Talk:British National Party/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

RfC British National Party dispute

{{rfctag|pol}} Current attempts to resolve the issue above under Extreme Views DharmaDreamer (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC Response

This is a particularly complicated dispute and I hesitate to jump in, but I just wanted to mention a few things.

  • I think that the present version of the lead is mostly fine, at least as I understand the sources. However, the information about the racial makeup of the party is extraneous material that belongs in the body. That's mostly my big gripe with the current lead.
  • In general, I would say the article is very long. It currently comes in at over 170 kb. Almost every single major section could benefit from significant trimming, and Structure should be deleted and incorporated into History. Online presence and Affiliated organizations should also be deleted. That information has very little encyclopedic relevance.
  • The article could benefit from a thorough copyedit to sort through problems with prose.
  • Specifically regarding your dispute: in general, it's not a good idea to invent terms when describing other people or organizations, so I would stick to the terminology found in reputable sources, and that seems to be "far right." Rather than worrying about less extreme, you could say they're moderating their core positions or some other such thing. Preferably, however, stick to the language in the sources, especially when the issue is controversial.

Hope I was helpful. Feel free to flame me now.UBER (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The views of the BNP are described as "extreme" in reliable sources and that should be our guide. Generally, support for fascism, racial nationalism, and plans to deport non-Nordic people is seen as "extreme". Calling it "controversial" is an extreme understatement. While this description may be offensive to BNP supporters, we cannot second guess mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
On second analysis, I have now thoroughly reviewed the academic literature as well as newspapers and other reputable sources. The overwhelming consensus is to identify the party as something like "extreme far right." Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will change the article accordingly.UBER (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made some changes with the above guidelines in mind. Review them and tell me what you think.UBER (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Update teachers allowed to be members of the party

march 12. Has anyone added that update, I know there was a section with some reports teachers and such firemen were not allowed and that a couple of teachers were under pressure due to their membership, has this been updated? ref here Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting. The report does not say "teachers allowed to be members"; it says that there should not be a ban on teachers being members - a subtle but very meaningful difference. There has never been a section in the article saying that teachers and firemen were not allowed to join the BNP, because that has never been the case. As to the couple of teachers "under pressure due to their membership", this is complete misrepresentation - two BNP members were, I believe, dismissed for misuse of school computers, not BNP membership. (I believe one of them was caught accessing pornography.)

Ideological orientation

Since you brought it up Yorkshirian, here are the explicit quotations and details from reputable scholars calling the party "extremist." These are books from professional scholars—not blogs, not National Review, not Glenn Beck, and not Rush Limbaugh. Have at it to your heart's content:

Extremist white supremacists have been welcomed into the political mainstream. The new found respectability of the BNP (British National Party) in the United Kingdom and their influence on local politics; militia groups and their intervention on immigration policy...are all current examples of ways in which everyday which white supremacy and extremist groups are still bonded.
The danger potential of other extremist parties with a small, scattered group of supporters such as the British National Party (BNP) is low.
The extremist British National Party (BNP) now has a website registered in Tonga, enabling them to safely post material that would fall foul of UK's anti-racism laws...
...the focus will be narrowed down in order to look carefully at how the Internet on an extreme-right political party—in this instance, the British National Party.

I think I'm done for now, although I can always indulge you some more if you wish.UBER (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Aside from the outstanding policy concerns still above. I'll glady deconstuct each. (1) John Preston, from the University of East London, is a member of the Critical Race Theory Dicussion Group.[1] According to Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, exponents of CRT expouse "radical multiculturalist views". The BNP, the subject of this article, is specifically and explicitly opposed to multiculturalism. Preston is an ideological partisan and activist in favour of it. Thus, logically he is not writing from an emotionally removed, neutral point of view on his greatest political opponents in the UK. CRT according to our article on it, overlaps with critical theory, a form of Marxist theory (as we know Marxism was directly responsible for genocides such as the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, the Katyn massacre, the Great Purge and so on is objectively an extreme ideology). The ideology of CRT which Preston expouses, has been described by Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago as the "lunatic core of radical legal egalitarianism." I think I have presented why Preston's views can not be considered a WP:NPOV on the BNP. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what Alex Kozinski says about "radical multiculturalism". Stop infusing your own personal opinions into the debate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I think you've made it abundantly clear by now that you don't like Marxism, the left, liberals, etc. Take it to a blog and please stop wasting our time.UBER (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
No sir, the "radical multiculturalist views" description of Critical Race Theory (of which Preston is an active exponent and theorist), is the terminology used by Judge Alex Kozinski of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published in the New York Times.[2] - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This is funny. So your strategy for discrediting an established scholar is to pull out a quotation from some judge in the US that maligns a viewpoint that the scholar apparently shares?!?!? Try again, this time with a bit more effort.UBER (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
IMO, this retort is not dialectically acceptable or favourably disposed towards clairty and an honest neutrality. A Chief Judge and legal authority for vast swathes of the United States is downgraded to "some judge", but an obscure Marxist theorist in the backroom of some East London university is suddenly transformed into an "established scholar"?? No, no, no. It has been very clearly, logically and fairly established as to how Preston's own ideological views are directly opposed to the BNP as to be POV. As you admitted earlier, somebody like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News who have called Barack Obama a "racist" and "communist" in the mainstream media, would not be a neutral source for that article, due to political bias. The rules aren't changed here. Next? - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have access to the NYT article that you posted, but is the judge explicitly attacking this scholar (Preston)? If not, the judge's comments are absolutely irrelevant to what's happening here. If this were an article on multiculturalism, maybe they'd hold more weight.UBER (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob is deleting his talk page warnings...

