The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
Tentontunic (talk | contribs) →The BNP and animal welfare: Commenting. |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
::One is not required, per my response to you above at 14:54. Any content sourced to searchlight needs to be attributed. [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
::One is not required, per my response to you above at 14:54. Any content sourced to searchlight needs to be attributed. [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::It is academic since Searchlight is not being used as a source for the BNP supporting animal welfare. However, articles would look pretty awful if all facts taken from reliable sources had inline citations. E.g., "Ohio is a state in the U.S., according to the National Geographic Atlas". [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
:::It is academic since Searchlight is not being used as a source for the BNP supporting animal welfare. However, articles would look pretty awful if all facts taken from reliable sources had inline citations. E.g., "Ohio is a state in the U.S., according to the National Geographic Atlas". [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I am not talking about such and your post is just plain silly. But the consensus seems clear that they ought only be used if attributed, which seems reasonable given their obvious bias. [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Edits by Multiculturalist == |
== Edits by Multiculturalist == |
Revision as of 20:35, 5 April 2011
![]() | British National Party was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Fascism
|
Template:Controversial (politics)
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Two minor notes
In the opening it states that "It is opposed by mainstream political parties in the UK." Isn't this obvious? and true for every other political party. The labour party is opposed to the conservative party and vice-versa. Every part opposes all others, otherwise they would be the same party. The Green Party and UKIP are also opposed by labour, conservative and Liberal democrats but it doesn't state that on the green party article.
Secondly is there a need to keep saying "the BNP/British National Party this, the BNP/British National Party that" not that it is much of an issue, but it would probably read better as "The party this. The party that" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.179.228 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Disingenuous, the meaning of the phrase is clear. While the mainstream political parties disagree with each other on many subjects they are united in opposing the BNP and all it stands for. --Snowded TALK 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Mainstream parties do not stand against everything the BNP stands for, they may have more areas of policy difference with the BNP than between themselves, but to state "it is opposed by mainstream political parties" adds nothing to the article. There is already an overinflated opposition section anyway with some more meaningful, cited content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittaniaCacher (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- firstly how would you define "oppose" here? all other parties 'oppose' the labour party or green party but it would add nothing to state that on their pages so why do it here? Also why have you reinstated the case about the university of bath presentation. I thought we were meant to be consolidating this article down from 140KB. How do you propose we do this if we cannot remove things which are not significant or relevant. BrittaniaCacher (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, we are not "meant to be consolidating this article down from 140KB". Someone suggested it, it was not an order. It has been massively reduced since that banner first appeared anyway. The point about the opposition is really quite simple. Labour says "Don't support XXX, it's not Labour." Tories say "Don't support XXX, it's not Tory." LibDems say "Don't support XXX, it's not LibDem." UKIP says "Don't support XXX, it's not UKIP." (where XXX is Labour, Tory, LibDem, UKIP etc). What's absolutely different here is that all of these parties (and SNP, PC etc) say "Don't support BNP, it's fascist. Vote for anyone else, but not BNP." Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)is
- I accept that the 3 largest parties have all at times said "vote for anyone BUT the BNP" (it's quite strange that they would rather someone vote for the National Front than for the BNP) and that is mentioned in the article as it should be, under the opposition section. but simply using the word opposed does not elaborate on this, im not sure if it should really be in the Lead but never mind, the point is about using such an ambiguous phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrittaniaCacher (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Equality and Human Rights Commission to pay BNP court costs
- Article update - http://www.newsonnews.net/politics/7902-bnp-ehrc-must-pay-british-national-party-s-court-costs-in-full.html - Equality and Human Rights Commission must pay British National Party's Court Costs in full. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That is nothing but a re-print of an article from the BNP's own website. 86.153.82.5 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
BNP Welling HQ & Welling March
This contains a couple of inaccuracies which I have now rectified. The term "political opponents" is not correct, because many of those who demonstrated against the BNP were not political but were simply friends or relations of black and Asian people who had been murdered by BNP supporters near the party's Welling HQ. There were four such murders in total. That racist incidents took place near by is not conjecture, it is fact: indeed, the source highlights one such example (that relating to the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, whose murderers called him "nigger" before stabbing him). The march to close down the BNP HQ was not a riot, in the view of those who were there it was attacked by the police (notice that more demonstrators were injured than police officers) and contrary to the original text at no stage did it go past the BNP HQ. I know, I was there. Multiculturalist (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do the sources say?Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The BNP and animal welfare
The article had contained the following inaccurate propaganda statement, which I have now amended: "The party supports animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming)." This now reads: "The party favours the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming", which I would contend is much fairer.
