Misplaced Pages

Talk:Arthur Kemp: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:26, 26 May 2012 editYoureallycan (talk | contribs)12,095 edits →Undue and weight← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:17, 19 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,822,848 editsm →top: Category:Stub-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Stub, keep Start; cleanupTag: AWB 
(46 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 17 May 2012 | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Arthur Kemp }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Kemp, Arthur|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low|needs-photo=yes}}
{{oldafdfull| date = 18 July 2010 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Arthur Kemp }}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=|auto=yes}}

{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=Start
|priority=
|listas=Kemp, Arthur
|politician-work-group=yes
|needs-photo=yes
}} }}
{{collapse top| Historic Afd discussions}}
{{WP UK Politics|class=Stub|importance=|auto=yes}}
{{oldafdfull | date = 9 January 2009 | result = '''keep''' | page = Arthur Kemp }} {{Old XfD multi| date = 9 January 2009 | result = '''keep''' | page = Arthur Kemp }}
{{Old XfD multi| date = 18 July 2010 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Arthur_Kemp_(2nd_nomination) }}
==The link I posted ==
{{Old XfD multi| date = 17 May 2012 | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Arthur_Kemp_(3rd_nomination) }}
The link I posted in "External Links" is by an amateur Portuguese historian with the same academic credentials in this field as Arthur Kemp.
{{collapse bottom}}
{{Photo requested}}


== Undue and weight ==
It would appear that Mr Kemp is currently in the midst of an extensive rewrite of his own biographic article.. ] (]) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
* - ]


More discussion here - ]
==encyclopedic notability==
Even as a published author, I'm not feel'n it. and may propose this for deletion in a couple of days. --] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


After a request for investigation from the recent closing AFD admin I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - ]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>] 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
==Sources==
The sources used mostly don't seem to be ]. I removed a few things that were clearly not good sources, marked a few places that need sources.


* My first edit I removed this - "and was responsible for the content of that party's website" - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? ]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>] 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Kemps blog and books are only good for his opinion and response to things, not as facts for the article.
--] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


==Non-Notability==
] removed. See his talk page ] (]) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)]


According to Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN
:after looking a bit more at splc, I'm inclined to remove the whole section as unverifiable. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to either bash or promote anyone. I also put a note at the reliable sources noticeboard, hopefully some regular there has already investigated the reliability of the splc. --] (]) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
::also please sign your posts with four (4) tilde's (~), or the signature button (next to the red circle ignore wikiformatting button at the top of the edit box). --] (]) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".


Kemp does clearly not meet the notability criteria for politicians under the WP criteria.


According to Misplaced Pages's notablity criteria for books WP:BKCRIT
Indeed, the SPLC section is completely inverifiable, and, as I have said before, an obvious personal attack, based on completely made-up and invented alleagtions which have no basis in truth whatsoever.
] (]) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
== Notable? ==
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."


Kemp clearly does not meet the notability criteria for authors or books under the WP criteria.
According to Gnews hits, it might appear so. However, Arthur Kemp should ''not'' be editing his own biography, and if he continues to edit war here, he should be blocked from editing. The article itself is quite poor right now, but I think it would almost certainly survive an AfD. '''SD'''] 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:hmm, yeah. I guess so. Likely that stuff will take the article to places the subject will object to. Have to be a bit later though, to check out the newsbank articles. Hopefully, Mr. Kemp doesn't do something to get blocked in the mean time. --] (]) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::If no one else cleans this mess of an article up, I may do it myself. As you say, Kemp may not like where the reliable sources take it though, so I'm not ''real'' anxious to dive in right now. '''SD'''] 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


There is therefore no justification for this Misplaced Pages article at all.] (]) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


:You can't just ''declare'' that the article is about someone non-notable and then personally delete all the content. You have to go through the procedure for deletion. Of course you know this and you have done this already. The article was ''not'' deleted and you are now saying that your own personal view somehow overrides the decision of the community. That is contrary to pretty well all the principles by which can reasonably work. Your edits are therefore in effect acts of vandalism. ] (]) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Verifiable sources? All that will show is what I posted originally.


The discussion on the AFD 3 agreed that the subject did not meet the notability requirements for a politician or an author. All of the participants agreed on that. The changes to the article merely represent that agreement.] (]) 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I want to highlight was happened here:


:No they don't. The "changes" are just attempts to stub the article. You also utterly misunderstand policy. The notability requirements concern the decision whether or not to have an article. They do not mean that all content that is not sufficient to create notability in itself should be removed. That would indeed be an absurd rule were it to exist, which of course it does not. A man is not notable, for example, because he in born in Liverpool, or has a wife called Sarah. But we don't remove all such facts from articles because they are not the ''reason'' for the person's notability. ] (]) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1. An anonymous poster made a Wiki entry on myself, quoting an utterly unprovable and unsubstantiated pack of lies;


You are wrong. The WP Notability criteria are very simple and clear:
2. I edited the entry, using references, pointing out the huge number of serious factual errors (starting with simple stuff such as getting my birth date wrong -- so much for the 'facts' being quoted)


WP:POLITICIAN
3. My comments then get rejected because it is my 'point of view.'


"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."
I find it bizarre that anyone can post any lie they want to about somebody else, and then where the subject says 'no, that is not true' then his comment gets made out to be the 'bad' one. Amazing.


Kemp has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.
Let me give one example (there are many. many more). The original article said that I was an international 'contact' with the NPD in Germany. Now, I have never been to a NPD meeting, know no-one in that group and have never had anything to do with it.


"This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
Now, my comment to that effect gets marked up as needing 'citation' -- how on earth do I 'prove' that something never happened, when there are no references to it, <i>precisely because it did not happen.</i>


Kemp has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.
I hope you will see that this is fundamentally unfair, and I will not, under any circumstances, stand by while outright lies are published. You are free to say anything that is true -- or even repeat lies others have made, but if you do the latter, you <b>MUST</b> allow me right of refutation.
] (]) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Therefore there is ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
::'''Comment:''' Quote: "An anonymous poster.." Not true; the original editor was quite properly named as ] (]), a ''nom de plume'' no doubt, but not anonymous. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


:You have ''not even addressed the point''. Here's another example ]. I doubt he would satisfy notability criteria as an author or as a politician, but because his combined efforts raise him above the bar for GNG, ''all'' his activities should be in the article, including his stellar political career standing for election once and getting less than 1% of the vote. That is ''part of the whole''. We don't delete that section because alone it is not sufficient to guarrantee notability. Your endless listing of criteria for notabilty apply to article creation not content as '''I have already explained'''. ] (]) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
== Conflict of interest, .....and other stuff ==


:Agree with Paul Barlow. ] is not the only criteria for inclusion. A person who fails ] can still meet notability via ], which seems to be the case here. <code>]]</code> 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reported this article, as well as Mr Kemp, on the ''']''', as well as trying to bring an Admin's attention to Mr Kemp's continued actions. In addition, due to Mr Kemp's above reference to someone as a member of a certain defunct German political party of questionable refute, I posted an '''attack''' warning template on his user talk page.] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Let us then look at the General notability guideline ] and see if Kemp qualifies under them then:
I have also reported the original biased article, which consisted of nothing but a pack of lies based on a single report from the well-known extremist leftist SPLC, whose "facts" were so utterly wrong that they could not even get my year of birth right.


"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
As for 'calling someone a nazi' -- anyone reading that entry I made could see that reference purely as an example of how, according to these 'rules', anyone could write anything about anybody else, anonymously, and then when that subject objected, his comments are deleted because it is his 'point of view.'


Kemp has NOT received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources."
It was in that sense, and that sense alone, that the remark was made, and it is OBVIOUS from the context what was meant.
] (]) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


In terms of ] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Once again the entry has been edited by another anonymous user repeating the lies from the SPLC (which itself heavily edited its own article on me after first claiming that I actually live in a room in the National Alliance's chairman's house -- which so was so unbelievable that not even they could continue with such an outrageously hilarious lie) and subjectively accusing me of all sorts of things.


One article about packing leaflets in a warehouse (referenced on the site) does NOT constitute "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination, especially bearing in mind that Kemp has utterly failed the politician notability guidelines as well (see above.)
As I said before, if you want to keep this article repeating SPLC lies, then you are under an obligation to allow me the right to refute it. If someone makes up a story about me, I have the right to refute it. Common sense and fair play demand it.


Are we going to have a stand alone article about EVERY leaflet packer for every single party in Britain or the world? It is an absurd notion.
] (]) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


In terms of ] a "reliable source" is open to "editorial integrity" -- what that essentially means is it is a subjective matter. In other words, some may question the SPLC as a "source" while others will think that it is. Given that Kemp has failed both politician and author Misplaced Pages guidelines, it is far fetched to think that an obviously politically-motivated "source" such as the SPLC should then be taken as a criteria for inclusion.
==Whitewashing, removal of sources, etc.==


Once again, are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned? It is an equally absurd notion.] (]) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not have this page on my watchlist, but I noticed that the attempt I made to reincorporate some of the information from the ] was removed. There was a note about this on ] to which I responded. I'm fairly certain the version that was reverted is better than the current version, so I'm going to revert back. However, if someone would like to explain exactly why we must remove any and all mentions of SPLC, please be my guest. I will note that the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is ]. It could be that the SPLC is totally lying (I doubt it, but anyway). That doesn't matter to Misplaced Pages as long as it is properly attributed to them and it is clear to the reader that it is their accusation.