In theses particular cases I think they should also be made on the talk page of the article in question.

People can spend time discussing the nature of 'extremism' in Talk, but the term "far right" stays in the article, as has been the status quo. We argue with the consensus edit in place, not without it.

The BNP are seriously in the news today (its constitution has been deemed illegal in court), and Off2riorob's attempts to continually remove the term "far right" are unacceptable. You cannot say it damages Wikipedia, as that is impossible because Wikipedia is inherently damaging - but it damages society, and Wikipedia (and all its endless 'technicalities') is utterly worthless compared to the real flesh and blood world. Anyone who thinks that their personal take on 'policy' comes before the 'wider world', should have their windows prised open and their computer baptised with a municipal hose. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, warnings about user conduct belong on their Talk pages, which they are assumed to read, and removing warnings is explicitly permitted by WP:BLANKING; it's just taken as an indication that they have been read, so I wouldn't read too much into that. Rodhullandemu 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have also repeatedly warned the user to put the brakes on a very dangerous edit warring mentality. Such conversations certainly belong in user talk pages, however, not here.UBER (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you both sure about that? Warnings are supposed to be valid from anywhere. I personally always assume they are read (although I don't like being told what to 'assume', I have to say), but I still think it is fair enough to bring them here too. Warnings have a secondary role of alerting/informing other Wikipdians - why else to do people immediately delete them? They cannot be deleted from here. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes they can, and arguably should be as not directed towards improving the article, which is the proper function of an article's Talk page. As to whether I'm sure, as an admin, yes I am, since I spend about 90% of my time here applying our policies and guidelines. That's different from a disagreement on content, of course, which can take place anywhere as long as it is civil. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I am taking about 3RR warnings over content (or content warnings in general) - I'm not talking about 'civility' warnings, or templated warnings (which I rarely use anyway). Content warnings are often given on article talk pages, even from admin. When an editors response is to immediately delete the warning/section/comment from his own talk page, it makes a lot more sense to use the article's Talk page instead. It saves going around informing fellow contributors in person. I don't go for the 'round robin' talk page 'discussion' route myself - I'd rather put it on the main talk page where all the contributors can easily see it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, 3RR warnings properly belong on User Talk pages because then they get the yellow "New messages" bar, which they might not receive if, for example they have unmarked article Talk pages from their watchlist. Whereas you might state on an article Talk page that you have warned a user about 3RR, and why, there is no guarantee that they will have seen that warning unless it is also placed on their user Talk page; and even so, some editors might not edit here in a week, so will not see such messages immediately. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If he removes them he is deemed to have read them and you shouldn't reinstate or you will fall at risk--Snowded TALK 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The temptation to reinstate a deleted section on the user talk page is naturally a strong one (esp if the comment requres an answer) - I'd rather avoid that. There are occasions where the in-built flexibility of Wikpiedia can actually benefit the project. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

I have tagged the article, there are clear issues easily visible by the additions from tonight, editors should attempt to rise above their personal issues and attempt to edit for the bigger picture which is an NPOV article that is educational and neutral in its commentary. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The user above has placed various tags all over the article in a (quite common) attempt to taint its credibility. I've seen this tactic very often in Wikipedia. However, as far as the lead sentence goes, all its claims are cited from reputable scholars. I think the tags should be summarily removed, but I await comments from others on how to best approach this difficult issue.UBER (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Descent from POV into BLP and libel

Uber is now compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by personally libelling members of this organisation as "white supremacist" and "extremist" in the introduction. Using as a reference an obscure critical theory Marxist. This obviously is a grave violation of the WP:BLP and he should propose such extremely controversial changes first. Do not re-add this without first establishing a clear talk consensus that this is a NPOV. Content issues and NPOV discussion on talk is one thing, BLP has to be removed on sight (to protect Wikipedia's interests and integrity). - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you invoking BLP? This would be funny if it weren't unbelievable. BLP applies to biographies of living persons, per its name. We're dealing how political scientists characterize a political party here. And just so we're clear: Preston is a reputable scholar and he is not the only one who calls the party white supremacist. I'll bring more to your attention later. I am pressed for time right now.UBER (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A political party by nature consists of a mutual association of living peoples. It isn't an inanimate object like a shoe, a tree or an apple. By asserting that they belong to a "white supremacist" association, you are by proxy, personally libelling the living people whom the party is made up of as "white supremacists" (an organisation which now including people who are not even white at all, a bit of a paradox). You are fully aware that Preston works in the field of Marxist critical theory, specifically the Critical Race Theory branch (thus is not a neutral or reliable source on the BNP) and yet you decided to enter such controversial and WP:BLP claims into the article? You should discuss on the talk page first and gain a consensus before making such a controversial change. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
later, yes, tomorrow the BNP will suddenly jump up and become white supremacists, today they are simply far right tomorrow they will become something else, oh,...its the BBC, today the courts said that teachers are allowed to be members of the far right white supremest party the BNP. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ...although the party disputes the far-right label.[3]

