Talk:British National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q: Is the BNP a far-right and/or fascist party?
A: In almost all academic literature, including that leading up to the present day, the BNP's policies are classified as far-right, and its ideologies as fascist or neo-fascist. The BNP denies aspects of both of these labels – they consider themselves opposed to right-wing capitalism as well as left-wing socialism, and they say that they reject certain tenets of fascism such as the single-party state. These caveats to such labels must be acknowledged in the article, but appropriate weight should be assigned to the fact that many academics find these to be the most suitable labels to use even when taking the BNP's response to them into account.
Q: Why can't I view some of the sources in the article without paying?
A: Per WP:PAYWALL, there is no requirement that sources on Wikipedia have to be free to view. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help you further, and you may be able to view the sources for free at libraries or universities.
Former good article nomineeBritish National Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
July 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 25, 2008Peer reviewNot reviewed
September 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 1, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016[edit]

I would like the editor to remove the last councillor from the statistics on the right hand side of the page, confirming that the BNP no longer has any representation.

This is my suggested paragraph to be added to the "Decline: 2014–present" section In November 2016 the BNP lost it's last elected representative when Brian Parker, who represents Marsden on Pendle Council, told the Lancashire authority he wants to sit as an independent. [1] (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need a paragraph and the name and location are not significant. Sentence added with ref instead. Emeraude (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)



Everyone knows the BNP's origins in the 1980s were fascist, but a modernizer faction (later led by Griffin) transformed the party. The article quotes a number of academics who argue Griffin's changes were merely "cosmetic". However there are academics who disagree and none of those are quoted. So there is an obvious problem with bias.

I will quote for example academic Stijn van Kessel

To the extent which the BNP truly changed can be debated. According to Nigel Copsey (2007: 61), ideological renewal under Griffin constituted 'a recalibration of fascism rather than a fundamental break in ideological continuity'. As the BNP's commitment to liberal democracy remand doubtful, its modernisation could, according to Copsey (2009: 164-165), better be perceived as nothing more than a opportune 'change of clothing'... However, based on the way the party has presented itself to the outside world, the 'modern' BNP can be treated as a populist party. In recent years, the BNP explicitly aimed to present itself as a democratic party. The manifesto for the 2005 general election was actually titled 'Rebuilding British democracy' and warned against excessive central state control.

- Kessel, S. V. (2015). Populist Parties in Europe: Agents of Discontent?. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kessel then goes on further to outright deny the BNP is a fascist party based on its 2010 change in membership policy to accept ethnic minorities. Therefore there is an academic view Griffin's modernisation genuinely did transformed the BNP from a fascist to a right-wing populist party since he committed the party to liberal democracy, professional electioneering and made the party multi-ethnic; he also introduced to the party populism, dropped the compulsory repatriation policy etc as part of his modernisation. For Kessel the BNP is not a fascist party but right-wing populist.

Also, the BNP are categorized as "radical populist right" with the Front National, Lega Nord and Party for Freedom by Akkerman et al. 2016. None of the latter parties are fascist, but right wing populist.

Akkerman, T., De Lange, S. L., Rooduijn, M. (2016). "Inclusion and mainstreaming?" in: Akkerman, T (ed.) Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream?. Routledge. OldLucretus (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Very iffy. What van Kessel clearly says, updating Copsey, is about the way the BNP "presented itself", not its ideology. Yes, it can (or rather could) be treated as a populist party, but populism is a method, not an idology, and can be applied across the political spectrum, not just on the right or extreme right. (Note the Greek party Syriza, often described as populist.) The same would apply to the Front National in France. Note also, that the BNP's change to its constitution (not "membership policy") was specifically to avoid legal action that it was discriminatory - no one actually believes there was any change in ideology driving this and the party did not become "multi-ethnic", nor was it intended that it should. Finally, it should be remembered that a whole succession of UK fascist parties have engaged in electioneering - it does not stop them being fascist. (Even Hitler and Mussolini contested elections!) Emeraude (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Then how is fascism being defined? If the BNP are committed to liberal democracy and even defend democracy (more so - direct democracy) in their general election manifestos as Kessel notes, how are they fascist? Copsey (2007) doesn't provide much of an answer, only a few examples of "susceptibility to illiberal thinking":
The party's opposition to a central state, rejection of ID cards, it call for devolved and decentralized government, its demand for a bill of rights, and the introduction of citizens initiative referenda hardly conveys the impression of a fascist party that seeks totalitarian control over state, society and the individual... Outward appearances suggest that personal freedom and cultural pluralism would remain under a BNP government. But, if we probe its manifesto more closely, we soon find evidence of an instinctive susceptibility to illiberal thinking. The proposals include the introduction of a Clause-28 style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and media and the media for instance, and a BNP government would on the assumption of power hold meetings wit media proprietors 'in an effort to thrash out ways in which they would agree ending any possibility of abuse of their power'. For particularly serious cases (whatever these might be), a BNP government would establish a new criminal offence whereby the deliberate disseminations of falsehoods by the media would be outlawed. Moreover, it says little about how separate racial enclaves would be enforced and in this respect its promise that law-abiding minorities would "enjoy the full protection of the law against harassment or hostility" starts to ring somewhat hollow.