:OK so I'm glad you agree now that ] isn't the only notability guideline that could apply here. The AFD discussion was closed with the note that whether ] might be met really was not discussed properly during the AFD. So let's look at whether he might meet ]. The article has three newspaper articles from ]-respected news sources: an article from ], one from ], and one from ]. In each case, I would describe the coverage as "non-trivial" because the articles really could not exist if they didn't mention Kemp. From my experience working on Misplaced Pages biography articles, the Misplaced Pages-wide consensus is that this meets ], so I don't agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's a super-high "pass" of the ] guideline, but it's a pass.
] (]) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:<p>Regardless, this is the not the venue for discussing whether the article should be deleted. That venue is ]. Removing article content because you didn't like the result of the ] is against Misplaced Pages process and will be considered ] if it continues.
:<p>Your question "are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned?" is arguing against a strawman. There is a ] case to keep every article with the coverage level this article provides, whether or not the subject of the article is a person the SPLC has mentioned. <code>]]</code> 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Since it hasn't been mentioned yet except in my edit summary....] - "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Therefore you don't get to say he doesn't meet ] then delete all mention of his political activities, and the same applies to all other notability criteria. <span style="font-family:Celtic;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is not 'removing any reference' to the SPLC, but simply allowing me the chance to refute their subjective, and for the greatest part, invented allegations.
] (]) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


One should seriously question the notability of one Arthur Kemp. After having researched this individual one could see that he has no academic credentials as a historian, all of his works were self-published and the totality of his political activity has been in small neo-nazi outfits or far right extremist organizations, in addition to strong well founded allegations of him being an intelligence plant of some sort. The inclusion of a person as insignificant and unimportant as Arthur Benjamin Kemp, a real fringe nobody in the political scene, in Misplaced Pages seems to be the result of an effort by this individual himself to self-aggrandize and therefore takes away from the serious nature of Misplaced Pages. Or has Misplaced Pages transformed now into a vanity platform for narcisssitic megalomaniacs? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Continuous Removal of Refutations==


== 3RR violation by TheFallenCrowd‎ ==
All I have asked for is the right to equally refute allegations made against me. Please desist from removing these refutations.
] (]) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
: Please stop editing the page per ]. Your claim is in the appropriate section, and the claim is well referenced by a ]. The fact you work for the BNP doesn't strengthen your denial. ] <small>]</small> 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


TheFallenCrowd‎, you have violated the ] with your latest revert. Please self-revert or this will be reported at ]. (A similar message has also been left at your Talk page.) Thank you. <code>]]</code> 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, you reveal your subjectivity in the matter. As I have said repeatedly, I have not asked for the deletion of the allegations, merely equal space for refutation thereof.


== RfC ==
I find it peculiar that you yourself put in my refutation at the bottom of the article, along with the SPLC claims, and then later add the SPLC claims once again, in the introduction, but this time seem intent on leaving out my denial. Why is that? What is your motive?
] (]) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:You can't say "he has denied these allegations" because you haven't done. You must do it outside wikipedia and then cite where you denied them, otehrwise is constitues ] which is not allwoed on wikipedia.--]<sup>]/]</sup> 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
*The fact is, if you continue editing in this manner, you '''will''' be blocked. This article isn't meant for a debate on your character. It's meant to be an accurate representation of what ] say about you. '''SD'''] 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


{{bulb}}An RfC: ] has been posted at the ]. Your participation is welcomed. &ndash; ] 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
: AK, you have a COI here, and are going to get into trouble if you persist (however, you are very welcome to continue adding stuff to the talk page). That said, I think I'm on your side for the moment, on two grounds.


== Edit warring and deception about when Kemp came to the UK ==
:# The SPLC says ''Arthur Kemp, a South African intelligence official in the era of apartheid, has been trying to resuscitate the neo-Nazi National Alliance in the United States''. If we believe the SPLC, why aren't we reporting its claim that AK was an Int Off?
:# Why are people removing the assertion that he has denied the allegations of being a WS? AK *is* a RS for his own opinions, and I think he's made it pretty clear that he does deny these allegations (no? maybe no - AK, could you clarify this please?). I don't even see why this is controversial - just about everyone except out-and-out racists would deny that.
: Oh, and note: you haven't *refuted* the allegations: you have *denied* them, a very different thing.
: ] (]) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


After TheFallenCrowd was blocked today for a 3RR violation an IP deleted the same material and added a claim that Kemp only came to the UK in 2007, sourced to Kemp's blog. However, this is clearly incorrect as he was working for the BNP in June 2004.. His Ancestry visa doesn't prove he wasn't in the UK earlier and of course we know he was. ] (]) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
===Comment by Pat===
:And Kemp's claim to have emigrated in 2007 is probably literally correct, but as we know he was in the UK in 2004 it's just as likely that 2007 is when he invoked his right of ancestry, thus 'emigrating' without necessarily having left the UK since 2004 or earlier. ] (]) 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed all unsourced statements and removed an unreliable source. Arthur Kemp you are to stop editing your own article or you will be blocked. You have already crossed over into edit warring, <s>but I am not going to block</s> as you are a new editor and obviously confused about how Misplaced Pages works. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


== Bolding '''Ostara Publications'''... ==
: Isn't this somewhat unnecessary? Its a non-controversial fact, and appears to be a good source for it anyway ] (]) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Although the BNP aren't generally a RS, I think for the name of their web editors we can trust them. I also think the two sentences I added to the lead summarised the article content ok. ] <small>]</small> 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


As ] redirects to Arthur Kemp (my edit), I bolded '''Ostara Publications''', as per ]
:::Sure guys, that's fine if you wish to add whatever back in etc. I didn't check who added it, just did a quick sweep over of all the stuff that seemed unreliable etc. ]] 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== "knowing" people who were found guilty ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Is the allegation he "knew" people who were found guilty of a crime actually proper in a BLP? Is there a possibility of "guilt by association" inherent in such a claim, no matter how it is cited? ] (]) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:Well, your use of the word 'allegation' is itself suspect, but in answer to your question: Yes, it's prefectly proper. Look for other examples - there are countless cases on subjects knowing convicted criminals. Does the article on ] mention that George W. knew him? Is this a violation of BLP policy? Far from "guilt by association" being inherent "no matter how it is cited", it actually depends entirely on '''how''' it is cited. ] (]) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::You are arguing the reverse of this instance. An article on Lay should mention his legal troubles. In WP, by the way, "allegation" has a specific usage for any stetement which is proffered without proof other than it being written in a :reliable source." And per ArbCom: "Guilt by association 10) '''Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography.''' At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." . ] "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. " Results from arbitration are about as close to "law" on WP as one can find. ] (]) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904071706/http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot/ to http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot
:::You're quite right about my wrong-way-round example. However, I think it is still correct to say, in the light of your reference to WP:BLP that my comment that it depends "entirely on '''how''' it is cited" is correct and it is not right to say that such sources may never be used, as was suggested in the first place. ] (]) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
::::And as it is currently used, it is improper per ArbCom dicta. ] (]) 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==March of the Titans==
Is this Arthur Kemp the same guy as Arthur Kemp? If so, surely this should be a prominent feature of the article. ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:Not mentioned on his blog, and not a rare name. Could be, but find a reliable source for any claim about it. ] (]) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
::That Arthur Kemp is here: . ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Seems dispositive of any claim, then. Meanwhile a note about the lede and another editor -- it is supposed to contain a summary of material in the body of the article -- it is not to have unsupported charges not even mentioned in the body of the article. (Not a note to Doug) ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what "dispositive of any claim" means, but the person in the photograph linked by dougweller appears to be exactly the same person who appears in other photographs and videos of talks. His prose style is also very similar to the Kemp whose blog is linked. The article states he has published five books. Five books by Arthur Kemp are listed here . March of the Titans is one of them. ] (]) 12:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Lists of books on such sites do not mean the author is the same - only that the name matches (sigh). Seems that the search engine does not keep info to separate people with the same name, so the results are not a source for any such claim. Nor is the search complete. Sorry. ] (]) 13:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Your sigh is rather petty and unhelpful, but what is most problematic is the fact that you seem less interested in the truth than in wikilawyering. We should be concerned with identifying the truth here not with trying to evade it. It seems very very likely that this is the same person. We should be about building knowledge not trying to hide it. Are you interested in ''finding'' good evidence or not? By the way, the site in question is not a "search engine" it's is an author site, wholly different from searching "Arthur Kemp" on, say, Amazon. ] (]) 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I am in favor of verifiable cites. A search engine which searches for name matches is not a "people match" reliable source. And the site you give does searches, and also allows wiki-style entries -- which is what your ref appears to be. I could edit it and say he was a blue transvestite <g> which means it still fails any WP standards. Did you note that you could easily edit his entry? ] (]) 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I don't know why you keep explaining the obvious about what search engines are, as if that were relevant. They are tools for finding information. We judge the relevance of information found in that same way we do with other sources. My very first post made it clear that I was aware of the obvious fact that there is more than one Arthur Kemp in the world. Please stop repeating the obvious. The author page on Good Reads is a personal page. Any author can create one, but it is clear evidence that a person calling himself Arthur Kemp says that all these books are his own. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this Arthur Kemp is the author of March of the Titans. However this page has been gutted by wikilawering. That's why I raised the issue here instead of adding material straght away. I was hoping that other editors might help to ''build'' reliable evidence. Judjing by your tendency to use legalese, I assume that you are a member of the legal profession. May I suggest that what we need is rather more an inquisatorial than an adversarial approach? ] (]) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
{ud}A blog, admittedly, but it looks as though they are one and the same . The Guardian makes it clear that our Arthur Kemp is a member of the BNP. and . Searchlight mentions March of the Titans . What else do we need? ] (]) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Find a specific cite for the claim per ] and ]. So far none has been given. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Specifically, what claim? ] (]) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
March of the Titans is bizarre. Kemp claims that anyone not British is basically part black since ancient times. Kemp forgets that the Romans for 500 years brought their black slaves to England, he just leaves that out of his book. Kemp is a real nut case. ] (]) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:The Romans had African troops, but there's no reason to assume that they were slaves, or that they were black. However, black or not, their genetic contribution would have been utterly tiny. This page should not be for refuting March of the Titans, but it should include it. ] (]) 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
::Kemp does not consider it tiny, his book makes a good deal of it in other areas where the Romans were, why not England too. Fair is fair. - And Romans of course had slaves as well as soldiers. 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Yes, of course they had slaves, but slavery was not based on race in Roman culture. The overwhelming majority of slaves were white. ] (]) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

== new article tags ==

The article has been tagged as needing a longer lede, that the article needs third-party sources, that it needs additional verifiable sources, that the article needs expansion, and that a "self-published source" should not be used.