The original words "The party supports animal welfare" is pure POV and a blatant lie. If the party really supports this then why does it support fox hunting, and why did Nick Griffin go on the Countryside Alliance march? To equate the supporting of animal welfare with the banning of halal and kosher is to make a value judgement about these methods of slaughter. Scientific research (involving the placing of electrodes on cattle during the slaughter process) has found that the animal suffers less pain and for a shorter duration than other methods of slaughter. To simply equate the BNP's stance on this with the supporting of animal welfare is outrageous POV. Sensible editors will surely agree that my amendment gives readers the facts without drawing conclusions for them. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Odd becasue this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2977086.stm seems to say it is cruel. I also note that they also oppose factory farming (somethig which I bleive has no religious or racial conotations). Whilst it may need a citation to sat that they support animal welfare many of the reason you give for its removal seem POV pushing themselves. As such I sdhal reinstate it but place a CN tag.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well these two passages from the Wikpedia article on Halal suggest it is the least cruel method:
Firstly, "In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used.[13][17] This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering.[18]" Secondly, "The French Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fishing has published ASIDCOM’s Bibliographical Report on Religious Slaughter and the Welfare of Animals, as a contribution within the framework of a meeting on animals and society organized in the first half of the year 2008.[20] This report quotes scientific papers and French veterinary PhD which support the equality or even possible superiority of religious slaughter to other methods of slaughter.[13] This report quotes in particular the Ph.D work of Dr Pouillaude which concludes by: "religious slaughter would thus be a less stressing mode of slaughter. Conclusions of all the scientific experiments converge towards a firmly supported certainty: properly carried out, religious slaughter is the most humane way because it leads to less trauma to animals to be killed to be consumed for its meat".[13][21]"
I would further more contend that your decision to place back into the text the claim that the BNP supports animal welfare, even with a citation tag, is not acceptable as it is so obviously a POV value judgement. They support fox hunting - and I will now amend the offending passage to reflect that fact, but I will however retain the citation tag. Multiculturalist (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The articel also makes it clear that this is not a universal view. that is cherry picking toi support ma POV. Do you have a source that says that the BNP support fox hunting?Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that says the BNP support animal welfare?Multiculturalist (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Just keep reverting 'Multiculturalists' edits, he is vandalising the BNP page with lies, now he's trying to lie and claim the BNP are for animal cruelty when in fact they are against halal and kosher barbaric killing methods and have donated to green peace's save the whale campaigns.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why you're getting so hysterical - your favoured pro-BNP POV version has once again prevailed anyway. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You still need a source for the BNP position on animal welfare. Also, you need to avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have just been called a liar - isn't that a personal attack? Further more, surely those whose preferred wording has prevailed need to provide the source.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The BNP supports animal welfare. This is in there manifesto, and they have donated to save the whale campaigns. Your claims that BNP do not support animal welfare only stem from your anti-BNP biasness, hence you are vandalising the page with your edits which are false representations of the BNP's views. Do you have a conscience? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what is "biasness"? I've never heard of that word. May I venture to suggest that your grasp of the English language is about as good as that of the average BNP member? Multiculturalist (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Pyramidologist, the issue is not whether the BNP has this policy but whether there are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This link shows that Nick Griffin and his stormtroopers attended the 'Liberty & Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance. People were specifically told not to attend this rally unless they supported fox hunting: http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=43 Meanwhile, the following link reveals that Nick Griffin has committed his party to referenda on the issue of fox hunting and capital punishment. People who promote referenda on particular issues generally only do so if they are looking to change the status quo (i.e. bring back fox hunting and reinstate the death penalty): http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nick_griffin.html The RSPCA has declared fox hunting to be cruel, yet the BNP supports it. So much for the BNP's claim to "support animal welfare". Multiculturalist (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