The main problems with this: Firstly its outdated. Copsey is only examining the 2005 manifesto, because he published his study in 2007. The BNP was still being modernised by Griffin at that time. Most the stuff Cospey mentions is absent from the 2010 manifesto. Secondly, Cospey cannot provide many example of "susceptibility to illiberal thinking". Out of the entire 2005 manifesto all he can find for his fascist label is a "Clause-28 style proscription against the promotion of racial integration in schools and media" that vanished by the 2010 manifesto. The BNP as a party today (or what is left of it, 500 members?) is multi-ethnic, so none of this even applies. For example their 2012 mayoral candidate was a foreign-born Uruguayan who only came to the UK as recent as 2001 ( and I believe he is still a BNP member. OldLucretus (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

But no one has said that the BNP is "committed to liberal democracy"; Copsey says it's a sham and Kessel, in quoting him, does not negate it but merely says that "based on the way the party has presented itself" it can be "treated as a populist party". He continues that the BNP "explicitly aimed to present itself as a democratic party". Agreed, so did NF, NP, GBM, etc (and Hitler and Mussolini come to that). But that's all about presentation. It does not mean it has changed its ideology and Kessel does not suggest it has. There is nothing to be gained by examining its manifesto - that's presentation, not ideology. Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the full Kessel quote because of limited page views at Google Books, but Kessel says on the next page of that quote - the BNP cannot be labelled as "fascist" because of their change in membership policy. If you read though the opening quote it says it is debatable: "To the extent which the BNP truly changed can be debated." Instead Wikipedia bias cherry picks just Copsey. It is not "settled" that the BNP is fascist, academics still debate this description. And about ideological change, even Copsey (2007) mentions how the BNP under Griffin repudiated white nationalism; a quote from Griffin (2006) on the main page says the "BNP is no longer a white nationalist party" and in 2009 he remarked the BNP no longer wants an "all white UK" etc. Combined with the change in membership policy so the BNP became multi-ethnic, this is a clear ideological shift.OldLucretus (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I certainly think that Kessel would be a useful source to consult, although to what extent it actually deals with the BNP needs to be considered. From what I read above, it appears that it only touches on the BNP in passing, whereas this article should probably place greater reliance on academic sources which are devoted more fully to the subject of the BNP and the British right-wing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

All the academic sources calling the BNP "fascist" on the main page are outdated. The main source is two articles by Copsey (2007, 2008), so nearly a decade ago. These sources are obsolete because they don't cover the 2010 GE Manifesto of the BNP (only the 2005 Manifesto), nor the more recent policy and ideological changes in the BNP within the last 8 or 9 years.OldLucretus (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
My argument is the BNP was formerly fascist, but Nick Griffin modernised it to a right-wing populist party. At least some academics argue the same. As I noted above, the BNP is categorized in literature with the Front National as "radical populist right".OldLucretus (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on this, i'm changing the infobox to Facist (early) AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

'Fascist' is not a valid description of The B.N.P. They don't have fascist web-pages or manifesto, behavior etc. to warrant this. It's just the bias of leftwingers. If they were fascist in the past then the S.N.P. article should class The S.N.P. as fascist as it supported The Third Reich during the war.