There is some doubt as to whether the person is sufficiently notable for an article in the first place. The lede currently accurately represents the contents of the article in summary fashion, and does not include material which is not in the article. The material in the article is all currently sourced, although the "self-published source" is used only for a denial of an attack. The reference as used makes it clear that Kemp's denial is on his personal website, and is unlikely to confuse any reader.

As for "third party sources" - they abound here compared with many articles about not very notable people. ] (]) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

== Ostara Publications ==

Only published Kemp's books - well, sells them at least, Lulu self-publishes them. ] (]) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:Which is relevant for what reason when we already note the author published them?] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::Saying that the author published them is ambiguous, it could just be clumsy wording. There is no reason why we can't be specific about lulu.com (which I've put back in). Ostara seems to be just the name of his site on lulu, it doesn't publish his books. And 5 seems in error. ] (]) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Seems his website claimed 5 -- it is not a bone of contention. Meanwhile it is against policy to make parenthetical claims about a site being blacklisted as spam. Let's try to make this an honest NPOV article as far as possible. ] (]) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::There is definitely nothing in policy about my explaining why Misplaced Pages won't let me put the full url in a reference - it is blacklisted by Misplaced Pages, that is not a secret. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty for pointing out why I couldn't include the full url. I've replaced published with self-published to make it clear, and changed five because I can find more than 5 books by him that he is selling. Meanwhile I am waiting for a reply to my question in the section above. ] (]) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::::No need to mention the site at all -- but saying it is blacklisted as spam is not NPOV. Note also that WP is not allowed as RS for any WP articles either. ] (]) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== avoiding OR ==

Per ] claims about the book should reflect third party sources. Using the list of chapters to make a claim about the book is SYN and OR. ] (]) 00:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:No it is not. The contents of books can properly be summarised without transgressing OR. ] (]) 08:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::In this case, it is not "summarising" the book. The "race mixed with non-white blood" is ''not'' found in the chapter titles or summaries. "By the presence of the Roman Empire" is not supported by the wording on the web-site. As the website is not RS for anything more than (at absolute most) the material on the website, any inferences from it are OR and SYN. Kemp may be despicable, but we can not violate WP policies to hit him harder. I can not actually even prove Kemp has anything to do with the site as it is registered under a Dutch company. Nor have I found any definitive proof that the Arthur Kemp is the only Arthur Kemp from South Africa. ] (]) 11:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:::The website is legitimate as a source for its contents in an article on its author. Regarding its theories, which are legitimately within the category of ], it is clear policy that such sites can be used to describe the theories they contain. This includes NPOV summaries, which are normal practice. It is found in articles on other fringe authors, including other so-called "white nationalists". There is no actual dispute that this Arthur Kemp is author of March of the Titans, which is repeatedly cited by members of the BNP. This is not about 'hitting' Kemp, but about providing basic information about him which is currently being suppressed. One learns almost nothing from this article. ] (]) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::As non RS, it can be cited for what it specifically says at most, not for what one desires to imfer from it. In the case at hand, the site does not say what was imputed to it. I found no sign of it being sold on the BNP site, which means that part was unsupported. ''There is more than enough here to condemn Kemp's positions without pushing the WP policies.'' As to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is a remarkably weak argument. This is a BLP, and must conform to that policy. ] (]) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::Indeed, but what is says can be properly summarised. I am not sure what is "imputed to it" that it does not say. You will have to specific. NPOV summarising inevitably means that some complexities of arguments will be lost. This is true of summaries of any text or viewpoint. It is certainly sold by the BNP, but it is not, as far as I know, marketed through its website. I do wish you would not quote policies that have already been shown to be irrelevant. Citing OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant to an explanation of how Misplaced Pages actually works. ] (]) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

::::::The material in the claim did not fit what was on the webpage. If you stick to precise quotes, you should be safe. And I would suggest the average reader can darn well figure out what sort of person he is from the material already here. ] (]) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

==Constant Vandalization of Article==
This article has become the target of constant vandalization by 66.194.104.5 who is also known to Misplaced Pages users as a disruptive influence http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alvestrand/POV-history by inserting lines which have nothing to do with the subject and which are merely pushing his own POV on the topic of racial mixing in Classical Rome and Greece.
He has now resorted to outright lies in this effort. For example, one of the irrelevant lines he has inserted into this article reads as follows:
"Agreeing with Kemp's claims are Afrocentrist works such as Martin Bernal's book Black Athena whose thesis is that Blacks built Ancient Greece."
Kemp argues nothing of the sort: in fact he argues that whites built ancient Greece, not blacks. This is obvious from both Bernal and Kemp's books. He is engaging in deliberate distortions and lies, and needs to be prevented from further vandalization. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:First, Misplaced Pages does not allow slander of living persons, and Alvestrand never positively identified 66.194.104.5. Second, that contributor simply pointed out that Afrocentrists do indeed have some common ground with Kemp. Both believe there was significant African presence in Europe.

===Encyclopedia Britannica Contradicts Kemp===
The following is well sourced and must be included by Misplaced Pages rules, where there in the article where Kemp listed the sources that supposedly agree with him: ''Contradicting Kemp's claims is the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for Slavery in Ancient Greece, which states that Athens' slaves were of Aegean origin. '' from Britannica 2005, p.290, vol.27 ] (]) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:Probably much better suited for an article on the book in itself, rather than in the BLP where I have doubts about the amount of space already devoted to the book. ] (]) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::KEMP INSERTED SOURCES AGREEING WITH HIM, SO CONTRARY SOURCES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::You need an RS for any claims you wish to have in the article. And the claims must be remotely relevant to the BLP. ] (]) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kemp´s book "March of the Titans" has a chapter about the decline of Portugal due to aleedged "race-mixing" with black slaves. The following web site refutes his white supremacist theories.
http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp
I suggest it be added to the links as it represents a well documented critique of Kemp´s race centred theories. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Why Kemp Left South Africa==
According to the SPLC, Arthur Kemp testified to South African police that two white comrades had killed a black man, and the two comrades both got life sentences thanks to Kemp. Fearing punishment by other white comrades who then despised him, Kemp fled to Britain, where he now works for the BNP. All this is in the footnote 11 of reporter Heidi Beirich, but it belongs in the article proper, not simply buried in the footnote. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Kemp's research not peer reviewed==
Added the following, '' Kemp's research was never published in any peer reviewed scientific journal.'' It is impossible to disprove a negative and this is necessary for perspective. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:If you can not find an RS which makes that observation, it can not be used here. See ] and ] ] (]) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Removal of content ==

Can someone explain if there's a good reason for ? --] (]) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

:I think it comes down to whether the ''Intelligence Report'', published by the ], is a reliable source. Given that the ''Report'' has won journalism awards, my inclination is yes, although the follow-on question is whether they are neutral. I'm inclined to restore the text (except for the uncited comment at the bottom of the article which was also deleted). —''']''' (]) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Be advised that SPLC report on the subject has already undergone several major edits by the SPLC staff, after the original report was exposed as containing a series of outrageous lies, including the laughable allegation that the subject actually lived in a spare room at the National Alliance chairman's house in Ohop (actually the subject lives in the United Kingdom).
As a result, in this particular instance, the SPLC report has been shown to be a pack of lies, and the allegations contained therein can not in any way be regarded as accurate. As such, quoting from that report is contrary to Misplaced Pages's BLP policy, and must be rejected. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Who exposed the "outrageous lies" in question? Knowing that would allow us to evaluate the claim and then remove the statements, once disproven. —''']''' (]) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The refutation has already been sources in the article itself. Please see the entry under the "criticism" section. For your information, the reference is http://www.arthurkemp.com/?m=200712 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Intelligence Report a . --] (]) 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

::And unless the content on arthurkemp.com points to articles elsewhere, that is not a reliable source. —''']''' (]) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is not a reliable source. They've changed that article at least six times since initial publication, each time substantially changing so-called facts therein. Does this mean if I put up an article about you which contains blatant lies that I can then quote it as a reference on Misplaced Pages? If you and Misplaced Pages are interested in pursuing this in a court of law, then continue on this path. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:SPLC was previously deemed a reliable source in this case. See ]. Nothing there says they can't be mentioned in this article.
:If anything, the content there suggests that the IPs are on the same agenda as {{userlinks|Arthur Kemp}}. —''']''' (]) 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::I consider SPLC a RS only for their own opinion, just as arthurkemp.com is only usable as a source for what it says as opinion. I do not particularly like Arthur Kemp one whit, but any BLP must conform to reasonable standards, and the SPLC material does not so conform. ] (]) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:::I think you just made has clarified that it's SPLC's opinion that he left South Africa for the asserted reasons. That wording works by me. —''']''' (]) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

==Court Records: Kemp Testified against his comrades==

Here are the court records proving that Kemp testified against his comrades, see lines 20-21:

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1994/189.html

This testimony of Kemp is what put Kemp's friends into prison for life.

