is not trivial, it goes to the vry heart (and indead is, and largly remains) the main evidance that the BNP and EDL are linked. The material is sourced by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

|hat aboput this source, this makes interestinf reading too [[17]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, there is no claim that this proves any particular relationships between the BNP and the EDL, but it suggests it, which has been reported by RSs. The suggestion of a link between two political organisations which claim to have nothing to do with each other is significant, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

its zionism Nick, but not as we know it

As a result of the above I came up with this [[18]].Slatersteven, I am in too minds if this should be in the Anti-semitism section or not. Basicly if it is it would mean that we effectly accept that the BNP means this. On the other hand leaving it out means that we bleive that this is just a rather ham fisted attempt to cover up llinks to the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think it should go in, Steven. It's definitely notable. I don't think we need to interpret or comment on what it means, just say that it was said. Even if Griffin doesn't actually believe it, it is still notable just because he said it. Here is an alternative source for it: [19]. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the question is where, I don't think it should go in anti-semitiam for the reasons above, that is to say its not really about Jews its about the EDL. As such I would susgest its put in the EDL section (with perhaps the most passing of mentions in Anti-semitism, though I am not sure about that). Now I wonder when tehy will start spitting on the groound and saying "EDL thats your swimmiing pool"Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe wait and see if there are other opinions about where to put it. You are right that it is more a statement about the EDL than about "zionism", but also the amount of content about the EDL is quite small (which is probably appropriate - there is no proven relationship), so would it be correct to beef that up? Also, the anti-semitism is what strikes be as being more notable, largely because I was under the impression that Griffin is currently studiously holding his tongue with regards to that type of comment, but obviously not. --FormerIP (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My concearn is that putting this in nthe Anti-Semitism sections, and then having a claim that there are links between the BNP and EDL we create a conflict of information. The articel will say that the BNP have accsed the EDL of being a Jewish conspiracy, but we set them up as a front. I realise its not quite that simplistic, after all we are only putting in an acccusd link, but it seems to me tt avoidiing adding more mud to the pond.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Neither of the citation provided here are WP:RS for adding comments about this. A blog and a daily star tabloid article that starts Bonkers nick griffin...please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Daily Star an RS for a direct quote. Go to the RS board if you don't believe it. The audio version is on Simon Darby's blog (he's the other person in the recording): [20]. At around 7 minutes. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree its relevant, not wild about the source but it has collateral. Suggest its a sentence in the anti-zionist section, and matched in the EDL page --Snowded ^TALK 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting it in an "anti-semitism" section would be WP:SYNTH and breech of WP:NPOV. Especially since "HopeNotHate" is the propaganda arm, directly ran by the Trotskyite Socialist "Workers" Party. It could be used simply to show how there isn't a connection or "alligence" between EDL and BNP, but thats about it. Also a significant amount of Zionists in UK politics are not actually Jewish (see Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, etc). - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote; "HopeNotHate" is the propaganda arm, directly ran by the Trotskyite Socialist "Workers" Party". Bit of bias there methinks. And a missed opportunity to slag off Searchlight that BNP apologists usually enjoy doing given the chance. From the front page of the HOPE not hate website: HOPE not hate is Searchlight's campaign to counter racism and fascism in elections and beyond.... Emeraude (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying it is ran by Gerry Gable, a convicted criminal and former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Thanks for the clarification. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Searchlight runs it. Gerry Gable retired in 1998, and left the CP in 1962, as you ought to know - after all, you linked him. Searchlight is a well-respected journal that regularly exposes fascist and Nazi organisations and the dubious pasts of their members, such as one Nick Griffin, convicted criminal and former member of the National Front. Emeraude (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

extreamist

According to WP:EXTREMIST we should not extreamist to describe a group. It says that if RS call a group extreamist then we can say that they have been called extreramist by the source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that wp:EXTREMIST is not the law. Despite your claims in your edit, it is most definitely NOT policy. It says at the top, and I quote "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (My italics.) Now, in the context of the groups referred to (which are not named in the article), I cannot think of a better or more accurate adjective. It is clearly nonsense to have no adjective at all as was attempted - this would only say that ALL Sikh and Hindu groups were involved. To use a word like "partisan" is meaningless in this context. As the guidelines say, let's use common sense and accept that as worded the sentence is not derogatory or insulting, it adequately separates these groups from mainstream Sikh and Hindu groups and quite simply is the best way of describing the situation. (By the way, I very much doubt that the Observer has ever described anything as "extreamist".)