The BNP are not Fascist, the word Fascist has been hijacked by the left. Classical Fascism of Mussolini and Franco is very different from Neo-Nazism (Which I don't even think the BNP as a party could be called, although some of it's followers are), Fascism is actually not that racist, Mussolini and Franco criticized Hilter's racial policies. (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable Sources produced by academics active in the fields of political science and political history describe the BNP as "fascist" (or, more specifically "neo-fascist") because it meets the criteria for that definition. Hence this article refers to the BNP as fascist. Should similar reliable sources describe the SNP of the past as "fascist", then we would do the same for that article too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

One must remember there is a strong leftwing bias in the political science departments in the UK since it is mostly state-funded. Fascist is a slur, and besides there are two forms of it which differ considerably. There's the original Italians circa 1919, and the far more famous Nazis. Read the original manifestos and compare, and you'll see they are quite different. The Italians were into women's rights and minimum wage, and the Nazis were marked out for the lust for war. Common traits do exist though, but admitting foreigners is not the pivotal one. That could equally be simply nationalist. Fascism was certainly a form of socialism and nationalisation was common to both forms, and also the BNP advocated strong nationalisation. They wanted protectionist measures to support British industry. However this is all policy that at one time or another would have been common in the Labour Party, so one must ask how do we distinguish. How I see it, which might be useful here is the Italians were the proto fascists, and then the Nazis kind of developed into its full-blown form where it caused great disaster. If we look at the period it was characterised by huge public speeches, so we have this populist element too.

I do not however see the BNP at that degree of radicalism. It certainly ranged from member to member, but what was going on during that time they became big was they were essentially in competition with the UKIP. They were fighting over the same sector of voters and tugging them in opposite directions. BNP was therefore quite similar in approach to the UKIP but more working class.

So given consideration to the above, I would simply call a spade a spade and settle for nationalist. If one were to have said nationalist to any of the members one would have got 95% agreement in my estimation. Fascist would be contentious to the extreme. They were not out to kill Jews. They were just to he left of the UKIP, as per many from Old Labour, not keen on New Labour. (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean reliable source? I'm sorry but the reliability is not present for the reasons stated above vs no reason from you. I merely point to your error from my knowledge of this period. If state academics wish to publish inaccurate slurs then I suggest one could find genuine published sources which map better to the truth as it was played out at the time. You can cross-check the facts.

It might well be the term fascist has some highly technical political science meaning not recognised in the wider sense that says they are fascist, but in my view it simply conveys an inaccurate view, since people associate with Nazis and concentration camps and the like. The error is of course where things have been weighted incorrectly - as per matter of degree. To say not admitting foreigners to the party is on par with killing them in a genocide is ridiculous. Nationalism functions like a group with a group identity, so the non-admittance of foreigners was because their view was to run Britain by the British for the British. Hate was not the driving force, it was preference, i.e. a much milder politic than the militaristic Nazi, where one does have some neo Nazi copycat movements on the extreme fringes (they often wear uniforms as well). BNP were nothing like that. I'll leave it to others to find any RS which improves accuracy on this point. (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes I mean reliable sources, and if you have better sources that say the BNP are not fascist then please produce them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
And let's not forget that the BNP's founder (quote: "Hitler was right") and his pals were frequently photographed in Nazi uniforms and were convicted of organising a paramilitary group. Emeraude (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
See my comments at bottom of the page for more details on this dispute. The problem is the reliable sources only date from 2004-2008 and only discuss the 2001/2005 BNP GE manifesto, not 2010. By the time of latter, the party had changed its image, discourse etc considerably.

“[The] modernization project undertaken by the BNP has involved the party distancing itself from the ‘older’ fascist tradition in which other far-right political movements, such as the National Front (NF), have remained firmly rooted... this has meant the adoption of a form of national-populism pioneered by the Front national in France.” - James Rhodes, “The Banal National Party : The Routine Nature of Legitimacy”, Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 43, n°2, 2009 Aliencatdog (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

To summarise, yes the BNP was originally fascist, but by 2009 or 2010 it changed into a "right-wing populist" direction. The main sources cited on article describing the BNP as fascist such as Copsey (2004, 2007) do not cover this change and instead only cover the 2001/2005 manifestos, not 2010. Aliencatdog (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Academic sources describing post-2009 BNP as right-wing populist, not fascist[edit] "This study takes a closer look at the British National Party (BNP) in the context of contemporary European far-right politics. Influenced by rising media attention for the BNP and by the fascinating debate on how to explain far-right electoral success, two closely linked questions are asked: How should the BNP be categorised? and what explains its electoral performance? Various authors have described the BNP as an extreme right or neo-fascist party while others have put it in the populist radical right family as defined by Cas Mudde. Against a backdrop of Mudde’s theoretic framework, official BNP publications are researched and discussed leading to the conclusion that the party belongs in the populist radical right mould."