The SPLC is correct <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

removed unprovable allegations and insults.] (]) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

All the court records show is that Kemp confirmed what the accused had already told the investigators, and that the third accused, Mrs gaye Debry-Lewis, was acquitted because of Kemp's testimaonty. A quick reading of the sourced material will prove this to be accurate.

There is therefore no justification for the allegation as made in this seciton heading, and it is clearly contrary to BLP policy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There is no excuse for Kemp's testifying against his comrades.] (]) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

::Other than the fact that the law required him to testify? And that his testimony exonerated one of the defendants? ] (]) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:::The two men both got life in prison. Kemp could have said he didn't remember. He didn't have to go into detail about exactly just how they were involved. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::When a person is called to testify, law says he must testify. Would you say "except when you do not want to testify"? ] (]) 20:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::He volunteered the information about exactly what they said,he did not have to do that, he could have not volunteered that detail, read the court documents, he clearly went into unnecessary detail to incriminate them, the SPLC says he cooperated to save himself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"Court records" are "primary sources" by WP policy. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." ] They are clearly not properly used at this point in the article. ] (]) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The court records clearly show that Kemp did not testify to anything which the Derby-Lewis's had already not told the police, and furthermore that his evidence secured the acquittal of one of the accused. The accusation by user 67.79.157.50 is obviously untrue. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It is no excuse that the police 'already knew'. Kemp confirmed it to the court that both Walus and Lewis were involved in the murder, it is clearly there on lines 20-21 of the court records, and there is no getting around that. Kemp's confirming testimony was nails in the coffin. Kemp never addresses the contents of lines 20-21 in the court record, he chooses to simply forget them. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Exact Wording: Quote==
Read Heidi Beirich's article for the SPLC, she states precisely that Kemp gave 'testimony against the Derby-Lewises'. It is exact wording, and conveys information that is in fact nowhere else in this wikipedia article.] (]) 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that in the section "Continuous Removal of Refutations" above, the point was made by William M. Connolley at 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC) as follows: "1. The SPLC says Arthur Kemp, a South African intelligence official in the era of apartheid, has been trying to resuscitate the neo-Nazi National Alliance in the United States. If we believe the SPLC, why aren't we reporting its claim that AK was an Int Off?"

The point being that continous selective quoting from the SPLC article is clearly contrary to Misplaced Pages BLP policy, especially when it is based on unprovable assertions from a poltically baised source such as the SPLC.

Either ALL the allegations are reproduced, and Kemp is allowed equal space to refute them all, or none are reproduced, and the article is linked and Kemp's refutation is linked, as was the case before the present set of vandallization took place. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You must follow wikipedia rules, wikipedia goes by SOURCES and you cannot simply delete the contents of sources from the articles simply because you disagree with the sources. You must supply your own sources to quote from. Stop vandalizing the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

1. The allegation that Kemp left South Africa after testifying in the Hani trial is obviosuly untrue: the trial was in 1993, and Kemp moved muhc later than that.
2. The SPLC author Beirich has made an assertion based on zero facts. She has never interviewed any persons in South Africa to back this allegation, and has simply made it up.
3. Given Kemp's political views, it is far more likely that he left South Africa because he did not want to live under an ANC government.
4. It is contrary to Wiki BLP policy to quote opinions, even if referenced. There is therefore no reason to include obviously poltically biased opinions. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Actually opinions of a specified author are allowed as long as properly attributed as opinion. Problems occur, however, when facts and opinions are conmingled in a single statement, which certainly appears to be the case here. ] (]) 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
::Kemp is lying. Mrs.Lewis testified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearing that Kemp had already left the country. Also, Kemp is upset on his blog that all these documents about him are on display on the site resist.com in the section 'news and views' of April 8. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

User 72.15.212.126 is clearly motivated by personal bias as evident from the comment above, and is vandalizing this article to suit a personal political agenda. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Note "resist.com" is not within a mile of being a "reliable source" for anything on WP. ] (]) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
:What is important is not the site but the South African documents displayed there.

==Kemp's damaging testimony==
Kemp writes on his blog ''I provided the court with no evidence which the Derby-Lewis couple had not already given to the police''. The truth however is quite the contrary: Kemp's damaging testimony got Lewis and Walus into deep trouble. Kemp testified that the Lewises told him ''Walus would not talk''. This was thrown at poor Mrs.Lewis at the amnesty hearings of December 1, 1997:

MR BIZOS: I want to take you to the bottom of page 693 of your evidence - before I do that, was Mr Kemp assured - in your presence, that he must not worry because Walus would not talk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don’t recall that, he testified to that fact but I don’t recall it.

MR BIZOS: Who testified to that fact?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp.

And later Mr.Bizos refers to Kemp as a ''material witness''. ] (]) 14:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)



Since any witness is a "material witness" pretty much if they are not an "expert witness" and since Kemp provided the "list" in court, the whole part above is joyfully unimportant. ] (]) 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:The importance is that it proves Kemp did in fact supply information not supplied by the Lewises, contrary to Kemp's above claims. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The article notes that Kemp says the SPLC is wrong. What are "Kemp's above claims" that you do not like in the article? ] (]) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Was in reference to Kemp's repeated claims that he never told the police anything the Lewises had not already told the police- clearly a false claim by Kemp, look at Mr.Bizos questioning of Mrs. Lewis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

User 67.79.157.50 has demonstrated amply to readers of this page what his "sources" (resist.com) and others are, and his motivation in continously introducing material contrary to established BLP policy. How much more evidence do we need as to his motivation? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:My sources are the court records and Truth and Reconciliation transcripts - both excellent sources. (unsigned) Please sign using 4 tildes.


::See ] etc. Primary sources are rarely allowed in any WP article. ] (]) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
:::The South African documents confirm the SPLC, the documents were sent to Metzger from someone back in South Africa who knows about Kemp's past. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There is no justification in selective "cherry picking" quotations from the SPLC article, which is itself suspect as a politcally motivated POV. As discussed earlier on this page, the SPLC makes a large number of allegations about the subject. Why then only pick out one or two and hihglight them, while ignoring the rest? Especially when a review of the history of the article in question shows that the SPLC have altered it more than six times, each time cutting out another part which was so far fetched that not even they could maintain it.
The article is referenced as a POV criticism, and the subject's response is referenced as a POV rebuttal. It is not necessary to expand upon in the BLP, and selective, politically motivated subjective allegations are specifically disallowed under Wiki BLP policy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The quote is selected because it is a professional conclusion pertinent to an important event in Kemp's biography, and the SPLC is a standard wikipedia reference. Also, Kemp on his blog very stupidly promoted a site which exposes Kemp by exhibiting the South African documents regarding Kemp's court testimony, Kemp is no doubt sorry his testimony is permanent court record. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Guardian article ==

Possible new source: guardian.co.uk ] <small>]</small> 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

:Actually has no new information not already covered in the article. Use for "guilt by association" is not BLP stuff. ] (]) 21:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
:: It also covers his work for the BNP, which I remember did have referencing problems. There may be other useful information. ] <small>]</small> 21:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

::We found a source for him running the website etc. earlier. ] (]) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New research from the SPLC regarding Kemp
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/05/06/transnational-white-supremacist-arthur-kemp-slammed-online/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:A blog entry about posts from a person claiming to be Kemp's son is not RS, and has nothing of relevance to this BLP at all. BTW, blogs are not "research." ] (]) 15:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:It shows SPLC standard and credibility. What is the point of this "research"? A person claiming to be Kemp's son in some blog comment. Maybe he really is but is information that Kemp has low-bred pubescent son notable for Misplaced Pages? --] (]) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Blind items" in blogs are not "reliable sources" for contentious marterial in a BLP ==

Note: sources which do not actually use names are not valid for making contentious claims in a BLP. Referring to "A" is insufficient for making a contious claim about Arthur Kemp. Thanks! ] (]) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

==Kemp's claim of 'non-white' is unsupported==

Kemp's abundant sources which record foreigners in Rome are true, but they were not 'non-white' as Kemp claims in his irresponsible and sloppy style. Kemp mistakes the word 'Orientals' for non-whites. 'Orientals' refer to Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople) Greeks essentially, not non-whites. It is said that Greek became the majority language in Rome. There were some Syrians but 'Syrians' were not non-white and the Romans even stationed some Syrian troops as far north as Hadrian's Wall. Kemp is the only one who misuses the term 'non-white'; none of Kemp's academic sources use that term at all. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:And all of this stuff is actually nicely irrelevant to the biography at hand. At least it is now so muddy no reader will actually think it means anything at all. ] (]) 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

==Kemp's Quotes of Prof. Frank are Inaccurate==

Arthur Kemp truncates phoney quotes of Prof. Tenny Frank, and Kemp simply leaves out the beginning and end of Frank's article where Frank admits that the evidence for races in Rome is questionable and uncertain :

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the
very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

This is the 'rest' of Frank's quote, that Kemp leaves out !
from: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html

I suggest this quote be added to the article, and all the rest of the out of context quotes be deleted and simply then all be referred to:
See also ].

Kemp loaded the article with obscure early twentieth century sources from the Ku Klux Klan era, these sources are not standard sources, and are unacceptable for wikipedia.

Also, A.M. Duff is completely unknown and not 'famous' as Kemp claims. ] (]) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==Kemp Has Made Many Mistakes...==
Kemp knows he's made errors but he can't change his book now; Kemp lost his whole family, so he can't now also admit to what are obvious mistakes in his 'book', because he'd have nothing else left. ] (]) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


How is this relevant to the Talk page? ] (]) 17:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==Where's the Neutrality ?==

The article makes it sound like Italians are negroids.