I don't see where, in the cited page, anyone "disputes the far-right label". Could someone quote the relevant text?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That entire part of the sentence is a sham and should be swiftly removed. Wikipedia does not care what people or organizations think of themselves, but merely reports on what reliable secondary sources say about those people and organizations.UBER (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The party dsiputes the far right label, I did cite it but that must have been removed, oh well I'll restore the citation in a moment. Wikipedia does care about what the party have to say about themselves. it's inportant information about the party what they have to say about themselves and it can't be simply ignored. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem you have here is that you have a "BNP supporter" userbox on your userpage, and that immediately calls into question your neutrality in relation to this article. Now, as regards the sources, what is important to us is considered, well-sourced and peer-reviewed analysis by academics who study these things, although my own experience at university has been that there are those who will plough their own furrow under the guise of "academic freedom". Since your general typography and grammar would seem to militate against such an assessment in your case, it is nonetheless clear that you have a conflict of interest here. However, as a classical liberal, I must defend your right to put your point of view, even though that does not necessarily amount to an exercise of Free Speech, and my considered opinion is that you should restrict yourself to countering allegations made against the BNP by citing reliable sources that put their position; in this way, our readers (who are all to often forgotten in these disputes) can make up their own minds; that assumes, of course that they haven't already done so from other sources, but our function is to be a dispassionate, neutral encyclopedia, and not a platform for one point of view or the other. Rodhullandemu 01:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well as long as we're having a coming-out-of-the-woodworks party, I also defend Dreamer's right to participate in this conversation as a social liberal (we're so much better than everyone else). I don't care at all that the user is an avid supporter of the BNP. All of us have personal biases and we should check those at the door when we start editing Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who you are, what you think. Everyone's welcome here.
Beyond that, I strongly endorse the call for secondary and reliable reputable sources, which is exactly what I added (see above; five books written by reputable scholars) and is exactly what was blatantly and shamefully removed by other users who came awfully close to violating just about every Wikipedia policy in their efforts to remove "far-right" from the lead.UBER (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I also have userboxes about my commitment to maintaining neutrality, on wikipedia, some rules overlap and there are guildlines for dealing with this, which you seem to be ignoring, as a person who is in favour of an opening which claims the BNP is Far Right, and I was even willing to accept extreme, Do I really sound like someone who is letting their POV get in the way? DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure to whom your reply is addressed, but it's quite plain to me that the ongoing disruption here has gone way beyond the normal hurly-burly of content disputes. Everybody has an opinion here, but the bottom line is that we are trying to inform our readers, not push a point of view, and that is what I'm seeing here from the outside. It is incredibly difficult to evaluate such polarised competing opinions when both sides of the argument use more or less equally supported sources. On the one hand, we have academic analysis by (supposedly neutral) political scientists, and on the other, we have rebuttals by the BNP itself. It is not, repeat not, our job to evaluate these commentaries; it is our job to report them, without (apparent) bias, and leave it up to our readers to make their own judgements. Unfortunately, in this context, we seem to have two mutually hostile camps, each armed to the teeth (much as prevailed before the First World War) and the only possible and probable outcome, as then, is war. Now, to be practical, I don't see mediation being a reasonable solution here, since there seems to be little in the way of common ground; Arbitration is not for content disputes. That leaves Request for Comment, which throws it open to the whole of the community. TO avoid that, perhaps a tad of give and take would be appropriate. Rodhullandemu 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be relevant to include the BNP's official denial - it's just that the source provided doesn't include a denial of the "far right" label. Instead it denies certain other claims made about the party. We can include those, in the appropriate location. As UberCryxic says, it's best to find secondary sources though.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Rodullandemu: Thats what im advocating, we simply report the facts, both what the (some of which clearly biased but nevermind) political scientists say and what the BNP themselfs have to say. and let the readers decide. I've actually seen noevidence of PRO-BNP POV pushing, merly trying to make it as NPOV aspossible infact it seems most of the BNP supporting people on here are even advocating an anti-BNP POV just to try and settle the dispute. We've tried discussing to reach consensus, third opinion is not appropriate here with 6-7 participants, when we tried RfC, the commentator became the most active participant in the edit war. Informal Mediation cabal, and formal mediation ahve both been dismissed. Arbitration is not for content disputes. As far as I can see there is no route to resolve the dispute. DharmaDreamer (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This has been one of the problems throughout, we are not required to be even handed between the BNPs position and that of political commentary. 6-7 participants is normal for WIkipedia and a Rfc does not mean that you will get editors favorable to your point of view, it means you may get more opinions.--Snowded TALK 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Take the 2010 Chilian earthquake for example, just because no Seismologists had written a book about it, that didn't mean it couldn't be reported on for months. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not an academic journal. I wasn't trying to game the system when arguing for RfC, as it obiouvsly worked out in your favour. How do you propose we resolve the dispute then? Or shall we just leave this page locked for ever more. remeber that reaching consensus includes everyone involved, not jsut a consensus of Anti-BNP editors. Another sort of related thing, for the infobox, how about we split it up into "constituational" and "ideological currents" like on other political party articles DharmaDreamer (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're taking examples, let's just get to Godwin's Law already and mention something related: Holocaust denial. To paraphrase someone above: we have on the one hand academic analysis by (supposedly neutral) political scientists and a fringe group that has a hard time understanding reality. Whether we like it or not, the BNP is a fringe group, and their fringe voice should not drown out the opinions of the rest of the world, and especially not those of established scholars. We can't give the BNP undue weight, given what we all know the rest of Britain (and civilized humanity) thinks of them. Per this argument, my proposal above is the best: we tell readers what the party has been described as by political scientists, and later on we can cover what they think of themselves too, yes. But secondary sources are paramount here, as others have said.UBER (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The British National Party has two members democratically elected to a Continental level institution (the Parliament of the European Union); where exactly are you elected to? We've been here before Uber, with you trying to mould articles to a far-left Enlightenment fundamentalist view. For instance on the Catholic Church article the other day. Wikipedia is not the Soviet Union, whether you like it or not the BNP is having an article as neutral as the one on Barack Obama. If you dislike the WP:NPOV and WP:EXTREMIST policy, nobody is forcing you to come here. All the Frankfurt School inspired newspeak in the world ("fringe, extremist, heretics", etc) doesn't change that. It was revealed that a reference you used was POV and that the author was a critical theory Marxist ultraradical, yet you still inisited on attempting to use it in the first sentence to propagate controversial libel. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
References cannot be POV - they are either reliable or unreliable. The Preston reference is an academic writing on his area of expertise and published by an academic press; it is about as good a reference as one could hope to get. Your opinions on critical theory are completely irrelevant here.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes they can be POV. Preston is an active participant and exponent of a Marxist ideology called Critical Race Theory, which has been describe by high ranking legal Judges as "lunatic" and "radical". It should also be kept in mind that, as the Black Book of Communism shows, Marxism has been responsible for the genocide of hundreds of millions of people (partisans of it are obviously not going to be neutral on their political opponents). The fact of the matter is, Preston is an armed partisan in a Cultural War with the BNP. Due to a conflict of interest, he cannot possibly be a neutral source for a definition of the party, particularly one which is not only in violation of our policies (WP:EXTREMIST, WP:BLP) but is libelous. Directly relevent, directly pertinent, directly POV. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
References can have a point of view, but they are not subject to Wikipedia's POV policy; quite the contrary, we rely on the point of view of reliable sources to ensure that the article is NPOV. Nor are sources subject to WP:COI; judgments of the validity of a point of view and of the presence or absence of conflicts of interest in sources are not ours to make - rather, we rely on the judgment of editors, universities, academic presses, and so on. Whether or not Preston is a Marxist engaged in a Cultural War with the BNP (neither of which I can see any evidence for, BTW) is irrelevant to his academic work, which has been judged by universities and academic presses to be of an acceptable standard.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At least you're accepting their view counts, so we're getting some progress. But the lead is meant to be a basic summary, everyone knows they are not white supremacists even their opponents don't class them as such. So calling them white supremacist in the lead based on one marxist scholar from 3 years ago is the most blatent abuse of undue weight I think i've ever seen on wikipedia DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on