note specifically: "I have chosen to look at the manifestos for the 2010 general election and the 2011 English local elections for a representation of the BNP’s current ideological outlook."

and: "When it comes to being anti-systemic, the BNP show very little in terms of criticism of the concept of parliamentary democracy. At no place in the material I have researched does the party advocate changing the political system of Britain. Rather, it defines itself as a, if not the, champion of democratic principles quite explicitly (BNP 2010: 12) and sticks to the principle of majority rule and democratic influence by advocating regular use of referenda on certain issues. There is absolutely no evidence in the material I have researched to support any claim for the BNP to be anti-systemic and by looking at the same material it cannot be claimed that the official policy of the BNP is anything other than to support the continuation of parliamentary democracy."

conclusion: "Table 3.5 shows that along these nine significant features, the scores of the BNP correspond perfectly with those of the theoretically defined populist radical right group. At the same time, it differs from the extreme right group at the same places that the PRR were expected to do so. In light of everything that was discussed in the theory section, with the evidence of the material I researched and presented in chapter two and the analysis I have presented in this chapter, there are strong reasons to put the BNP firmly within the populist radical right family.

I suggest looking at the tables.Aliencatdog (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016[edit]

Please partially revert the changes made in this edit, specifically revert the seats7 field to become 1 again, the removal of the sentence "It currently has one councillor in UK local government." and the addition of the sentence beginning "In November 2016, the last remaining councillor to be a member of the BNP". While it is true the councillor decided to become an independent on 23 November, he changed his mind very quickly. Thanks. 2A02:C7D:3CBD:3100:A051:B236:5898:6EC9 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done, in addition pendal council lists him as BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Added the information to the lead and changed the number of seats to become 1 again. Thank you very much for alerting me to this error, I was too quick to change this. HelgaStick (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Federal leaders[edit]

Federal leaders? Should that not be party leaders?Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I've noticed this in a few articles on UK parties: I suspect some American editor has been at work! Now changed. Emeraude (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Criminal past (and I dare say a criminal future)[edit]

Why is the section on members criminal convictions in the associated groups section?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. It was moved from Legal Issues section on 4 November 2016 with the rationale "Moving information to more appropriate location". This was hidden within a mass of edits and was not apparent, as most of the actual text was preserved. It does not make sense, so I have restored the two sections to the way they appeared before that edit. However, it may be that some other details from Associated groups could be moved down to criminal conviction. Emeraude (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about having a section devoted to "Legal issues" (with its subsections like "Association with violence") when we don't have anything comparable in Wikipedia's articles on other British political parties. I appreciate that the BNP is on the extreme end of the electoral spectrum and thus is a little different to the likes of Labour, the Conservatives, and UKIP, but that does not mean that we should be presenting it in a different manner. (Doing so brings concerns regarding neutrality). All of the aforementioned parties have become entangled in legal issues and yet have not had "Legal issues" sections established as a result; why is the BNP different? In my view, where those legal issues are actually relevant for the Wikipedia article (some may not be, for we aren't here to just collect trivia) then they should definitely remain but they are better integrated into other sections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
This has been disused many times here. In essence (given their small numbers) they have an unusually high incidence of violent criminal convictions. Moreover these are often not "just some member" but leading figures.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