This quote of Prof. Tenny Frank should be at the very top of the article !

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html ] (]) 18:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Iterating stuff not intended to improve the BLP is not helpful. ] (]) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::The quote should be included, it negates all the others. Kemp omitted it on purpose to give a false image, he left it out. Misplaced Pages should not leave it out. ] (]) 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

=Rome Never Fell=

The Roman Empire simply transferred its capital to Constantinople. This should be placed in the article, it negates Kemp's claims completely.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Fall_Of_The_Roman_Empire#The_West_demoted_to_the_periphery ] (]) 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


::Curiously enough, this is a biography. All the other stuff is pretty much irrelevant. WP has articles on Constantinople etc. And oversimplifying the history of the Roman Empire does not belong in this article at all. ] (]) 19:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::If you believe what you just said, then remove all of Kemp's inserted Ku Klux Klan quotes. ] (]) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I found no KKK quotes -- but shall check if any are cited in the article. A huge amount of useless prattle is now in the article. ] (]) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Remove it all. It is simply quotes from the 1920's, the KKK era. ] (]) 19:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::You made an assertion that the quotes were from the KKK-- if they are not, then you wasted my time. WP is not a place to make such accusations when you do not have anything to back them up. Thanks! ] (]) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==If You allow quotes of Frank then use this one==

If you are allowing quotes from Prof. Frank then add this one, for perspective, it is Frank's qualifying remark:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html ] (]) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

=='world famous historians'==

why do you allow nonsense claims like this ? 'world famous historians', what a joke ! ] (]) 19:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:It is not "my" article. Other editors have made all these edits, and unless you establish a consensus for making chages, they are likely to just revert changes. ] (]) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==Something Wrong with Misplaced Pages's Administrators ?==

Misplaced Pages Administrators know that "parenthetical editorial does not belong in article" so why are they not deleting any of it ? ] (]) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


:Ask an admin to drop in. ] (]) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::You are one. You wrote that " parenthetical editorial does not belong in article ", so why do you not remove it all ? ] (]) 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


:::Actually, "administrator" has a special significance in WP. See ] ] (]) 20:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Stop playing games. You are the one who wrote "parenthetical editorial does not belong in article" and you are able to make changes to the text. Do it. ] (]) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

==None of Kemp's sources say "non-white"==

None of Kemp's sources say "non-white", as Kemp claims. ] (]) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:Find a reliable source which makes that statement. WP is not a place for us to insert our opinions or findings as such, but a place to cite sources which make statements. ] (]) 11:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::No historian would bother to write about kemp. ] (]) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::If you do not have a ] for a claim, then the claim can not be put in. See also ]. This is how WP works. ] (]) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
"non-white" is only Kemp's word, the quoted respectful historians should not be painted as confirming that word. - None of those quotes describe Constantinople's "Oriental" ] as " non-white ", as Kemp is inferring by inserting them.
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:(ec)Your main problem is WP policies and guidelines. Google finds over six thousand books using the term "non-white", and well over a million web pages. Hundreds of current news articles, to boot. So asserting the term is in any way unusual is not likely to work. ] (]) 12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I am talking about the ''particular'' sources quoted in this here article. None of them say "non-white", as inferred by Kemp's inserting them. ] (]) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Are any quotations faked? If so, which precise quotes are made improperly? Thanks! ] (]) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::::The quotes are out of context. The quotes are simply referring to the Eastern Roman Empire, and not to "non-whites" as Kemp is inferring by inserting them. "Oriental" in context simply meant Eastern Roman Empire. It is misleading to infer they were referring to "non-whites" as Kemp is inferring by inserting them. They should therefore be deleted as out of context. ] (]) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Am I correct in saying that you do not like the article, but that you can not point to cites for your specific claims, and that no quotes in the article are faked? BTW, "Byzantine Empire" is also a proper term, and it appears Kemp's primary thesis regards the Italian "fall of Rome" and not with tthe Byzantine decay. The quotes in this article which you dispute in fact uniformly refer to "Italy" and "Rome" making the thesis that they are about the Byzantine Empire untenable. ] (]) 13:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Out of context is the same as faked. Also, in these quotes the decay of Rome is being blamed on Easterners (Byzantium) but who were not "non-whites" as Kemp infers by inserting these quotes.] (])
For clarification and correctness I would add the following sentence to the end of the article: ''However, none of these quotes regarding newcomers state that they were " non-white ", as Kemp claims. '' ] (]) 13:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Such a claim is OR in and of itself. (]) Unless, of course, you can find a reliable source making that precise claim. And since you can not say any quotes are "faked" and since the cites for them are clearly given, you do not have WP policy on your side. ] (]) 15:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:Then I would add the following sentence to the end of the article: ''However, in none of these quotes is found the word " non-white ".'' No one could possibly deny that simple statement. Otherwise these quotes in this context are misleading. ] (]) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Read the WP guidelines about claims. As you do not seem willing to produce a cite for your claim, it is unlikely that iterating it will suddenly change the WP rules. Thanks. ] (]) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::OK, but let's remove all of the quotes that have no relevance, see next section here below. ] (]) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== March of the Titans ==

I suggest removing the part of this section that begins "However, Kemp’s claims...is supported by a number of acclaimed and world famous historians." None of these historians were commenting on Kemp's book so they have no relevance to the article. The statement that they support his claims is ]. ] (]) 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:None of those sources support Kemp, whose thesis is that Rome was " filled up with non-whites ". None of those sources even mention non-whites. The only source that bears upon Kemp is a man whom Kemp cites in his book, Professor Tenny Frank who in fact explicitly cautions against speculating on the racial make up of ancient Rome:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

from: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jstor/ahr/ahr-21-4-toc.html
] (]) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::It does not matter that someone expresses similar views, no matter how esteemed that person is. Their views belong in their articles not here. Unless Tenny Frank was commenting on the book ''March of the Titans'' including them here is violation of ]. We cannot analyze Kemp's book here just provide commentary from published sources. Is there some book review you know of that we could quote? ] (]) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Prof. Frank is relevant because Kemp's book references him. As for book reviews, no newspaper would even bother to review Kemp's book. Prof.Frank's quote which I have cited is perfectly relevant here. But I agree that none of the other quotes are pertinent and should be removed, I agree.] (]) 18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::::If Kemp drew inspiration from the writings of Tenny Frank, then mention it. But when you say ""However, Kemp’s claims...is supported by a number of acclaimed and world famous historians" you are expressing an opinion that is not found in any reliable source. Please read the policy ]. By the way Kemp was written about in UK newspapers recently when he ran as a BNP candidate. ] (]) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::I didn't write that about "world famous historians", it was Kemp who added that - and wikipedia's administrators such as "Collect" are letting it be there - wikipedia is protecting Kemp, very curious indeed. And wikipedia has blocked the article so no one can remove the nonsense. As for English newspapers, none will review Kemp's amateurish book. "Collect" is allowing Kemp to write in the article that "world famous historians" agree with him - that is a blatant violation of wiki rules and "Collect" is allowing it ! ] (]) 19:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the section. Let me be clear. ] states ''Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.'' The claim that Kemp's ideas are supported by some historians is not found in any published source, and can only be made by someone reading both Kemp's and Frank's writings and forming a conclusion. The fact that Frank died before Kemp was born makes it impossible that he formed any opinion on Kemp's book. Reference to writings that are presented in support of this view should also be deleted. Similarly criticism of the views should be avoided unless they are from published sources.

Because the book was self-published and never reviewed I question whether its contents should be discussed at any length, and welcome any comments on that matter.

If anyone restores this deleted material I will submit an ]

] (]) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:There is, in faact, more that you could trim. I am unconvinced that ''any'' of the content of the book is really relevant considering the rest of the BLP. If you check, you will note that I repeatedly tried deleting such useless stuff in this article in the past <g>. Kemp is likely despicable, but BLP is the governing issue here. ] (]) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I reduced information about the book to what can be verified in reliable third party sources, in this case ''The Guardian'' and ''The Independent''. As they provide little detail I have moved mention of the book to the section immediately above so that the book no longer has its own section. ] (]) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I fixed the claims so each source's claim is identified properly. Neither one appears to conform with a claim of international popularity, however. Guardian has the Holocaust cite, Independent has him in BNP headquarters. ] (]) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have also removed details about the reasons for Kemp leaving the Conservative Party, because there are no reliable third-party sources for this. Please refer to WP policy. ] (]) 13:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Not a very important bit in any case. It has been in a while, to be sure. ] (]) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

==The Quote that Kemp Omits==

Arthur Kemp's book contains references to Professor Tenny Frank. However, Professor Tenny Frank explicitly cautions against speculating on the racial make up of ancient Rome:

" This evidence is never decisive in its purport, and it is always, by the very nature of the material, partial in its scope... But it is offered in the hope that a more thorough study of the race question may be made in conjunction with economic and political questions before any attempt is made finally to estimate the factors at work in the change of temper of imperial Rome." - Tenny Frank

Kemp loves to quote Tenny Frank, but Kemp simply omits this one ! ] (]) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::This has been discussed here repeatedly. The outcome of the discussion is the same. You are simply verging on abuse of the talk page. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== Original version of story ==

After all the edits the article ] now has very little data. I suggest that we restore the original version. ] (]) 13:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

:Nope. Original was a BLP nightmare. The current version, such as it is, is not. ] (]) 13:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:Please restore his denial -- it was thoroughly discussed on several noticeboards, and removal would be contrary to the consensus reached in the past. Thanks! ] (]) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have now restored it. ] (]) 13:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:::(ec)Thanks! ] (]) 13:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== BLP violations ==

SPLC is a worldwide anti-white hate group.