I've replaced the whole thing with "the BNP has previously worked with extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities in an anti-Islamic campaign". The words in italics are straight from The Observer and don't need quote marks since it is clearly footnoted and referenced as such. Emeraude (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, I basically agree with you and I can't think of a better word as an alternative. But might it not be good to put quotes around it just to avoid the WP:EXTREMIST objection. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But there is no WP:EXTREMIST objection, as I explained. Besides, the whole topic is referred to the source. Seeing as you (and I) can't think of a better word, I would suggest, may be because there is no better word i.e. extremist is the correct word to use here. Quote marks in this case would be ridiculous. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "extremist" here, though, appears POV. It may well be fair, but it doesn't look like an objective fact. Putting quotes around "extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities" would help to resolve this problem, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Violence

I seem to racall that association with violance were only notable when the person was a notable member of the party. Is Terrance Gavan a notable member of the part?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC) I take it he is not then, so can this be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian edits this morning

Yorkshirian, there is some good factual stuff in what you are doing. However we are now starting to see edits that seek to justify BNP actions and label opposition (per your favorite Trotskyite conspiracy theory stuff). Also you are making it difficult for other editors as you are mixing edits that you know will be controversial, with factual ones. Other than spending hours on forensic examination of text that makes it impossible to do anything other than a mass revert. You know what is controversial, please keep it separate, ideally discuss here and respect WP:BRD--Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made some detailed edits to remove the controversial bits but leave other material. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted on your talk, you have simply removed referenced information which you don't seem to like, rather than anything being specifically wrong. The word "controversial" in the paragraph above seems to be applied in a sense of "non-hostile presentation", "non-inquistional presentation"—this article is supposed to obide by the NPOV, just like all of the others. Take a look at the article on the Labour Party (UK) to get an idea for what should be aimed at.

According to a participant in the Welling riot of 1993 and an organiser of Rock Against Racism, as well as being a prolific writer of pro-Trotsky, pro-Marx books, presents the fact that the protest was organised specifically by Militant and the Socialist Workers Party.[21] No "conspiracy theory stuff". Good. Lets name these organisations specifically, rather than the intentionally ambigious, anonymous, POV and shadowy phrase "anti-fascists". During the 1990s especially, there were various opponents of the BNP, non-Trot Marxists (Red Action), various anarchists, state and so on. Thus for clarification, its not "labelling" to denote the specific opposition partipant tendancy at Welling. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference is to Denton's web site and a diary type entry at that so its not good enough as a reference. Moreover he states that the organising group was the Anti-Nazi League which had wider support than the SWP (although I can see they would want to claim the credit). The organisers should therefore be the ANL in any reference. We also had some OR/POV material here about them being motivated by resentment etc. There were many opponents (and are) of the BNP including the conservative party so your reference to non-trot marxists anarchists etc. rather displays your POV. --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The conservatives "opposition" to the BNP during the 1990s, consisted of making anti-immigration plees to the electorate at beg-for-a-vote time. Entirely different kettle of fish. I'm talking about actual consistent clashes on the street, at meetings, throughout the year. There were a plethora of groups; Trots (SWP, Militant), Red Action, anarchists; not together as one large "mass", but specific events. At Welling it was police and Trots clashing, the latter of whom were trying to march on BNP headquarters. The Conservative Party are of absolutely no relevence to the clash at Welling, neither were Labour or Lib Dems. Thus why they were not mentioned. Here is a good reference from the Independent on it, not to sound harsh, but you don't seem to have an understanding of the specifics of the event, yet are trying to insist that something must not be right. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the evidence as you present it Yorkshirian. The Independent article hypothesizes that there is extreme left wing infiltration of anti-facism groups and that this is responsible for violence. That does not invalidate the support of leaders of other left and right wing political parties for those pressure groups. The march was organised by the ANL, your speculations as it its motivation or its membership are not relevant. --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Speculation? I have quoted references, you seem to be offering incorrect speculation that "right wingers" were in Trotskyite groups during the 1990s. Independent: "Its main organisers are both members of the SWP." Specifically in relation to the riot at Welling with the police, the Independent, an undeniably reliable reference, as well as the left-wing RAR participant account that I linked name SWP and Militant as clashing with the police. No sophistry can negate that.