Has this " and the party has claimed that its anti-Establishment rhetoric "created the road" to Britain's vote to leave the European Union." been contested by any RS, if not then it is not a contested statement. Also the BNP are RS for their own claims, this this should, stay, and then the counter point should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. The BNP has made the claim and the ONLY reliable source that they did so is the BNP. Reporting that claim is not to accept the claim as accurate, merely that they said it. (In the same, way, we report convicted criminals as saying that they didn't do it, even though they did.) I have reverted this. Emeraude (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree and would argue that this information should not be included in the article. The BNP make many claims through their website and social media; some perhaps are true, some are not. However if these statements have not been picked up and repeated in RS (ideally those by academics writing on the far right) then I see no reason that said claims are notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. For me the real issue here is notability, and there is no evidence that the fact that the BNP made this claim is in any way notable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Notability is not applicable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to notability in a wider sense than the policy itself, i.e. what makes the BNP's statement that they influenced the EU referendum result notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article? This statement has not been picked up and repeated in academic literature on the party, or in the mainstream media. That being the case, why should it be included in the article? I don't see any compelling reason for its inclusion and worry about this article becoming a bit of a dumping ground for anything and everything which the BNP claims or has ever claimed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Because it represents their view on what is (most likely) the most important political decision this country had made in the last 50 years. Especially given the claims that the vote was motivated by Xenophobia, and led to a rise in racism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
This is also worth reading.
Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The party is probably attempting such in a fashion to legitimise themselves as much as UKIP has managed, however saying this, UKIP certainly do not have the claim, as much as they like to think they do. Euroscepticism has a long history in Britain despite what certain people want you to believe! Uamaol (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


Re: "most of its early members came from the NFF, although others were defectors from the NF," NFF is not referenced anywhere else on the page. Is this supposed to be NNF as it appears to be distinct from NF? danindenver (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. It is a typo and should be NNF (i.e. the New National Front) which is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I have corrected this. Emeraude (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

London Assembly[edit]

Did they not have one seat in the London Assembly, not two, as it says at the beginning of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakatbroughshane (talkcontribs) 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, yes, they are listed as wining one seat in 2008, and no others.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have corrected the article. Presumably this error has crept in because the BNP had two representatives at the European Parliament while UKIP had two representatives on the London Assembly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No longer a political party[edit]

The article now needs to be amended to state it WAS a political party.

Maybe with a line in the current section about how they were removed from the official register of political parties by the electoral commission for failing to submit their paperwork in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinintheuk (talkcontribs) 09:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Old news. They reregistered later the same month, that's how they were able to stand 10 candidates last year in the general election. They appear on the current register. Valenciano (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Being registered is not necessary to be a political party. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts[edit]

Mrnobody1997 recently made this, this, and this edit, reverting edits made be me. All reverts were done without explanation. Mrnobody1997, if you want to revert an edit, common courtesy dictates that you should explain why. You should also review WP:BRD, since with this edit I reverted an edit by you in which you reverted this constructive edit by Midnightblueowl without explanation. You should not be restoring such a change without discussion. The last of your three reverts simply looks like retaliation against me for reverting some of your edits, which of course is unacceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well for a start, Identity is the BNP's news paper [1]. I suggest you explain the justification for the rest here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Am I to understand it that you reverted my other two changes only because I did not give a lengthy talk page explanation for them? That's a terrible reason, and it isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Aren't you able to judge for yourself whether an edit is an improvement or not? Why exactly are you calling on me to justify my changes instead of justifying your revert of those changes? Why would you try to shift the burden of explaining an edit from you to me? I restored Midnightblueowl's edit to the lead because it seemed like a helpful and constructive edit and was reverted with no justification at all by Mrnobody1997. If you think that edits made without an attempt to justify them on the talk page should be reverted, then why wouldn't you revert Mrnobody1997? Why this double standard? I linked "homoesxuality" because a link is helpful. If "feminism" is linked, why not "homosexuality"? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Because at least one of your improvements was a mistake, and I cannot see what the others do to improve the article. |We do (by the way) have a link to LGBT rights (its right after the one for feminism).Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia, we try to judge edits on their individual merits. "Oh, that editor made an edit I consider a mistake, so I'm going to revert all of his edits", is not how things are supposed to work. That "at least one of your improvements was a mistake" line suggests that you actually aren't able to tell whether my other two edits were improvements or not. In general, if you don't know whether an edit is an improvement or not, you should not be reverting it. Edits may actually be improvements even if you aren't able to judge that. You should restore this edit by Midnightblueowl. It improved the quality of the lead and the correctness of its grammar. Or is an ungrammatical article fine by you? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have said two of your edits were erroneous, just that one was flat out incorrect information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I find it difficult to understand confused (and ungrammatical) comments, and therefore usually don't bother trying to fathom what the person who made them wanted to say. Try re-expressing yourself in comprehensible English and avoiding self-contradiction. The advice not to revert an edit if you don't know whether it is an improvement or not stands. Leave things to editors who are able to judge these things. And just why would you revert an edit that corrected the article's grammar? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK I shall try again. I said one of your edits was factually incorrect, and that another of your edits did not in fact add anything we did not already have. As to grammar, I am not sure your edit did improve it so much as just change it for no apparent reason. As to the rest, this is nothing to do with improving the article.
A link to "homosexuality" does add something the article does not already have. It is a specific concept that is not identical to "LGBT rights". As to grammar, if you are "not sure" whether the change was correct or not, you obviously should not have reverted it, should you? Why would you revert an edit when you aren't able to judge whether it is an improvement or not, instead of asking for help or clarification? Since you are "not sure" about the issue, let me point out that the change made by Midnightblueowl was indeed correct, and that you reverted it for no good resaon. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
No but feminism is analogous to LGBT rights (and not homosexuality, which seemed to be your justification for the inclusion) (as they are both about rights) whereas homosexuality is not just about rights (and would be analogous to female). I reverted a block revert by you, if you want to talk about individual edits maybe that is what you should make, individual ones, and not just block revert another users edits.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
My justification for linking "homosexuality" is that it's a concept that not everyone might be familiar with and that a link would be helpful - that's all. Don't attribute to me a view I didn't express. Your comment about my "block revert" appears to be an accusation of bad faith editing, suggesting that I reverted another editor's edits simply because of the editor who made them rather than the content of the edits. Your accusation is false, of course, and in no case does it give you an excuse to not judge my edits on their individual merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As this is not the place to discus users action I will not comment further on your actions (or on your comments about mine), that is for your talk page, which you have asked me not to post on.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mention of BNP losing ground to UKIP[edit]