I reverted the section because it was a BLP violation. Can I make myself anymore clear?--] (]) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
:I'd advise some ]; clearly other editors disagree with you. This edit-warring should not continue, especially since you are now on ]. Try seeking advice ]. ]] 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For the opinion of the SPLC on Kemp to have a place in this article it must have been reliably published, which a search on Google News and NewsBank shows it has not been. Leaving the section in the article would give their opinion undue weight. ] (]) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

== Locked ==

Either sort this issue out here, or seek ]. Meanwhile, I've fully protected the article for a week. ] should be the first port of call for any interested editor, which I am not. ]] 00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:You have protected the article after the anonymous IP removed the criticism section. I question whether this article requires full protection or semi-protection. The onus to go to ] should be on the IP rather than all the editors who have challenged his edits. ] (]) 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:There now a posting on the BLP noticeboard and the whole issue has already been discussed at WP:RS . ] (]) 13:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. Since the editor in question has started a thread on ] and it seems there is consensus for this being reliably sourced, I will unlock the article. Any protection, of course, is always to the ]. ]] 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ] (]) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

==No source refutes the Independent==
The Independent called Kemp a key witness, and there is no published source which refutes that. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


It is however clear from the evidence presented in the court case that Kemp was a minor witness. Key witnesses were the two eye witnesses to the shooting, the people who provided the firearm and the silencer, and the confessions of the two main accused themselves. Kemp on the other hand, only testified about a list of names drawn up by the wife of one of the accused, and nothing at all about the actual assassination. It is therefore obvious that this "key witness" claim has been inserted incorrectly. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The Independant is a major published reference which must be included. The Independant examined the court records and reported that ''Arthur Kemp, told the court that over lunch at the Derby-Lewises on 12 April, two days after the assassination of the South African Communist Party leader, Mrs Derby-Lewis had admitted to her involvement''. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The Independent (not the ''Independant'') article has no place in the 'criticism' section (the fact that 67.79.142.171 places it there is an indication of that poster's malicious intent). In any event, as proven above, Kemp was not a 'key witness' by any standard - - that title belongs with the really important witnesses already named in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: OK, I moved it back to the other section for you. The Independant is a major source, it must be included here.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It is clear from the evidence in court that Kemp was not a "key witness" and this incorrect report is therefore irrelevant. Or are you suggesting that the main accused, eye witnesses to the shooting and the testimoney of people who handled the firearm is more important than someone who testified about a list which he did not even draw up? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What I believe or you believe matters not; Misplaced Pages operates only by major published references. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

A full list of state witnesses, extracted from the official South African records and fully referenced, has been inserted. A false claim in one newspaper is not more weighty than the official verfiable records. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: It is not up to you to pick and chose the sources; all proper major published references belong in wikipedia. Also, there are too many details of the trial here, which only serve as a smokescreen. We should only be concerned here with the trial as it relates specifically to Kemp; the article here is about Mr.Kemp. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===Stop removing the Independant which is a proper source===

Misplaced Pages should seal this article with the Independant source being included. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The official records, as referenced in this article, are a far more reliable source than a second hand account in a newspaper.


Furthermore, it is clear, from referenced sources already used in this article, that Kemp was not a 'key witness'.

There were eye witnesses to the shooting; witnesses who described the source and handling of the firearm, and statement confessions from the main accused.
:The Independant is going by the court records. That is what newspapers do. Kemp fried his former comrades in front of the court. This wikipedia article is concerning Kemp's involvement, not all those others. Court records show what Kemp did, the Independant published it; wikipedia must include it.] (]) 20:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


In the light of the evidence presented by the official records, which show that Kemp's testimony had nothing to do with the actual murder, it is totally false to claim that he was a 'key witness'. The official court records from South Africa take precedence over a journalist's second had account.

Even the use of the phrase 'fried' by the poster above, shows that there is a malicious purpose behind inserting this false claim.
:Court records clearly show Kemp testified that Mrs.Lewis admitted her involvement in the murder, that is what the Independent states.] (]) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


This is factually incorrect. Mrs Derby-Lewis never admitted her involvement to anyone. She was acquitted precisely because she never admitted her guilt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That is not what Kemp testified. The Independant reported what happened, and not you. sir. Stop omitting sources.] (]) 20:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The official records show that Mrs Derby-Lewis did not admit guilt to anything. She merely confirmed that the list which Kemp had given her had ended up with Walusz. This is what the official records show, as referenced in the article. It is simply untrue to allege otherwise.
:The Independant says what happened, not you. wikipedia goes by sources. ] (]) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable source is the official court records, as referenced in this article.
:proper sources interpret the court records, not you. ] (]) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The journalist did not consult "court records" as they were not available at the time he wrote his article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Reporters are present at the proceedings. ] (]) 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

===Appeal to Halt Malicious Vandalism===

Editors at Misplaced Pages are asked to intervene in the latest editing dispute. Essentially the question is what consitutes a more reliable source: official court records, or a second hand newspaper story. The court records must take precedence.
:proper sources interpret the court records, not you. Independant must be included. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The Independent journalist did not quote official court records, as they were not available at the time the article was written. Official records are only made available once the trial is completed.

:The Independant court reporter was there. Misplaced Pages should protect this article including all sources. ] (]) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

::] requires that we use ]. The Independent is a reliable source. A Misplaced Pages editor claiming the court records contradict that is not. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

===Please protect this article===

please protect this article including the proper source of the Independant. ] (]) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
:Protected for 3 days. Both editors reminded of ], and of venues like ] if you can't sort it out alone. If edit warring persists when the protection expires, I'll come down hard on ], which does not require exceeding 3 reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

== Chris Hani trial ==

Does anyone else feel that the trial section in the article is much ]? of the article is more concise. I think we should revert back to that and then discuss what changes to make. ] (]) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Chris Hani section does not belong in this article at all, because this article is not about Chris Hani or even about the trial. A one sentence mention that Kemp was a witness at the trial would be sufficient. ] (]) 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

:I have cut the Chris Hani mention back to a sentence, and reverted the rest as noted above. ] (]) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hani Trial is an important aspect of this BLP and deserves fuller mention. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Details of the Hani trial belong in a completely separate Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

==Need for Factual Content==

This BLP suffers from a serious lack of factual content. Currently it consists of a collection of spurious and obviously politically motivated allegations.
Misplaced Pages BLP policy states clearly that entries should be of a neutral and factual nature, and not be a repository for tabloid-style sensationalism.
The changes being inserted now fulfill these requirements. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the SPLC cannot be regarded as a neutral reference for its political opponents. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Misplaced Pages operates by sources, and does not reinterpret them as you are trying to do. ] (]) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

==More information on March of The Titans==

Much more should be included on MOTT than just it's holocaust revisionism. The book is a work of hardcore nordicist pseudo-history. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This article must rely primarily on reliable secondary sources, like articles in mainstream media. If you can find any then more information may be added. However the information added must reflect what is in those sources. ] (]) 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

== British writer and historian ==

An editor continues to include Kemp in the categories British writer and British historian. Could you please provide RS that either is accurate. ] (]) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


==BLP==
Just a note that the policy on ] also applies to this talk page, and that discussions here must remain focussed on improving the article. Random speculation based on blogs and other user submitted media is not acceptable. ] (]) 21:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

==Academic Credentials==
A listing of Mr. Kemp´s academic credentials would be useful for the public to acertain the true value and credibility of his historical research and theories. Does he have an academic background in history? What is his level of education? Have any of his works been published in any peer-reviewed publication or have they all been self-published or published by neo-nazi organizations? This information, which is indeed quite fundamental when the biographical article in question is of a self-described historian, would enrich the article and provide enough information to the public so as to permit a serious evaluation of his writings´ credibility and value as historical reserach. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Kemp and Harvey==
Should this article make reference to Kemp's relations with ]? Kemp wrote for Harvey's racist hate-sheet ''South African Patriot'' during the 80's and attended his wedding (like Kemp Harvey would leave his wife and child in South Africa). Harvey would join Kemp in the South African Conservative Party. When Kemp came to Britain in 1996 Harvey was there to meet him. Later, they had an acrimonious falling out at the beginning of the century, Harvey blaming Kemp for the arrest of ]. Harvey has edited the Kemp article ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Proposed Revision of Article==

This article violates several Wiki BLP policies and is little more than a politically motivated attack on the subject.

It contains almost no actual data about the subject, and is largely a collection of attacks on him by political opponents.

As such, the article needs to be revised in its entirety.

Here follows a proposed draft: discussion is invited before it is posted up.

==Biography==

Arthur Kemp was born in 1962 in the British colony of ], spending his formative early political years in ]. He has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration. <ref>'']'', </ref>

He was conscripted into the South African Police for four years -- from 1985 to 1988 -- as part of his national service obligation in South Africa, serving as a constable and a sergeant in the uniform branch stationed in Johannesburg. <ref>'']'', http://www.arthurkemp.com/?p=130 ESSAY EIGHT from The Lie of Apartheid and other True Stories from Southern Africa]</ref>

After completing his national service, Kemp worked for ] newspaper in Johannesburg <ref>'']'', 1 December 1997, </ref> and later as a journalist for the ].