As for the SWP nature of ANL in general. "The initiative for the ANL came from the SWP" (Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations, Barberis, 141). "It [SWP] was also behind the ANL" (Politics UK, Jones, 167). "Connected with the SWP, it [ANL] directed much energy to opposing NF marches" (The impact of immigration, Panayi, 184), "SWP, a party that assumed a certain prominence when it effectively took over the ANL." (Introduction to British politics, Dearlove, 108). "SWP started the ANL" (Left shift, Walker, 182) "ANL, an informal organization to which left-wing activists of the SWP.." (Social movement and democracy, Guell, 238) Need more? - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, does the source you are using (The Radical Right in Britain by Sykes) mention Christian parents withdrawing their children from schools in Dewsbury? Does he specifically say "Christian"? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit by Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) removes quite a bit of text. After reading it carefully, I support this edit - although the holocaust denial is now very short, but perhaps more for the Nick Griffin article. (Btw, I would have posted this on talk even without the discussion above as it is a big edit). --h2g2bob (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is far too much original research and dubious use of citations in these recent additions. For example this phrase "Thousands of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Pakistan and Gujarat, in India, arrived during the 1950s and 1960s to answer a shortage of low-cost labour in the wool mills." which is a very minor part of a report in the Times on general violence in Dewsbury is used to support "who had attempted to withdraw their children from socially engineered schools, following extensive immigration of Pakistani Muslims into their community" which it clearly does not. Given that type of misuse the use of Sykes needs full quotes here if we are to trust it. Similarly Yorkshirian's obsession with the far left is shown. The references here are used to try and portray the ARA as Trotskyite despite the clear reference to Livingstones support for the ARA and his condemnation of the actions of those persons. We have seen the same thing here before with attempts to label the ANL and others in the same way. Ditto the innocent native christians defending themselves against outsiders is a common theme so we really need the full reference as requested above so that we can check this. --Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dewsbury Reporter

Since this source is not easily verifiable, could a direct quote be provided here per Wikipedia:Verifiability please? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree full quote whould be helpful. BigDunc 16:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A full quote is needed if the material is to stand --Snowded ^TALK 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing a full quote from the source, and suggest removal forthwith unless it is provided. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dewsbury Reporter source is verifiable if you want to make the effort. You need to go into a good library. Wikipedia does not require sources to be available online or available in all good bookstores. Like all UK newspapers, the archive is available through the British Library and may be accessible from a local library or a university library. The Dewsbury Reporter itself is archived online (see here), but unfortunately only back to January 1990 - the relevant article is from July 1989. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if RJ and Dunc were in the UK (or more specificially England), but since they are in America and Ireland respectively the source isn't particularly verifiable for them without making serious amounts of effort. Since Yorkshirian evidently has access to the source, it should be a simple matter for him to provide the exact quote from it surely? I have good reason to know why there is a delay in providing the quote in question, but I'll leave it a few more days yet. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course, I was simply referring to normal Wikipedia procedures for acceptable sources and good faith. (We have had people here saying they refuse to go to a library or read a book!) Though it should be noted that the Copyright Act makes all British publications available to Trinity in Dublin (though thinking about it, this may only apply to books?). I must say I share your unease about the lack of a direct quote in this case though. Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not near Dewsbury at the moment, but the specific newspaper issue date is given in the reference. If you want further confirmation you can always call the Dewsbury Reporter on 01924 468282 and get confirmation for the story, or otherwise contact the Dewsbury Library and request a copy be sent on 01924 325 080. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd be able to provide a full quote, and this is why. I've alrady obtained a copy of the Dewsbury Reporter that covers the riot, and it isn't dated 1 July 1989, the name of the story isn't "Saturday rioting" and it doesn't reference the sentence you added it to. Anyone needing verification that I do in fact have a copy of the edition in question is welcome to email me (known racists excepted) or alternatively ask ArbCom member SirFozzie (talk · contribs) who I have emailed verification to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to scan and upload evidence for you claim. Anybody can verify the newspaper article as I said, either by simply calling the Dewsbury Reporter on 01924 468282 or Dewsbury Library on 01924 325 080. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing the images that ONIH has emailed me. The date of the articles is Friday, June 30th of 1989, and none of the headlines on page four or five (I also have the front page, which is also dated June 30th, 1989) that ONIH has provided me say "saturday rioting". I'm currently trying to determine the exact edit that Yorkshirian made to determine if it is supported by the text I have available to me. (more shortly) SirFozzie (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. had a chance to see the exact diff where this started: [22]. Please note, I am an American, so if I miss a nuance someone more local would pick up, let me know please. Also, please note I am most DEFINITELY not speaking as an Arbitration Committee member, but as an editor here. Here's the two sections that they list the BNP reasons for the demonstration.

