Talk:British National Party/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Delete my tables and data

Its been evident for a long while that anyone who wants to make the BNP article more neutral/factual is banned, harrassed or finds their content deleted by the same far-leftists who have been trolling this board since 2010 (remember when the "holocaust denial" smear tag was left up for over a year?). What is further shocking is that the 2010 electoral accounts put BNP membership at 10,632 in December 2010, but the wikipedia uses a biased nonsense 4000 figure from a left-wing anti-BNP newspaper! LOL. The far leftist morons who vandalise this page think people will fall for their lies, but everyone sees through them. The days of calling the BNP "Nazi" etc to loose them votes, no longer applies, its a 30 year old outdated smear method. Therefore I ask anyone who wants to make constructive non-biased edits to the British National Party does so over at the Metapedia page: en.metapedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party where my tables and data will be copied. This page shall be built up, and will eventually overtake this pathetic wikipedia page through searchengine. ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT TO IMPROVE THE FACTS ENCYCLOPEDIA STYLE ABOUT THE BNP PLEASE GO TO METAPEDIA. My tables and the proper membership amount will be taken there. OrangeGremlin (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nailing your colours to the mast I see ----Snowded ^TALK 13:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "Its been evident for a long while.....". This from someone who has been editing for less than 24 hours?! Or have you been here before under another name? Be that as it may, you do your case no good by attacking the motives of other editors, especially when you say that the the article wants to be "more neutral/factual" - this suggests you have a very one-sided agenda to push. The rest of your rant above is demeaned by your implied denigration of the whole Wikipedia project in favour of Metapedia. Incidentally, there is nothing in the article that can be described as calling the BNP Nazi. Fascist, yes, but not Nazi. Emeraude (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that by declaring that you're taking this to Metapedia is basically confessing that you're not editing from at neutral point of view, and in fact from a far-right bias. – Richard BB 15:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You are ALL biased and incapable of constructing this article in a neutral way. Hence why we continually see the same complaints from people - whom you almost without exception accuse of being BNP sympathisers - upon the talk page from this article (whether true or not). This is then predictably followed by the usual justification from yourselves for the saturated smattering of negativity towards the BNP contained within this article.

This is without a doubt one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia.--82.3.160.103 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source, the BNP is not. TFD (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The accounts were submitted and checked in 2010 by the electoral commission (EE), and also in 2011. These were posted. They check the figures, and make sure they match up with finances. You cannot make up random membership stats to to the EE. Look up the basics. The facts show the BNP had just over 10,000 members in December 2010 [1] and well over 7000 in Dec 2011. Not 4000. The 4k figure was invented solely to try and portray the BNP as "over", the same liars are the people STILL claiming the party is millions in debt, when in actual fact it has a financial surplus of over £200,000. OrangeGremlin (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The auditors, not the EE, check the accounts and their opinion is published in the annual report. However, they do not check the chairman's statement, except to ensure that it is consistent with the published account. The membership numbers are contained in the chairman's statement and are therefore not reliable. If you think that the Independant is wrong, then you should write to them or complain to the Press Council. TFD (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not care if some troll reads my IP address and attempts some smear. You cannot stop unprincipled persons from acting in an unprincipled fashion.

My subject is the use by smear artists of periodic establishment media as quote "unbiased sources" when they wish to smear a group, in this case, the BNP. Since the British NUJ has very obligingly published its code forbidding its members from writing for publication, any article that tends to support the so called "Far Right" in any way, it would seem that most of the media source citations in the BNP smear article would be subject to legitimate challenge and the authors required to post supporting evidence of the factual nature of the material , rather than just leftists repeating the smears of other leftists. Your conclusion that the BNP is Far right because dozens of communists say that it is far right, and that bankster supporting mass media also say that it is far right, are farcical. The Fact is Griffin broke with Tyndall more than 15 years ago, has always been anti Nazi has worked tirelessly to build up the anti Nazis to the point where he got rid of any who had even the slightest sympthy for any facets of Naziiism entirely in 2011. Now they are all ralleying around Edmunds in the BDP.

If you were honest you would say that when Griffin accepted the open anti nazi and Distributist icon Patrick Harrington as his senior advisor, he triggered the war that finally rid the Party of diehards like Edmunds.

But you are not Honest. You have an agenda and that agenda is to defeat all anti globalist nationalists by any means you deem necessary. Hence your support of the anti democratic "no platform policy". hence the ruthless deleting of any material ( ala Stalinist Russia) that tends to support opposing views.

If the Board of Directors at WIKI wants to really be fair they should disable the delete functions on political material and instead have a challenge page where all might write then periodically have a meeting where they review the challenges and publish their findings. or it they cannot do that keep the challenges up on the challenge page not subject to deletion so all can review all sides of the matter and decide for themselves. This is a test if my material stays up we will know that Wiki is trying to be fair if it is deleted since their is nothing controversial in this at all then we will know wiki is in sympathy with the trolls and is trying to control which side of political opinion people may view.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.194.158.128 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It is policy to reflect what is written in reliable sources, which includes mainstream media. If you disagree with policy then change it. TFD (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Far right does not always mean neo-Nazi. You can be far-right and not be a Nazi. The article's ideology box does not call them Nazi, so you're arguing a strawman. Also, please do not assume bad faith and say that we're all trying to push a far-left agenda, or saying that we all have a "no platform policy". Such a claim is both unsubstantiated and ludicrous. What it comes down to is precisely what TFD said: we are doing what Wikipedia policy dictates. If you don't like it then either challenge the way Wikipedia works at WP:5 (which would be a futile endeavour) or do what the OP said that he was going to do and build an article more in line with his philosophy at Metapedia. – Richard BB 11:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are the economic policies?

The is virtually no mention of economics at all, one of the foundations of political ideology. Is that because those policies are firmly on the Left, and this disrupts the "far-right" narrative that this page's oligarchs favour? If the policies are hard-left, and they are, then what makes them a far-right group? There is very little difference between the BNP and Old Labour - they even have the same core vote. Racism and nationalism is not a left/right issue (see China or Zimbabwe). Even if you can't bring yourselves to not smear right wing politics by association then at least display economic policy so people can see for themselves. 86.135.211.204 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Try British_National_Party#Economic_policy. While this is not a forum, I find there to be very little "far left" or "old labour" about planning to spend a fortune (in Tony Lecomber's words) "buying back" the passports of people born in the UK in order to "repatriate" them to countries neither they nor their parents have ever set foot in. Neither do I remember the far left ever proposing "the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets", "Halving council tax by ... eliminating multiculturalism spending", "Ending the £9 billion foreign aid budget", "giving preference in the job market to native Britons", "Ending the untold billions spent subsidising the immigration swindle... the “race relations” industry and a host of others." That's just to quote just a few gems from the economic section of their website. Sorry but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources not dubious arguments about the BNP being a far left party. Valenciano (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)