Kemp was expelled from the Conservative Party in 1992 for coming to the conclusion that apartheid was impracticable, indefensible and morally unjustifiable. <ref>'']'', http://www.arthurkemp.com/?p=130 ESSAY EIGHT from The Lie of Apartheid and other True Stories from Southern Africa]</ref>

Kemp has also worked as an international risk consultant; as a retail market analyst for a blue chip company in the UK; and as a public relations consultant. <ref>'']'', </ref>

Having moved to the UK in 1996,<ref>'']'', </ref> Kemp is manager of ''Excalibur'', the ] (BNP)'s merchandising arm<ref>'']'', </ref> and is in charge of maintaining the BNP website.<ref>"Excalibur, Dispatch Move to Bigger Premises under New Management" </ref> He is also BNP spokesman on foreign affairs. <ref>'']'', [http://bnp.org.uk/2009/10/iran-another-war-being-prepared-by-the-liars-in-washington-and-london/ Iran: Another War Being Prepared by the Liars in Washington and London
]</ref>

According to testimony from Kemp´s first ex-wife, Karen Mills, Kemp did not graduate from university. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Books ==

As of August 2009, Kemp has written seven books, most of which are self published as ''Ostara''. They are, in order of publication<ref>'']'', </ref>:

1. Victory or Violence - The Story of the AWB of South Africa (first published 1990, Forma Publishers, Pretoria. Second edition Ostara Publications, 2009). This book deals with the history, ideology and activities of the ] (English: Afrikaner Resistance Movement).

2. March of the Titans: A History of the White Race (first published 2000 by Ostara Publications, Second edition 2001, third edition 2004, fourth edition 2006, fifth edition 2008). This book is a racial history of the European people of the world.

3. Jihad: Islam's 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation (first published 2008 by Ostara Publications). This book is a historical overview of the development of Islam and its invasions of the Byzantine Empire and Western Europe.

4. The Immigration Invasion: How Third World Immigration is Destroying the First World and What Must be Done to Stop It (first published 2008, Ostara Publications). This books deals with the extent and effect of Third World immigration into Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand.

5. The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa (first published January 2009 by Ostara Publications). This book is a series of essays dealing with the apartheid, Zimbabwe, Ghandi and the author’s experiences in South Africa during the ending of apartheid.

6. Headline, The Best of BNP News Volume I, July-December 2008 (first published 2009 Ostara Publications). This is a collection of stories which appeared on the BNP’s website from July to December 2008.

7. Headline, The Best of BNP News Volume II, January-June 2009 (first published 2009 Ostara Publications). This is a collection of stories which appeared on the BNP’s website from January to July 2009.

In addition, Kemp has co-authored a 22 page booklet with ], the leader of the BNP, entitled Folk and Nation, Underpinning the Ethnostate (first published 2008 by the BNP, 22 pages).

==Chris Hani Trial==

In 1993 Kemp was briefly arrested and then released without charge in connection with the assassination of ], the leader of the ] and chief of staff of ], the armed wing of the ] (ANC). <ref>'']'', 22 April 1993, </ref>

Kemp was subpoenaed to appear as a witness after one of the main suspects, ], gave the police Kemp's name as the person who had drawn up a list of names which was found in the apartment of the shooter, ]. <ref>'']'', 22 April 1993, </ref> According to the South African Police, Kemp was arrested along with four other people had “on the basis of information provided by Mr ].” <ref>'']'', 22 April 1993, </ref>

Kemp testified that he and Mrs Derby-Lewis had had nothing to do with the Hani assassination and we only cooperated with her in preparation for an article which compared the lifestyles of ANC and leftist leaders with those of their followers. <ref>'']'', http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1994/189.html South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records lines 20-21]</ref>

When Mrs Derby-Lewis was acquitted, the presiding judge, JA Hoexter, made specific reference to the fact that the reason she had been found not guilty was because of Kemp’s evidence in court. <ref>'']'', http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1994/189.html South African Court of Appeal, 1989 Court Records lines 33-34]</ref>

==Criticism==

According to the ], Kemp is a ] who has been active in providing some manner of support to the ] in the ], and asserts he left South Africa because he was seen to have betrayed those convicted in the murder trial of Walus and Derby-Lewis, by giving ''testimony against the Derby-Lewises''.<ref name=SPLC>{{cite journal|author=Heidi Beirich|title=Dangerous Liaison:South African Shores Up Neo-Nazi Group|date=Winter 2007|journal=Intelligence Report|url=http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=853}}</ref>

Kemp dismissed these allegations as "total rubbish" on his personal website, saying they didn't even get his year of birth correct.<ref> arthurkemp.com</ref>

=Language and Neutrality=

There must be a way to clearly state how objectionable Kemp's views are in neutral language that does not fall into the trap of condoning his views or rendering them respectable. The fact that he understands "race" in biological terms and sees it as the dominant narrative element with which to explain history needs telling, as even his supporters must agree, since this central aspect of his thought is what attracts them to him, and since this fact is clearly stated in the title of his main self-published book and is prominent throughout the text. What makes ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngt difficult, however, is he distances himself from many elements of white supremacy, thus trying to have his cake and eat it too. If someone could lay out these clear facts, one would hope the informed reader would understand them for what they are, though it does bother me greatly that racism is allowed to hide behind the mantle of neutrality here. Has anyone got other examples of how this issue was handled on WIkipedia, whether successfully or not? Or am I to conclude that this is a fatal weakness of this crowd-sourced project? ] (]) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
:This is pathetic. The white Caucasian race is dying, and all you can do is baw about 'racism'?--] (]) 13:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:Nope. It is not up to editors to state anything at all other than what others have written in reliable sources. If we allowed such, then the whole point of "neutral point of view" would be violated everywhere on WP -- with "favored people" getting paeans, and "disfavored people" getting pains. ] (]) 14:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

=References=
{{reflist}}

== SPLC Article ==

Now having had chance to read the much quoted SPLC article, and by using the Wayback Internet Archive, it is obvious that the SPLC article has undergone at least three major rewrites since it first appeared.
Given its nature, the changes to it and the overtly "political character assassination" nature of the article, I doubt very much that it can be used as a RS, and am inclined to delete it completely.] (]) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, correcting errors is a sign of a reliable source. The SPLC is a sufficient source, but its assertions should be attributed due to its bias. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:The SPLC has been challenged many, many times, but they are a reliable source. ] (]) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not so sure. For example, if the SPLC had to allege that Senator John McCain used to work for the CIA, without providing any evidence whatsoever, would we allow such a reference on Misplaced Pages? I doubt it. The same scenario applies here. The SPLC has alleged that Kemp worked for the "Apartheid South African intelligence service" but provides no proof whatsoever. This is a serious allegation, and should be substantiated before being allowed into a BLP. I am still of the opinion that such unsubstantiated allegations should be deleted from BLPs otherwise it will open a free-for-all for anyone to allege anything about anyone else. without having to provide proof. ] (]) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:We don't require sources to provide sources. If we did there'd be no end to it. The "substantiation" is the SPLC. If it's a reliable source, as it's often been deemed before, then that's sufficient. Note that we aren't saying that the subject actually did these things. Instead, we're saying that the SPLC has said these things, which is demonstrably true. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:Take it to the ]. In the meantime, the SPLC is a reliable source for the far right. ] (]) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::Actually it is RS for the opinions of the SPLC. ] (]) 02:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Could you please elaborate. Can you please provide a source for an alternative view of the far right. ] (]) 02:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::There are myriads of sources on political movements. There is ''no'' reason that I can see why I should specify one in the context of this section at all. What is clear from the RSN discussions in the past is that SPLC opinions are citable ''as opinions.'' Just like all sources which are based on opinions. ] (]) 03:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Could you please explain why you think they are not reliable for facts and what source(s) you consider reliable. Please disclose whether you have had any personal issues with them. ] (]) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::Nothing personal - but read the RSN discussions from the past concerning SPLC. I would note, by the way, that WP:BLP has now been toughened substantially, anf that contentious claims require exceedingly solid references. There may be a valid issue as to whether any opinion-based categorization of a person belongs in ''any'' BLP at all. No matter who it is. ] (]) 11:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::The current categories are: 1962 births | British National Party politicians | Living people | Far right politics in the United Kingdom. I don't see a problem with any of those. The only one that could be controversial at all is the last one. However the subject is a senior figure in the UK's leading far right political party. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::I seem to see a consensus emerging that the SPLC is a RS for its own opinions, and its own opinions only. Now, the question which follows, which Collect raises above, are '''opinions''' allowed in BLPs? Looking at the BLP Misplaced Pages guidelines, they are not. The guidelines state "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It is clear that the allegation that Kemp "worked for the intelligence services" as made by the SPLC fits all of these categories. It is contentious and completely unsourced (except that it is the SPLC's "opinion"). Furthermore, the BLP guidelines also stat that "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once." The tone of the SPLC article, and others by that organisation on the subject (which have already been deleted off this page by consensus) are clearly designed to "disparage the subject." On these grounds it is clear that the SPLC article strays far off from Misplaced Pages guidelines and if it belongs here at all, should be limited to an opinion. My suggestion is to delete it completely. ] (]) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::All I have read at RSN shows that the SPLC is a reliable source and should be treated no differently from news articles in major newspapers. Can anyone point me to anything that challenges that position? ] (]) 15:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
All I have read about it shows that the SPLC is a not reliable source, but unreliable website that obviously hates conservative, nationalist and identitary politicians and activists. It includes many factual errors and left wing opinions presented like facts. On the other hand SPLC is notable political organization and it ''opinions'' can be notable in some/many cases. --] (]) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:Do you have any sources for that viewpoint? I understand that the people and organizations followed by the SPLC do not like their coverage, but on the other hand they tend to object to all coverage from all sources. What makes the SPLC different is that it reports these people and groups in far greater detail. ] (]) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
::No-one disputes the right of the SPLC to have all the derogatory opinions it wants on its self declared political opponents. The only thing under discussion is whether Misplaced Pages should be a platform for their obviously politically motivated attacks or not. Furthermore, the SPLC article in question makes the extremely serious allegation--without providing any evidence whatsoever--that Kemp "worked for the Apartheid intelligence" services. This is far too much of a serious allegation to just be made and left hanging without justification, and must either be backed up or deleted. The alternative is, as said before, for Misplaced Pages to end up repeating any manner of accusation about anybody, and that will create a completely unsustainable free-for-all. It is a very dangerous precedent to set.] (]) 09:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
:::If you think the source is unreliable then you should take it up at RSN. Major newspapers actually use the SPLC as a source. The reason that few other sources can be found for this is that Arthur Kemp has received very little media attention. However, ] also says he was a member of SA intelligence. In the meantime, if we leave out the only sources that take any interest in Kemp, what justification is there for this article? ] (]) 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Current ] is exceedingly clear - contentious material requires exceedingly good sources. Otherwise, it should be deleted on sight. Please examine the RfCs on the issue to see how thouroughly despicable the insertion of contentious material is to WP and to the WMF. ] (]) 11:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