OK we have had a flurry of changes and edit warring. I have restored the position as of last night. Would people please propose changes here before starting up the fight again. Thanks --Snowded TALK 01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources for my proposal are listed above (under Ideological orientation). I want the first sentence to say this:
The British National Party (commonly known as the BNP) is a far-right and white supremacist political party in the United Kingdom that political scientists describe as "extremist".[references above]UBER (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the prior day position again - lts take it as a WP:BRD. Dharma, your edit summary was misleading, there is no evidence of a consensus for the changes. Valid soured material has been removed. You have asserted positions that have been rejected by other editors. COI issues are now starting to show through. Lets slow this down and discuss it. --Snowded TALK 02:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not like that version either. I am mostly ok with the sentence that's there now, but I also think, if we care about reliable sources like we say we do, that my version actually comes the closest to describing those sources.UBER (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Enough; either sort this out here, and let me know when you've reached WP:CONSENSUS, or take it to Request for Comment. This to-ing and fro-ing insults our readers, who see one thing and then see another thing a few hours later. It must stop. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

lol I was gogin to request page protection last night when it was at the revision me and Uber agreed on, nevermind, you won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DharmaDreamer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough of what though? Surely you're not saying that Wikipedia insults its readers by being organic? Readers who try and edit it now might feel a little aggrieved, esp given the news which hasn't been dealt with yet. I don't agree with the conservative/protectionist approach to these articles. Wikipedia is never more important than the subject, and there has been nothing libellous argued over here - just the extremist element. Yet again those who revert a couple of times get the page protected. In my view, these kind of articles tend to show how Wikipedia is consistently more concerned over its image than the subject or the reader. It's not good. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Woeful

...The article as it is now is heavily POV, bloated to obscene proportions and congested with recentism. The main culprits gleefully revert any change that does conform with their view and then call for it to be locked.