All the most evidence Multiculturalist is a troll, he is now pointing out other posters spelling errors - just to wind them up or attack them. This is despite his OWN posts are filled with poor spelling and punctuation, for example he spelt nearby as 'near by', above, there should be no space between the two. Also going to his talk page, reveals he has mispelled 'terminology' as 'teminology' (23:30, 14 July 2010), in fact i counted more than 10 spelling errors on his page in total. So not only is 'Multiculturalist a troll, he is also a hypocrit and can't spell English perfectly himself. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Making a minor spelling mistake is one thing, but using an entire word that doesn't exist (i.e. "biasness") suggests that the author is, to put it politely, a dimwit. I have lots of Indian friends and they all have a better command of the English language than you do, despite the fact that their mother tongue is Punjabi.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also look at Multiculturalists sources on the animal welfare nonsense hes posting - Seachlight, a well known anti-fascist magazine written by communists. How is that a neutral source on the BNP? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Searchlight is highly acclaimed. The only people who oppose it are Nazis.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The BNP's stance on fox hunting is entirely neutral. While they support animal welfare and stand against animal cruelty, they also support British traditions (which fox hunting is as it goes back hundreds of years) therefore they have never been pro or against fox hunting. I wonder why multiculturalist fails to acknowlwedge BNP's donations to save the whale campaigns? Also why are his only sources from cranky communists like searchlight? Kind of ironic Multiculturalist above tries to smear the BNP by linking them to murder, when he quotes from communists. The communists under stalin killed millions of innocents. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- You say the BNP's stance on fox hunting is "neutral" yet you then say they support "British traditions" and you assert that fox hunting falls into this category. In that case, their stance on fox hunting is not neutral, is it? Further more, you really need to get away from this daft notion that because I don't like Nazis that makes me a communist: to be one of those a person needs to believe in a command economy, whereas I believe that strong market forces are needed in order to sustain a system of social justice.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Being a supporter of fox hunting does not mean you are against animal welfare. I have hunted all manner of animals, yet I still care about domestic animal welfare. If the BLP say in their manifesto that they support animal welfare it ought to be mentioned, using searchlight for statements of fact are not permissible here, any content sourced to them ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well it just so happens that the RSPCA regard hunting as cruel.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Searchlight has been brought to RSN many times and is RS, while the BNP manifesto is not. But the point is that no one has introduced sources that the BNP supports animal welfare. The closest I can find is that right-wing nationalist parties, including the BNP, support family farms.[1] TFD (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- ?It may be a RS for their opinions, but given their obvious bias when used in an article lile this it ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to find an edit of his that doesn't have the words "blatant" and "POV" in the same sentence. Everything in your opinion is outrageous, or darn right factual. Find some middle ground for once Mutliculturalist? Very hard indeed. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite amusing to be lectured to about funding a "middle ground" by someone whose contributions have consistently shown him to be sympathetic to the BNP and EDL.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Multiculturalist, one view of animal cruelty is that traditional farming and hunting are not cruel, and diminish the amount of cruelty caused by agribusiness. (A factory farmed chicken suffers more than a pheasant.) Whether the BNP opposes agribusiness because it opposes animal cruelty is however debatable. The source I provided indicates that their policies are based on romantic notions of the family farm and healthy food for the people. Whether or not they care about animal welfare however needs to be supported. Tentontunic, we have heard these arguments before. Searchlight is rs for the far right. TFD (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look in the archives [2] consensus there would be it ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for your view. In any case we need sources to support the view of BNP as supporting animal welfare. TFD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- When the majority of uninvolved editors say attribution ought be used then that is a consensus, get over it. The BNP`s own manifesto can be used to source it, with attribution to them of course. Tentontunic (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- TFD, thanks for your comments. Just as some might consider hunting not to be cruel, others would claim that ritual slaughter (e.g. Kosher) in less cruel than other methods of slaughter (and, indeed, I have provided two scientific references to support this theory). However, whatever the truth is about these matters, one thing which we surely cannot do is allow sweeping value judgement statements like "The BNP supports animal welfare" to remain in the article. This is supposed to be an impartial encylopedia, therefore it should simply present the properly sourced verifiable facts (i.e. that the BNP are against ritual slaughter and that they supported the 'Liberty and Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance). Readers should then be left to make up their own minds. As things currently stand, we have a number of pro-BNP editors trying to push their own POV with outrageously biased passages such as "The BNP supports animal welfare". Multiculturalist (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- When the majority of uninvolved editors say attribution ought be used then that is a consensus, get over it. The BNP`s own manifesto can be used to source it, with