There are many sources that claim that the fall of BNP was linked to loss of support to UKIP. I do not consider this a highly contentious claim because UKIP figures like Nigel Farage and Neil Hamilton have also stated this, as have reliable pollsters such as YouGov. I definitely think it warrants inclusion here, especially given the prominent mention in this article of the BNP's loss of support to Britain First, which is mostly just a social media party with relatively few members. I would support either removing Britain First from the lede and moving that to the 'decline' section, or mentioning loss of support to UKIP in the lede alongside that.--Jay942942 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The question is it it significant enough to be in the lead, and I doubt it. This page is about the BNP (not UKIP) so what happens with that party is irrelevant to the lead on this article. And given that it was only about a third of the BNP members I am not sure it is even that significant anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There is an important distinction to be drawn here between mentioning something in the article body, and mentioning it in the lede. Jay, I was particularly concerned that you were adding this information into the lede (where the most vital information belongs) at a time when it did not even appear in the main body. The lede should serve to summarise the most important information that already exists in the main body. I am certainly open to mentioning this issue in the article body, but I am not convinced that it is really important enough to add to the lede. Moreover, I would have concerns about whose interests the addition of such information to the lede serves; frankly, we've seen quite a few editors over the past few years trying to tar UKIP by linking it to the BNP and "fascism" in the text of article ledes. The second point that I would make is that if we are to include this information in the article, then it really is best that we use academic sources written by psephologists and political scientists. The source that you used, the Daily Mirror, really isn't good enough; even the speculation of more reputable news sources is certainly inferior to the appropriate academic sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the Daily Mirror, but that's not a real difficulty. It seems to me that the lead of any article should summarise the topic. In this case, it would be silly not to state upfront that the BNP saw a remarkable growth in a few years and a catastrophic decline in a very short period, i.e. a (very) potted history. This all becomes a bit of a mystery without some reason(s) being given for the decline and it should not be necessary to read through the whole article to get there. I'm not suggesting much - a sentence or two at most would suffice. At the moment, the lead does not amke clear why the BNP has collapsed. Emeraude (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
That is not what was objected to, it was mentioning another party. And that is not what the lead is for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
But another far less relevant party is already mentioned - Britain First. Should that not also be removed from the lede if mention of UKIP is inappropriate there?--Jay942942 (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
"BNP declined when its members joined another party." ? Doesn't work if you don't say who. Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Possibility, but there is a difference, Britain first was formed by former members of the BNP (And thus can be seen in the same way that the BNP formed from the NF, an evolutionary offshoot) UKIP was not formed by members of the BNP, and is thus IT is just picking up votes, rather than being an evolutionary development of the BNP.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph to the section on the BNP's voter base discussing how much of the BNP's social base switched to UKIP post-2014. I've sourced that to Ford and Goodwin's Revolt on the Right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018[edit]