I propose a major review of the article as it stands now. The recent edits were a massive improvement and were approaching encyclopaedic standard. Reverting back to this edit and then locking it is a step beyond the pale.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, after hours of heated debate we finally reached a compromise, albeit not a permanent fixture, something we could all roughly agree on to stand for the duration that we formed a consensus on the final outcome, then it gets reverted to someone noone but snowded agrees with then it gets locked, I was gogin to ask an admin to lock in the version we had after forming the temporary consensus, but he got there first. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw no consensus, I saw a continuing edit-war, and of course the version that gets protected is always the WP:WRONGVERSION. Anyone is free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Rodhullandemu 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Lmao that was a good read, how long does it stay protected for anyway?DharmaDreamer (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I initially protected until consensus had been reached. If the previous version had achieved some sort of consensus, then the article can be unprotected and reverted, and anyone seeking changes should propose them here first without edit-warring, on pain of being blocked for disruptive editing. Rodhullandemu 20:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Its also seriously out of date (see bleow) which can only help but make the articel look very silly.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Now unprotected. Rodhullandemu 20:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • As both DharmaDreamer and Yorksharian have ignored the request to "propose (changes) here first without edit-warring, on pain of being blocked for disruptive editing", I suggest they either be blocked or simply topic banned from political pages. Verbal chat 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and they may both consider themselves on a final warning. I am also considering taking this to WP:ANI for wider input. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
It would ahve been nice to have noted me about the warning on my talk page or i might never have noticed. ohwell. I think you should take it to WP:ANI for a wider community review. DharmaDreamer (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Welsh language Wiki

Please revert this edit once the page is off protection. The article name at Wicipedia is British National Party, as is shown here, and was correct before the edit. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"far-right", derogatory or not?

While extremist is clearly POV (suggesting part of the same category as "terrorists" and so on) and the political spectrum itself isn't especially relevent today (for instance, "right wing" is crudely used in British popular discourse to refer to the economic policies of neo-liberalism). And if we consider that after the French Revolution, the people who actually sat on the far-right were ultra-royalists and the theocrats (gloriously reactionary), then its somewhat dubious to place nationalists—who would have been Bonapartists—in such a position. But is it actually a derogatory term or epithet in the sense that extremist is? Most people would identify on the left of UK politics, the middle-class trade union overlords, the SWP, Labour, college students in Che t-shirts and dreadlocks, UAF, The Guardian, critical theory professors and so on. I hardly think the BNP would consider it a negative or non-neutral thing to be placed on the exact opposite side of the spectrum as the aforementioned groups. The reference used Countering the Smears to say they deny it, doesn't actually mention the term "far-right", covering only the extremist critical theory Adorno/Marcusisms libel. Perhaps "radical right" would be a fair enough in between? - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been gone over a million times. Take it to WP:NPOVN or WP:AVOID if you must, where it will again be found correct. Verbal chat 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
We should also follow the RS, which use extreme and far right. Verbal chat 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The only way to maintain NPOV is to say "Source X claims the bnp is far right/extreme" that way it's a fact and the reader can judge weather the source is trustworthy or not. DharmaDreamer (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
That would introduce a bias as far as the RS support the inclusion of far right, and not be "neutral". Verbal chat 21:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "far-right" is as disputable as "fascist" is. After reading reviews of the source for the "fascist"-claims it seems that they are rather poor works, with little, if any, factual or real scientifically analysed base. It is rather odd actually, that the BNP is not even to my knowledge called "fascist" by the British media. While "far-right" might be the appropriate popular description of the BNP, "fascism" seems to be used mainly by left-wing organisations/proponents. -TheG (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

'Far right' is easily acceptable. What's worth our time debating is whether 'extremist' is as well. Per numerous scholarly sources, it is. Yorkshirian keeps bringing up Wikipedia policies that he then analyzes incorrectly. If we can source controversial titles or labels to large numbers of reputable sources, we can call people "extremist," "terrorist," and any other appropriate name in the book. Now don't bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF because I'm well aware of it, but this strategy is exactly the one followed at the Ku Klux Klan article (among others), which says this in the lead: Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization". I'm proposing a variation of that, and I would make the argument on normative grounds for this article as for any other Wikipedia article on fringe political groups—left or right, represented in the European Parliament or not. Our readers deserve to know that huge numbers of reputable sources identify this party as a fascist, extremist, and white supremacist hate group. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but our job in Wikipedia is not to be nice or mean—just accurate.UBER (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Terms such as "hate group" and "extremist" are dogmatic propositions of neo-Marxist dialetic strategy, developed by the New Left, through exponents of the Frankfurt School such as Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. The basis of critical theory is the combination of Freud and Marx, to formulate a dialectic propaganda attack on opinons and groups which are pro-Western, pro-Social Conservative in worldview. Intellectually these people, as Marxists, are partisans, ideologically related to regimes such as the Soviet Union which commited the Holodomor genocide, amongst many other crimes in the 20th century. Obviously exponents who owe alligence to this dogma are not coming from a neutral position. They can't fall inline with WP:NPOV objectivity. Terms such as "far-right", while controversial, are not as blatant a vio of WP:EXTREMIST and WP:BLP.
The comparison with the KKK is not valid—we can objectively document that in its history, that specific organisation, in specific events, lynched people. In the same sense that we can document, how the same "British" Marxists who call the BNP "extremist", supported Sinn Fein's paramilitary arm the PIRA, which murdered thousands in the 1970s. The same cannot be said of the BNP, a political party elected to the European Parliament, who happen to be disliked by the left-wing of the middle class. You claim the BNP is "fascist", yet this claim is a highly contentious and strongly disputed by the subject of the article itself. Regardless, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy doesn't say "we must uphold the NPOV in articles, apart from in the area of fascists". Wikipedia is not bias for or against any ideology, it is supposed to be objective, neutral and emotionally removed. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I see reams of rhetoric here, but a singular lack of reference to reliable sources. This debate reminds me of when I first turned up at Liverpool University in 1970, and there outside the Students Union building were the Socialist Workers proclaiming that "The Revolution is just around the corner". When I did my law course in Manchester in the mid 70s, they were still there, with the same message. When I went back to the University of York in 1982, they were still there, with the same mantra. When I've been to conferences and courses at other universities and colleges since then, yup, they're still there. That's some corner! But the lesson is that some people need to move on and stop singing the same old songs, because when the needle sticks on the record, it's boring. It surely is not beyond the wit of creative editing to come up with a properly-sourced analysis of "fascist", "far-right", whatever, which takes into account both sides, gives them appropriate weight, and leaves it up to the reader to decide for themselves, rather than usurping that function and reserving it to ourselves, because that is what I perceive to be the major problem here. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've presented my sources and they meet every Wikipedia criteria. If we're not going to follow those sources, then I'm also fine with just leaving the lead as it is now. It's not that bad actually. I don't want to waste our time and to argue endlessly when there seems to be little hope for compromise.UBER (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Double standards

