Talk:Richard Barnbrook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

Contents

[edit] Looks like Hitler

I removed a quotation criticising a predilection for 'stormtrooper brown suits' and a quote that it makes him 'look like Hitler' - The claim comes from the Stormfront fascist web-forum, via the Daily-Mail, I'm sure Stormfront is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.204.153 (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
claim comes from daily mail who don't attribute their source so how can you be so sure it comes from stormfront web-forum. either way stormfront is no more fascist than barnbrook himself so is a reliable source as any web site. more importantly, predilection for brown suit wearing is self evident including from CCC picture attached to article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.36.43 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
the Daily Mail article referenced does attribute Stormfront: ""He looks just like Hitler," one person posted on the extreme Right-wing Stormfront website. "Whoever styles him needs a good kicking."". Being as fascist as a fascist is not a good argument for reliablity. I suggest it falls foul of WP:RS#Extremist_sources, despite which, web-forums are not reliable. I'm removing it again. 80.5.204.153 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] git

what a git! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.133.147 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

DISSSSSGGUUUUSTTTINNNGG NAZI FILTH!--86.144.166.71 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find you more disgusting. If you cant tolerate a democratically elected member of assembly, then go to Saudi Arabia. Axxn (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like all the other Assmbley members can't stand him either Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BA?

I may be wrong, but I think the Royal Academy Schools offer only postgraduate teaching, and thus would not award a BA degree. Can anyone clarify this? Widmerpool (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's true. Also I can find no reference to Jarman's film "human soup" allegedly based on Mr B's screenplay. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Very dodgy. I am looking into it, but I suppose that counts as original research. It is however uncited, and a BNP inhouse magazine is not a reliable source.--Gordon (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the Human Soup / Jarman reference, as a Google search for "Human Soup" "Derek Jarman" reveals only this page. See [1]. Gordon; bear in mind that the onus is on anyone inserting claims into the article to provide adequate references for them. Simply removing claims that do not meet WP:REF would in no way violate WP:NOR, even if your basis for making the edit would also fail to meet WP:REF. It would not, however, be a good idea suggest that he does not have the qualification, unless you can provide an adequate reference, as that may breach WP:NOR and WP:BLP.FrFintonStack (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I'm going to remove that stuff, replaced with material from the BNP London site, and put a verifiabilty tag on it...--Gordon (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Anything from a BNP website would fail WP:V#Questionable_sources and WP:RS#Extremist_sources if presented at face value to support anything in the slightest contentious. I think straightforward removal would be better.FrFintonStack (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Gordon (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the changes made recently to the article. Referencing the man's own bio does not really seem acceptable even if it is republished by another source.--Gordon (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's news I received from the RA:

In 1985 Richard John Barnbrook was awarded the Royal Academy Schools Diploma (Post Foundation) following 3 years of study here. This qualification was the nearest thing we offered to an undergraduate degree although because it could be obtained without a student having received a recognised number of "O" Level qualifications, the Department of Education did not recognise its status as a standard educational qualification for all purposes in the same way it would accept a BA for instance. The Academy Schools worked slightly outside the state systems for many years. Acceptance into the art school was based on portfolio presentation rather than other qualifications. I hope this is of some help. Regards Name Deleted Research Assistant Royal Academy Library


--Gordon (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

The apparently contentious statement in the article reads: "Barnbrook's biography claims that he graduated from the Royal Academy of Art (sic) in 1985 and is a sculptor." Now, all or any of this may or may not be true; however, what is undeniably true is that Barnbrook claims these things (and I have no reason to doubt him, especially given the note above from the RSA). So, the fact that it is claimed is verifiable, and correctly referenced. The source may not be reliable as to him actually being a graduate of RSA or actually being a sculptor, but it is reliable that he claims these things. I have, then, removed the 'unreliable source' tag.Emeraude (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mess

We had 3 contradictory statements about his private life. Because of BLP until we get something accurate we must not add any of them. this is so obvious. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What was contradictory? He was having an affair while engaged and married.--Gordon (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism sources

Can we come to some agreement about the citations re the BNP being a neo-fascist party (I'm doing a Masters' degree in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, and I have no doubt that it is, in contrast to many modern European far-Right parties)

This and the brown suits business (which I don't think is very relevant) are looking like an edit war. Does some action need to be taken?--Gordon (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

People are pulling negative quotes from tabloids and using them as fact. This is idiotic slander, not a Neutral article. FT231421 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be libel not slander as this is printed media, anyway the links regarding neo-fascism are real sources, you need to show some counter sources to dispute this. The way Griffin runs the party is redolent of fascism, choosing and dismissing officers himself...--Gordon (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This claims should be discused in article British National Party, it is nice example of POV to push here only one "characteristic" of BNP. In this article should be written BNP without attribute. --Dezidor (talk)