Change number of councillors from 1 to 0. Their last councillor has retired. (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent reversions by Mrnobody1997[edit]

@Mrnobody1997:: is there a particular reason why you have recently reverted prose edits to the lede ([2]; [3], [4], [5], [6]) originally instituted by myself and subsequently defended by FreeKnowledgeCreator? I appreciate that you are a comparatively new editor, but it is best that you use the edit summary when you make changes so that you might explain what your concerns may be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you changing British National Party page to your version? It should be at its original version, not my version. The version i keep reverting it back to is what it was originally which you inconveniently decided to change for your own gain. I don't know why you find it funny to edit British National Party to your own version. It was fine before. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by FreeKnowledgeCreator: the unsigned comment above was made by Mrnobody1997. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added an unsigned template. I'm not quite sure of the details, but automatic archiving doesn't always seem to work without signatures. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mrnobody1997:: But you still haven't explained why you object to my latest revisions? You insist that my recent edits are my "own version" put together "for [my] own gain" but fail to realise that the entire lede has been put together almost entirely by me over the past few years. It's not an issue of there being some longstanding version which I am now corrupting; rather, I have been the primary contributor to this particular article for some years now and have expanded both the article and its lede. Prior to my edits, back in 2016, it looked like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice (MrNobbody) if rather then casting aspersions you actually gave some explanation of why you object to these edits it might go a long way to winning people over to your POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

On 20 June, Mrnobody1997 received a 24 hour block on editing due to their edit warring on this article. Today, they have edit warred twice more on this article ([7], [8]); I have filed another report to the edit warring administrators' noticeboard. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Fascist" sounds like left-wing communist smear[edit]

Is wikipedia still a credible source or are we trying to demonize certain parties in the first line in an article? Try nationalist instead of "fascist". (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing communists would probably call them fascists too. You might want to read up on the history of the far right in the UK and you will see a clear connection between the BNP and people who actually called themselves fascists in the 1920s and 30s, when self-identification as a fascist was more respectable. TFD (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Whilst I personally agree we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The BNP was set up by people with a clear and proven fascist or Nazi past. There has been a tradition in the UK since the Second World War for fascists to call themselves "nationalist", but the fact remains their programmes and policies are distinctly fascist, as a whole library of reliable sources testifies. Besides, Hitler and Mussolini were nationalists, so should we not call them fascists either? Emeraude (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
While it is true that the term "fascist" sometimes does get bandied about as a smear (by figures on both the left and right), that does not mean that a phenomenon called "fascism" ceases to exist. The BNP clearly belongs to this phenomenon, having inherited both much of the personnel and many of the ideas of earlier fascist groups, going back via the National Front into the British Union of Fascists. They are also nationalists, that is true, but all manner of political groups (left and right) are nationalist: in Britain, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party are nationalists, for example. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on this...

The sources on the article claiming the BNP are fascist are as follows:

  • [4][5][6][7] These sources date from 2004-2008 and are primarily based on the 2001 and 2005 BNP's General Election manifesto. There's no denying the BNP at that point in time were fascist and/or extreme-right, something the BNP itself doesn't even deny; Griffin has admitted the party was formerly fascist on numerous occasions (e.g. Copsey 2007 quotes Griffin as saying the ideological roots of the BNP were "in the sub-Mosleyite whackiness of Arnold Leese's Imperial Fascist League".) However, by 2009 or 2010 the BNP moderated its policies, discourse and public image, also changed its membership policy to allow ethnic minoroties. Here's an article that discusses some of these changes:

Are there any academic sources that analyse the 2010 BNP General Election manifesto and claim it is fascist? I can't find any.

The key difference between "right-wing populist" and "fascist" political parties is explained well by the academic Matthew Goodwin, who notes (1) rather than stressing biological racism like the latter, right-wing populist parties stress the threat of immigrants to cultures and values and (2) right-wing populist parties do not attack democracy like fascists, instead they are anti-establishment, but not anti-democratic. Of course, I don't dispute the BNP post-2009 or 2010 are far-right, but arguably they have shifted into a right-wing populist direction. Problematically, none of the sources that describe the BNP as fascist on the main article, are based on the BNP's 2010 General Election manifesto, but 2001 and 2005.