I think it was Uber that said what the bnp say is irrelevent, however under the section "Gains at local level, into the 1990s" It includes a quote from Nick griffin from the cook report. firstly, isn't that doulbe standards, secondly and more importantly that quote seems to be randomly inserted with no reason, the cook report incident isn't even mentioned in that section or the whole article. But the thing that really is the cream of the crop is the source, a Youtube clip. I'm sure snowded will be removing the section as soon as he reads this after flaming me for using a youtube clip as source (which originally was a tv show which I cited but changed to a clickable link that could be verified). DharmaDreamer (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we use this page please

I don't see any real attempt to use the talk page, just more edit waring and personal abuse. Dharma (and others), please propose your changes here for discussion. Separating controversial from non-controversial would help. I am sure any monitoring admin will be happy to insert AGREED changes. --Snowded TALK 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Dharma has left Wikipedia, according to the userpage anyway. Getting accused of sockpuppetry probably didn't help. Second of all, my proposal remains the same as above, although if we cannot agree to anything, I'd be fine with the current lead as well.UBER (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Should that not read Dharma (and everyone else)? So i propose that untill we can be sure that edit warring is over ALL changes must be AGREED in the talk page and only inserted by an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need for an admin, and all changes is too much. Make uncontroversial changes, if there is an objection then discuss - don't revert. If the change is controversial or has been reverted, then discuss first. Verbal chat 14:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Define controversal, or are you saying that if someone objects to an edit then we should discuse it (and untill it is agreed it cannot be inserted), but that you do not need permision to make the edit in the first place?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
If you don't have a good idea of controversial, then perhaps stick to spelling, grammar, and anti vandal type edits and discuss everything else. Verbal chat 20:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I am asking for a definition of what would have to be discused. I know what controversal means, I am asking how it would be interperated in this case. I think that if we are going to have a rulke then at least we need some definitions and citerai in order to determine if this is a good rule. Especialy as (given the subject) most edits will be debatable, polemical and subject to disputatious actions (as recent events show). All of which can be seen as part of the definition of controvesal.Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Then in your case I advise you discuss all edits. Rather than waste time on continued meta-discussion, why don't you propose some changes that you think should be made, with a justification? For example, the EHRC edits. Verbal chat 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Becasue I do not consider them controversal, as such do not beleive they need discusion. Indead I ased why this edit was removed, and at no time was there any susgestion that this was a contorersal addition, so I again say it should never have been removed, and should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've asked you several times to justify it. It has been removed, please consider it controversial. Verbal chat 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Let's just leave the current version alone.UBER (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to accept the idea thaty no more edits be allowed, or that all edits must first be diascused here, and approved by an admin.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with you bringing your edits here for approval of admins or anyone else. There doesn't seem to be any further point to this discussion. Please stick to discussing improving the article. Verbal chat 21:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)How about we all agree a strict enforcement of WP:BRD and then open up the page to editing. Any new edit reverted must be discussed. Then if an editor breaks that rule they can be blocked for a cooling off period. In effect a do not revert a revert policy. Its worked before elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 21:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no problom with the idea that any revert should be discused.Slatersteven (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You have it backwards, see WP:BRD. However, if you want to discuss any reverts you propose to make, then that is fine. Verbal chat 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, I accept the idea that a revert should not be reverted without discusion by anyone.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
So do we have agreement? If all those involved recently would signify assent then we can ask for the page to be opened for editing with the restriction. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the furore that erupted when I last unprotected this page, you'll understand that unprotection has to be approached pragmatically. Whereas I note the purported departure of User:DharmaDreamer, I have also seen IP edits to related articles, so I would not be happy about full unprotection just yet. I really do not wish to have to lay down conditions restricting the desires of good-faith editors to improve the article; against that, however, I note there is an air of reconciliation and cooperation here. If everyone agrees, I will discuss with the protecting admin, with agreement to a self-imposed 1RR restriction by those who wish to make this article worthy of being here. On a side-note, I would suggest that (1) the recent EHRC case should be sorted out, as it is well-sourced, and (2) some work to make the lead neutral and acceptable would be welcome. I have no particular horse in this race, so if you reject my input, that does not bother me. I hope we can progress from this point forwards, but we should also bear in mind that the UK General Election is a few weeks away, and articles for all political parties are bound to come under some pressure. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll go on 0RR and let the admins revert blatantly controversial edits that have not first been discussed and approved in the talk page. As for neutrality, the lead is already neutral I'd say. I question whether it's comprehensive enough, hence my proposal, but I don't see its neutrality as an issue.UBER (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yorkshirian was a key component to the warring - and is even getting oversighted at WP:NPOVN over the issue - so must be included in any agreement IMHO. Wknight94 talk 00:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I woould have to agree, untill all the interested editors (and like it or not hbis imput makes him an interested party) agree to the 1RR restirction its pointless to try and use it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems to have been overlooked that Yorkshirian started all this in the first place by replacing the long-standing lead with a highly POV puff piece sympathetic to the BNP which he then edit warred to keep without discussing it, along with another editor. The main problem with the article right now isn't the lead but the vast amount of Jackanoryesque original research that has been added, but as it's simpler to remove the cause of the problem first I'll deal with that editor before trying to fix the article. 2 lines of K303 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling fix