Top page 4, under "When Sunshine turned to fear":

The BNP, refused permission to march through the town, instead held a rally in support, they said, of Dewsbury parents who two years ago refused to send their children to a predominantly Asian school

Bottom page 4, under headline "Summer afternoon of violence and shame", subsection "Injured":

The BNP rally was ostensibly in support of parents in the Dewsbury "school row" who refused to send their children to predominantly Asian school"

I would say that, in my opinion, that the source does not say what the article link says it does. Please note the "they said" and "ostensibly" that the source article used. While we must not read too much into what the source SAYS (have to avoid OR), it is important to note the meaning of what they said, and make sure that we not mis-represent it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just want to say this. It is possible,barely, but not probable that there was a second, special edition of the Reporter dated Saturday, July 1st, 1989. However, without proof that there was such a special issue (from what I understand, ONiH reviewed the microfilm records for that paper, and there was no such issue) I have to say that I find any such edit attributing the source to that date, with an incorrect title to be dubious mis-rememberance at best. SirFozzie (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So what hes claiming is, the date may be recorded down wrong by one day and the story on the event was there. OK. As I say, I'm not near Dewsbury at the moment, but I'll check again next time I am to be 100% sure. Or a scan should be provided. In any case, that confirms the basic theme written that the BNP march was planned in solidarity with parents who wanted to withdraw their children from those schools. Keep in mind for US audience, "Asian" in the UK is used primarily to mean South East Asian (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, rather than Chinese, Japanese, so on). As The Times says about Dewsbury, "To the outsider, Dewsbury appears fractured, a town divided between two communities — white and Asian — living in mutual incomprehension. Thousands of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Pakistan and Gujarat, in India, arrived during the 1950s and 1960s to answer a shortage of low-cost labour in the wool mills." - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the above that the Dewsbury Reporter article does not support what you originally wrote in the BNP article. If this was a genuine mistake, an apology might be in order, but even now you are promoting your own interpretation of what (you say) the Reporter article said. SirFozzie has explained cogently the reliability of the report, but the lack of reliablity of the sources quoted in it. The same is inherently true of any newspaper that reports what people say - there is no guarantee that the interviewees/spokesmen are honest, truthful, unbiased, neutral etc, hence their use of terms like "they said" and "ostensibly". If a paper reports that someone said something, I'm inclined to believe it. That doesn't mean that what they said is true! Emeraude (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We are still waiting for answers above, so I reversed Yorkshirian's attempt to restore a version of his/her preferred wording --Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its time Jim, but not as we know it

This article dos not seem to have any flow at all. There are dated sections then text out of sequence then more dated sections. I would suggest that instead of adding new material we try to get some kind of order out of this first.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The BNP's cash, women and personal nouns (names)

I have fund out some facts about the B.N.P.-

The most common names among the B.N.P.'s 2,034 female members are Patricia, Joanne, Karen and Lisa, and the largest concentration of B.N.P. members is in Charnwood, a Conservative-controlled East Midlands constituency. Most men are called John, David, Paul, Michael or Nicolas. The B.N.P. has several different types of membership available, including "family", "family plus", "old age pensioner", "jobless", "student" and "gold", which is a £60 membership for members whom Griffin describes as "the elite of the party"

Hi. I think the part about Charnwood may be suitable for inclusion, depending on what others think. The other details seem to me a little too trivial (sorry). --FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 28C January 2010 (UTC)

I partialy agree, I'm not even sure charmwood is that notable. But it at least part about membership fees can be added to the structure section without any issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article in an edition of the Oxford Times last month, about the allegations that most party members have excellent dental hygiene, most of it's senior male members have age related baldness and Nick Griffin has a glass eye!--86.29.129.106 (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a news artical on party finance to . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.128.2 (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Islamaphobia and drugs

The Lancashire, the B.N.P. councillor Brian Norton Parker allegedly distributed leaflets which alleged: "Muslims are exclusively responsible for the heroin trade." in 2008--86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Membership hubs!

Sadly Leicestershire is awash with B.N.P. members and both Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and industrial Yorkshire is barely any better . --86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Class structure

Most of the B.N.P. are working class, Christian, English men, who dont' work in the reatail sector.--86.29.128.51 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)