Talk:Richard Barnbrook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like Hitler[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The other similarity with Hitler is that both were minor league "artists" - but see also "BA?" below. Ausseagull (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all completely irrelevant synthesis of information.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BA?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. --Gordon (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

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)[reply]

Mess[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Fascism sources[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)
The BNP is listed as 'fascist' on its own Wikipedia article page: it's thus appropriate to list it as such here. If anyone has problems with this discription being applied to the party, talk:British National Party is the place to raise the issue, not here. Also, discussion of Barnbrook's alleged extra-marital activities wouldn't constitute libel or slander even if proved untrue, as long as it was made clear that 'newspaper x claims that barnbrook y' than reporting the alleged incident as fact, and any rebuttal was included, under the 'Reynolds' qualified privilege defence. And incidently, previous cases brought by the BNP against journalists who called them 'racist' were laughed out of court. See also WP:V ("verifiability, not truth"). The 'brown suits'/'looks like Hitler' stuff is irrelevant nonsense and ought not be included, IMO.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Richard Barnbrook's biography the cite(16) he "keeps a copy of Mein Kamph under his bed" is from a notorious smear source and itself is not sourced. (are we to presume the communist who said it broke into Barnbrooks house and peered under the bed spread?) Many including myself and including leftists have read Mein Kamph as a good historical document to see what the mind of Hitler was plotting. We have also read Das Kapital but these two facts neither make all of us communists nor Nazis Most people have read excerpts of the Valachi papers but we aren't Mafia or Cosa Nostra either. I read Eisenhower's Crusade In Europe and I am not a particular fan of his either. And even Churchill's voluminous writings are hardly impartial. From time to time I read articles by Fidel Castro but although I think he is intelligent I also believe he is a consciousless butcher who would have started WW3 just to see the downfall of the USA. . If Stalin had published a book I would read it also. The point is you can not ask a man a loaded question "have you ever read this book?" and then use an honest affirmative answer to smear him with the opinions of the author of the book. That is a classic smear tactic and is one of the reasons that Wikipedia which refuses to block smears like this will never rise to the status of impartial reference source. But then again the leftists who do most of the content and editing are not interested in impartiality, but dialectical propaganda.

On another matter the BNP itself, it is more than a little hypocritical to suggest that the constitution of the BNP which allows Griffin to immediately boot out closet Nazis and infiltrators when they are discovered is in itself totalitarian, while at the same time accuse him of coddling Nazis or being one himself. It is self evident by his 91 percent vote that Griffin snd his policies retain the overwhelming support of the current membership that the party desire for the present that the chair need to be given power to quickly and firmly deal with saboteurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.145.72 (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the BNP Constitution does not allow "Griffin to immediately boot out closet Nazis and infiltrators" - it allows him to boot anyone out. Emeraude (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation[edit]

A series of conflicting edits in recent weeks has shown Barnbrook as applying to join English Democrats, joining Endglis Democrats and being Independent. Does anyone have some up-to-date information from reliable independent sources? Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Richard Barnbrook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Richard Barnbrook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Barnbrook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Barnbrook&oldid=1205745431"