{{editprotected}} As an example of an uncontroversial edit, could the typo "Archibishops" please be replaced with "Archbishops". Thanks. Verbal chat 21:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888Talk 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I would susgest this change to the lead.

"The British National Party (BNP) is a British political party that has been widely described as far-right, although the BNP dispute this label, and formed as a splinter group from the National Front by John Tyndall in 1982.

In March 2010 the UK courts found that it potentially restricted membership on racial grounds, the BNP denied this[1]."

  • Strongly oppose for reasons of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE. We should follow the WP:RS and they are unambiguous in their description of the BNP. The proposed change is also ambiguous as to John Tyndall, and is full of weasel words. I've fixed some spelling errors in the above post as it is a proposed edit. Verbal chat 12:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose WIkipedia is not a communication channel for BNO press statements --Snowded TALK 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose with fire The BNP are not widely described as far right they are far right, in the same way as the Earth is not widely described as spherical it is spherical. That the BNP are not far right is the sort of minority fringe view that the Flat Earth Society advance about the shape of the Earth. 2 lines of K303 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is no doubt that they are right-wing. And neutrality does not mean that we balance the findings of a court (which will not be appealed([4]) with claims by the BNP. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for masculine reasons. IMO the term far-right isn't particularly derogatory, though it is undeniably applied mostly by people of dubious character (far-left college students who have been brainwashed by critical theory professors). If middle class Trotskyites and cuddly "egalitarian" plutocrats like Dave Cameron, make up the British left and centre respectively, then I don't see how this spectrum description, putting some distance between them, could be derogatory in itself. Its a bit like popular use of the term "reactionary" as applied by effeminate types, if it is heroically reclaimed, with a smug and unassailable smirk on your face, it takes all the sting out of the tail. The term "nationalist" belongs in the intro first though and the random part about party membership belongs in a second for "membership", its currently out of place and undue weight for the intro. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well, although I'm slightly confused about Yorkshirian's reasoning ("masculine reasons"??!!?). Yorkshirian, you have been notified numerous times before: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stop flooding article talk pages with your personal political opinions.UBER (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Metaphysically masculine in the sense that, my opposition to the proposal isn't based on faux-indignation or an attempt to protest against the article subject with epithets, but a clear headed logic that, IMO the term itself, actually, isn't defamatory to begin with so we don't need a disclaimer in the intro. The comment is directly pertinent to the subject at hand, as an attempt to explain, from a reactionary perspective, that having the term "far-right" in the article need not be a divisive issue to begin with. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Slight reservation as factually inaccurate. Never mind the right wing bit; that's fine. But in the second sentence the statement "the UK courts found that it potentially restricted membership on racial grounds" is untrue. The High Court (not "courts") found it was discriminatory, not "potentially" anything. Suggest, "Until 2010, following challenges in the High Court on grounds of racial discrimination, it restricted membership to people of "Caucasian origin"" (Notice 2009 edited to 2010, effective date.)Emeraude (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The courts still say the new constitution was still likely to be discriminatory.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Second lead sentence suggestion

The first one is effectively dead. No one supports it. Here's what I support:

  • The British National Party (commonly known as the BNP) is a far-right and white supremacist political party in the United Kingdom widely described as extremist.[references above]