attribution to them of course. Tentontunic (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for your view. In any case we need sources to support the view of BNP as supporting animal welfare. TFD (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look in the archives [2] consensus there would be it ought be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Multiculturalist, one view of animal cruelty is that traditional farming and hunting are not cruel, and diminish the amount of cruelty caused by agribusiness. (A factory farmed chicken suffers more than a pheasant.) Whether the BNP opposes agribusiness because it opposes animal cruelty is however debatable. The source I provided indicates that their policies are based on romantic notions of the family farm and healthy food for the people. Whether or not they care about animal welfare however needs to be supported. Tentontunic, we have heard these arguments before. Searchlight is rs for the far right. TFD (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite amusing to be lectured to about funding a "middle ground" by someone whose contributions have consistently shown him to be sympathetic to the BNP and EDL.Multiculturalist (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, someone has now made an amendment to this which largely takes out the pro-BNP POV bias. Instead of reading "The party supports animal welfare", the text now states "The party says it supports animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming).[98]" I have added a further passage, together with a proper source, which states that: "Nick Griffin and other BNP members attended the 'Liberty & Livelihood' march organised by the pro-hunting Countryside Alliance in 2002.[99]" I am now happy that this is a balanced paragraph and if others agree we can put a close to this particular edit war. Readers can now make up their own minds at to whether the BNP really supports animal welfare when its members think there is something funny about the site of a beautiful deer being torn to shreds by a pack of hounds.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Will a Mod please actually read and take action against Multiculturalist. Look at his comments: Searchlight is highly acclaimed. The only people who oppose it are Nazis - Multiculturalist (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC) - so anyone who opposes his views and sources are now smeared or labeled as 'Nazi'. Is that neutral enough for you? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you provide any reliable sources that question the reliability of Searchlight? TFD (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- One is not required, per my response to you above at 14:54. Any content sourced to searchlight needs to be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is academic since Searchlight is not being used as a source for the BNP supporting animal welfare. However, articles would look pretty awful if all facts taken from reliable sources had inline citations. E.g., "Ohio is a state in the U.S., according to the National Geographic Atlas". TFD (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not talking about such and your post is just plain silly. But the consensus seems clear that they ought only be used if attributed, which seems reasonable given their obvious bias. Tentontunic (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is academic since Searchlight is not being used as a source for the BNP supporting animal welfare. However, articles would look pretty awful if all facts taken from reliable sources had inline citations. E.g., "Ohio is a state in the U.S., according to the National Geographic Atlas". TFD (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- One is not required, per my response to you above at 14:54. Any content sourced to searchlight needs to be attributed. Tentontunic (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Edits by Multiculturalist
Multiculturalist is removing local election details, and secondly adding biased info from Searchlight (a communist organisation) about the BNP. Why will mods not take action against this user who is just stirring up trouble here? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- You have already stated that your policy is to revert my edits whatever they say. That is tantamount to vandalism. There is a tag on this article which says that it may already be too long: what you have done is add a lengthy new paragraph trumpeting the BNP's alleged success in local elections which were not even contested, and as usual you did so without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. By the way, well done for spelling 'Multiculturalist' correctly.Multiculturalist (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said to revert your edits which used COMMUNIST (biased) sources, hence your biased posts were removed by others, including mods or admins here - not even me. You are quoting from Searchlight, a communist organisation on the BNP. This is not neutral, its like writing an article on capitalism from a biased socialist perspective. You clearly have an agenda here to misrepresent the BNP (as your name implies). The BNP oppose multiculturalism, so how neutral exactly is someone going to be with the name 'multiculturalist'? And now you continue the personal attacks etc about spelling. Will the mods please take action? Viewing Multiculturalist's talk page and history reveals he has a long history of vandalising political parties and has several warnings about that on his page.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Searchlight is considered a reliable source in respect of fascist organisations. This has been debated many times. You also need to read WP:BRD and be a little less inclined to make accusations against other editors. --Snowded TALK 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- BTW the website you provided at ANI to discredit Searchlight is run by Arthur Kemp, a BNP official. TFD (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)