“[The] modernization project undertaken by the BNP has involved the party distancing itself from the ‘older’ fascist tradition in which other far-right political movements, such as the National Front (NF), have remained firmly rooted... this has meant the adoption of a form of national-populism pioneered by the Front national in France.” - James Rhodes, “The Banal National Party : The Routine Nature of Legitimacy”, Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 43, n°2, 2009

Aliencatdog (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source saying BNP post-2010 isn't fascist: Aliencatdog (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Per: Scholarship, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." TFD (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. The thesis though cites a prominent source that puts the modern BNP in the "populist radical right" category, rather than "extreme-right/neo-fascism":

"I will summarize how various authors have described the BNP within the context of extreme right/neo-fascism vs. populist radical right. Cas Mudde

(2007: 49) puts BNP in the latter category

Against a backdrop of Mudde’s theoretic framework, official BNP publications are researched and discussed leading to the conclusion that

the party belongs in the populist radical right mould.

In this chapter I will outline the differences between the extreme right and neo-fascism on one side and the populist radical right on the other, as described in the existing literature on right wing political parties. The theoretical background on the populist radical right will rely heavily on Cas Mudde’s highly acclaimed book Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (2007). Mudde (2007: 22-23) defines what he calls three core ideological features of the populist radical right.

Aliencatdog (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Aside from Mudde (2007) there are at least two other academic sources I found that label BNP "populist radical right" and distinguish this to "extreme right/neo-fascism", those are Fella (2008) and Mastropaolo (2008); we then find a debate between other academics who disagree, e.g.:

My question is why does the main article only take one side of this debate? There seem to be two views, the BNP has successfully morphed from a fascist into a right-wing populist party and another view that instead regards the BNP as still core fascist but with populist overtones. Aliencatdog (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If 10 people say X and 2 say Y X is the consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It's noticeable that most (or all) sources describing BNP as populist radical right are from (more impartial) outsiders i.e. non-British political scientists like Cas Mudde, while most (or all) sources describing BNP as neo-fascist are British academics e.g. Matthew Goodwin. This issue of bias is discussed in the Master's thesis.Aliencatdog (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Mudde calls then "extreme right [9] for a start.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
In 2000, not 2007. As I said, Mudde is someone who argues the BNP ideologically changed; in his book Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe he no longer considers BNP to be "extreme-right/neo-fascist" but "radical right populist". The difference between these is explained in detail in the Master's thesis.Aliencatdog (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Griffin was elected leader in 1999 and despite making some changes and softening the public image of the party, the actual ideological "modernisation" didn't take place until around 2006, a process that went on to 2010, when the membership policy officially admitted ethnic minorities. In 2006, Griffin wrote an article in Identity claiming the BNP is no longer white nationalist and had shifted the old biological racism of the party, to cultural xenophobia; in other words a UKIP-type direction. These changes are noted as significant in the Master's thesis since as I noted above - rather than stressing biological racism like extreme-right/fascist parties, right-wing populist parties instead stress the threat of immigrants to cultures and values. The party around 2006 seem to have also abandoned anti-Semitism (also covered in thesis), Griffin then came out in support for Israel against Hamas. The thesis explains how right-wing populist parties tend to be Islamophobic rather than anti-Semitic and the BNP swapped its old anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for Islamophobic "Eurabia" conspiracy theories.Aliencatdog (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't though deny the BNP is still far-right, but that label is rather broad like radical right and includes right-wing populist parties that are further to the right than ordinary conservative parties, to extreme-right/fascism. However, there are key differences (discussed by Mudde and the thesis in detail) between fascism and right-wing populist (or "populist radical right"); I personally argue the BNP shifted from the former to latter. This is clearly seen when comparing their 2001/2005 to 2010 General election manifestos; the biological racism was replaced with cultural xenophobia. Aliencatdog (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Beware revisionism! The party did not change any views in 2010 when it "officially admitted ethnic minorities". It changed its rules to avoid a prosecution for discrimination. There is no evidence that vast numbers of ethnic minority members were welcomed into the BNP as a result! Emeraude (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No one questions that the BNP softened its rhetoric. The dispute is whether these changes were sufficient to warrant the re-classification of the party. In order to change the article we need not sources that present a view that it has changed, but a source that explains how widely that view is held. It's extremely rare to see party classifications change. It usually happens, as in the Swiss People's Party or Brazil's Social Liberal Party when a dormant party is taken over by new management. TFD (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)