Before opposing or supporting, know that I am willing to drop "extremist" from the text and simply say far-right and white supremacist, both of which are accurate, and both of which can be attributed to numerous reputable sources (scholars and journalists). Have at it.UBER (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose If they are called "far right" it seems redundant to call them white supremicist and extremist as well. The current references to the NF and their membership policy give readers a clear picture of their views.[5] But I do not see any POV problems with the proposal. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose since its a violation of policies such as WP:BLP, WP:EXTREMIST and WP:NPOV. As previously proven above, the source you provided is not a reliable one, since Preston is a partisan involved in far-left political activism (he works in critical theory a form of Marxism, derived from the anti-European Frankfurt School). The term "white supremacist" is inherently derogatory and libelous to the extent that it compromises the project, particularly as this party now also includes people who are not even caucasian. Though outside of radical Marxists such as Preston, the term has never been widely used to describe the organisation in any case. The party is widely regarded to expouse ethno-nationalism in favour of the nations of the British Isles. Is Nelson Mandela a "black supremacist" or Ghandi an "Indian supremacist"? Remember personal views should not effect the mainspace. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that UberCryxic would use Preston as a reliable source for describing the BNP, when he rejects his definition of the "far right" when it comes to editing the JBS article.[6] The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Deuces, please read up on WP:OR. It's absolutely pointless for you to take research from a scholar and apply it to fit your own conclusions on the subject of another article that the scholar does not even mention. Stick to the BNP here.UBER (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
What you are doing, Uber, in this article, JBS, liberalism, social liberalism, and other articles is applying your own personal views then data-mining to find sources. You have no understanding of any of these subjects, are unwilling to read the source material and are trying to push your own views into them. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel better now that you got that out of the way? I hope you do, so we can actually get something done on this talk page. But if your intention is to taunt and to throw around red herrings, you're wasting your time...and more importantly, you're wasting our time. It doesn't look like we're getting anywhere with the lead sentence, which I think is mostly fine as it is anyway.UBER (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think the lead "is mostly fine as it is anyway" why are you criticizing my comments? Why do you recommend a change? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Because I think the lead could be further improved, but I'm definitely not willing to do that at the cost of precious time and effort.UBER (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the lead could be improved, but let us stick with reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm doing. On the one hand, we have those people called professors and political scientists. On the other hand, we have statements from the BNP. You tell me which is more reliable.UBER (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
If you read the previous conversation, you would see that I have always argued in favor of academic opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Good. In this case, plenty of academic opinion (see above) identifies the party as extremist. If it's going to be this much of a hassle, then I'm fine leaving that out of the lead. But academic opinion has, in fact, spoken on this subject quite convincingly.UBER (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you not see that it is redundant to call them both "far right" and "extremist"? Are there members of the "far right" who are not "extremist"? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually said I'm willing to drop that, largely because I agree with you. Of course, you didn't say anything about white supremacist, which is what I really insist on including.UBER (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The term "white supremicist" strikes me as an Americanism. The BNP talk about the indigenous people of the British Isles, although they are more likely extreme English nationalists. But please explain why it is not redundant to call a "far right" group white supremicist. What do you think that far right means? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Uber thinks the first suggestion has no support. See my comment added to that section before I got round to reading this. As for "white supremicist", that is not normally a charge that is levelled at the BNP, though it may apply to individual members. The BNP is racist, sure, but its history and that of its antecedents does not suggest that it is part of what is often termed white nationlism; indeed, the BNP and its members would have no great sens of solidarity with the French, Italians, Germans or Americans - they're all foreigners. (And Four Deuces is also right when he says they are really English Nationalists.) However, far right does not equate to white supremacist (or there can be no black right wingers!) Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose "white supremicist" is not really a label that is applied to the BNP, they are less about skin colour then nationality (thought there may be an element of it in their makeup).Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They are racist but white supremacist is a US term and not appropriate--Snowded TALK 13:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 government review

I want to add this review conclusion but I see it is locked again. The article more resembles a valueless vomit pit of bigoted commentary than an educational assessment and reporting of the actual issuesOff2riorob (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


After a 2009 leaked membership list revealed 12 teachers to be members of the BNP A government review was set up and in May 2010 the review concluded that members of the British National Party (BNP) or any other group which may promote racism should not be barred from the teaching profession, the review author, Maurice Smith said, ""To bar teachers from joining non-proscribed organizations would be a profound political act." [2]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gXtyAVb_e9SSH_gTcNICeP5tSpzQ Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I may not agree with the way you have worded this request this does seem (given the fact that the issue of teachers is covered in the article) this (if it can be demonstrated to be factual) should be in the article. I would like a better source though.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Try this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7422291/Teachers-can-keep-BNP-membership-Government-review-says.html it also contains rather more then your passage above.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a better citation.Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The best citation would actually be the Smith Report itself rather than a newspaper's coverage of it. But the risk is that this article gets further cluttered with unimportant trivia. The fact is that BNP members did not used to be barred from teaching, and the new position is that...... BNP members are not barred from teaching. It really is a total non-event of passing currency and of no enduring encyclopedic value. Suitable for Wikinews, perhaps (and perhaps not). Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It was as generally is asserted in the article that all bnp members are awful people low life scum, that is the only reason that I would even suggest adding this in an attempt to portray a balance, there is a proliferation of anti BNP comments that the article is crying out for anything that is not negative. When an attack article is created there will be a good reason to insert any addition that adds content that disputes that negative POV. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
But the Smith Report did not say that all BNP members are not "awful people low life scum", nor the opposite. It really is a total non-event because nothing has changed. But, more importantly, the Report does not endorse the BNP. I think, if you read it, it will actually be highly condemnatory of the BNP's policies and of how they relate to schools. It merely says that teachers should not be banned from membership. Emeraude (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/judge-shuts-bnp-membership-list-over-race-bias-1920509.html
  2. ^ "Teachers allowed to be BNP members, govt says". AFP via (Google news). March 12, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_National_Party/Archive_17&oldid=1136301641"