== Blog ==

http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/bnp-a-jew-masonic-front-group/

This article is highly critical of Kemp and the BNP in general. I think this is a good thing because the BNP are dishonest.--] (]) 23:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:That article can't be used as a source because it's a self-published blog, and this is a biography of a living person. See ] and ] for the relevant Misplaced Pages policies. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 23:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
:: The fact that this blog -- which borders on the insane and calls the BNP a "Jew-Masonic front group" -- is even proposed as a "reference" here in the discussion page is an indication, IMHO, that this article only serves as a lightning conductor for weirdos and should be deleted.] (]) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

== Philosophy of "Race" ? ==

This article in general is extremely poor. The description of the subject's philosophy of as one of "race" is laughable. What exactly is the "philosophy of race"? I have a degree in political philosophy and I have never even heard of it. I have voted for the deletion of this article on the deletion discussion page, and urge others to do the same.] (]) 11:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

== Reference removal ==

I have restored this reference - "Revealed: The Welsh warehouse at heart of BNP Euro campaign; I'm no white supremacist, insists BNP activist Kemp". Western Mail. 2009-05-07. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-199158975.html. Retrieved 2010-07-31." which I added earlier today. It references the first paragraph of the Biography section which previously was unreferenced. The removal was made on the basis of "Removed irrelevant link" which I do not understand. The article is tagged with needing more references for verification so adding a source to do this should not be something that gets reverted. ] (]) 12:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::My apologies. I was reading the truncated version of that article and now that I have the full article to hand, the reference is accurate.] (]) 11:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
:I also added the sentence "In 2009 it was also reported that Kemp was in charge of producing the BNP's training manuals as well as being in charge of the BNP's internet radio station Radio RWB" which was referenced to the same article and I do not know what the problem is with that sentence. ] (]) 13:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::According to the BNP itself, this is inaccurate. The BNP says on its website that a John Walker runs Radio RWB http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/radio-red-white-and-blue-%E2%80%9Cpart-struggle-save-our-nation%E2%80%9D and that a Mike Howson is in charge of BNP training http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/county-durham-bnp-right-path I suspect that the BNP is probably a better source for their party official's activities than an obviously hostile media report, and as such I have removed that sentence.] (]) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

== Photo ==

With all this insightful biographical information isn´t it time to add the photo of Mr. Kemp?
http://www.hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nazi-kemp.jpg <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

That picture is the subject of much speculation as to whether it is genuine or not and has appeared in a number of different and clearly photoshopped versions on the internet already. Caution is required. ] (]) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

== Undue and weight ==
* - ]


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
* My first edit I removed this - and was responsible for the content of that party's website - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:17, 19 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Kemp article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Historic Afd discussions
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Undue and weight

More discussion here - User_talk:C.Fred#Kemp

After a request for investigation from the recent closing AFD admin I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - Youreallycan 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • My first edit I removed this - "and was responsible for the content of that party's website" - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? Youreallycan 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-Notability

According to Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Kemp does clearly not meet the notability criteria for politicians under the WP criteria.

According to Misplaced Pages's notablity criteria for books WP:BKCRIT

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

Kemp clearly does not meet the notability criteria for authors or books under the WP criteria.

There is therefore no justification for this Misplaced Pages article at all.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just declare that the article is about someone non-notable and then personally delete all the content. You have to go through the procedure for deletion. Of course you know this and you have done this already. The article was not deleted and you are now saying that your own personal view somehow overrides the decision of the community. That is contrary to pretty well all the principles by which can reasonably work. Your edits are therefore in effect acts of vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the AFD 3 agreed that the subject did not meet the notability requirements for a politician or an author. All of the participants agreed on that. The changes to the article merely represent that agreement.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. The "changes" are just attempts to stub the article. You also utterly misunderstand policy. The notability requirements concern the decision whether or not to have an article. They do not mean that all content that is not sufficient to create notability in itself should be removed. That would indeed be an absurd rule were it to exist, which of course it does not. A man is not notable, for example, because he in born in Liverpool, or has a wife called Sarah. But we don't remove all such facts from articles because they are not the reason for the person's notability. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. The WP Notability criteria are very simple and clear:

WP:POLITICIAN

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."

Kemp has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.

"This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Kemp has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.

Therefore there is ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Misplaced Pages.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not even addressed the point. Here's another example Charles Beauclerk, Earl of Burford. I doubt he would satisfy notability criteria as an author or as a politician, but because his combined efforts raise him above the bar for GNG, all his activities should be in the article, including his stellar political career standing for election once and getting less than 1% of the vote. That is part of the whole. We don't delete that section because alone it is not sufficient to guarrantee notability. Your endless listing of criteria for notabilty apply to article creation not content as I have already explained. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Paul Barlow. WP:POLITICIAN is not the only criteria for inclusion. A person who fails WP:POLITICIAN can still meet notability via WP:GNG, which seems to be the case here. Zad68 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us then look at the General notability guideline WP:GNG and see if Kemp qualifies under them then:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Kemp has NOT received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources."

In terms of WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

One article about packing leaflets in a warehouse (referenced on the site) does NOT constitute "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination, especially bearing in mind that Kemp has utterly failed the politician notability guidelines as well (see above.)

Are we going to have a stand alone article about EVERY leaflet packer for every single party in Britain or the world? It is an absurd notion.

In terms of WP:GNG a "reliable source" is open to "editorial integrity" -- what that essentially means is it is a subjective matter. In other words, some may question the SPLC as a "source" while others will think that it is. Given that Kemp has failed both politician and author Misplaced Pages guidelines, it is far fetched to think that an obviously politically-motivated "source" such as the SPLC should then be taken as a criteria for inclusion.

Once again, are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned? It is an equally absurd notion.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK so I'm glad you agree now that WP:POLITICIAN isn't the only notability guideline that could apply here. The AFD discussion was closed with the note that whether WP:GNG might be met really was not discussed properly during the AFD. So let's look at whether he might meet WP:GNG. The article has three newspaper articles from WP:RS-respected news sources: an article from Western Mail, one from The Guardian, and one from The Independent. In each case, I would describe the coverage as "non-trivial" because the articles really could not exist if they didn't mention Kemp. From my experience working on Misplaced Pages biography articles, the Misplaced Pages-wide consensus is that this meets WP:GNG, so I don't agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's a super-high "pass" of the WP:GNG guideline, but it's a pass.

Regardless, this is the not the venue for discussing whether the article should be deleted. That venue is WP:AFD. Removing article content because you didn't like the result of the WP:AFD is against Misplaced Pages process and will be considered disruptive if it continues.

Your question "are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned?" is arguing against a strawman. There is a WP:GNG case to keep every article with the coverage level this article provides, whether or not the subject of the article is a person the SPLC has mentioned. Zad68 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet except in my edit summary....WP:NNC - "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Therefore you don't get to say he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN then delete all mention of his political activities, and the same applies to all other notability criteria. 2 lines of K303 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

One should seriously question the notability of one Arthur Kemp. After having researched this individual one could see that he has no academic credentials as a historian, all of his works were self-published and the totality of his political activity has been in small neo-nazi outfits or far right extremist organizations, in addition to strong well founded allegations of him being an intelligence plant of some sort. The inclusion of a person as insignificant and unimportant as Arthur Benjamin Kemp, a real fringe nobody in the political scene, in Misplaced Pages seems to be the result of an effort by this individual himself to self-aggrandize and therefore takes away from the serious nature of Misplaced Pages. Or has Misplaced Pages transformed now into a vanity platform for narcisssitic megalomaniacs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaAccidentalObserver (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

3RR violation by TheFallenCrowd‎

TheFallenCrowd‎, you have violated the WP:3RR with your latest revert. Please self-revert or this will be reported at WP:EWN. (A similar message has also been left at your Talk page.) Thank you. Zad68 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and deception about when Kemp came to the UK

After TheFallenCrowd was blocked today for a 3RR violation an IP deleted the same material and added a claim that Kemp only came to the UK in 2007, sourced to Kemp's blog. However, this is clearly incorrect as he was working for the BNP in June 2004.. His Ancestry visa doesn't prove he wasn't in the UK earlier and of course we know he was. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And Kemp's claim to have emigrated in 2007 is probably literally correct, but as we know he was in the UK in 2004 it's just as likely that 2007 is when he invoked his right of ancestry, thus 'emigrating' without necessarily having left the UK since 2004 or earlier. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bolding Ostara Publications...

As Ostara Publications redirects to Arthur Kemp (my edit), I bolded Ostara Publications, as per Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur Kemp. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories: