Talk:National Front (UK)/Archive 1

Title

Just a note to say that this organization is officially called the British National Front, so listing under "National Front (UK) is wholly unnecessary, and having the article under British National Front removes the need for a country in parentheses and confusion arising from other groups' bearing the name 'National Front'. Brown Eagle 01:23, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC) Incorrect -the NF is officially registered as "National Front" (See Electoral Commission).

I'd say it's still desirable, though. "British National Front" is pretty obscure -- it doesn't even make it onto UK ballot papers, which preserve in aspic "Conservative and Unionist" and "Labour and Co-operative" in some cases. The WP policy seems to be 'official name unless common usage is different', which could be a tad more rigourlessly expressed, but in this case "National Front" is overwhelmingly the 'popular' usage. I'll wait for comments before perpetrating a move, though. Alai 07:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the latter thought. The common name for the political organization is The National Front, and not the British National Front. Also, the appearance of the National Front in N. Ireland pushes for the treatment and necessity of having it be the National Front (United Kingdom). However, that is just how I see things best set for navigation.

I'd like to suggest a paragraph or two on the aims and manifesto of the NF. I recall last time I was on this site that there was such a paragraph and that it included the NF's goal of creating a Distributionist system to replace the arrantly flawed Capitalist one. Why was this paragraph removed? Could it be that the NF's (unique) goal of a Distributionist society is one-hundred times more socialist than warped 'socialism' actually is, and thereby this showed the NF in a light other than the Nazi image this twisted system likes to label them as? Just a thought...

Accounts

The accounts filed with the Electoral Commission are rather odd to my eye. Would probably make sense if I were an accountant - which I'm not. Can anyone have a look at [1] and see if they can decode it? Just seems to show bank balances with no idea of turnover. Morwen - Talk 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Win Elections?

Sounds like they've never won an election; could we have a clear statement of how many if any?
--Jerzy•t 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe any acting NF member has ever been elected. Recently, sadly, we have had a fair few BNP councillors elected, but the NF never managed it. Back in the 1970's two far-right councillors were elected in in Blackburn, but these were members of the splinter breakaway "National Party" rather than the NF. The National Party presented itself as more moderate than the NF, just as the BNP does today. After a young Asian man was murdered, National Party leader John Kingsley Read commented "One down - a million to go." Very moderate you see, just like our modern day BNP. -BJG 6.6.06

It should be noted that Kingsley Read always denied the charge, which was made by members of the Anti Nazi League on a tip off from members of the Tyndallite NF - strange bedfellows indeed. Kingsley Read later quit politics & became a well respected community activist before his rather early death: upon which Searchlight claimed he was one of their moles during his NF years all along! Whether this was true or not will now never be known (certainly Gable & Co have never proffered a shred of evidence to substantiate their claim), but it certainly provided a bizarre twist Mark Boyle Talk 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The NF has never won an actual election - however they did have one councillor elected in 1975. This was to Carrickfergus Town Council in Northern Ireland, where there were more seats than actual candidates. There was also two Conservative Party councillors in Wandsworth - one being later Tory notable Athlene O'Connell - who defected to the NF temporarily in 1967. This latter business was surrounded with much skulduggery, as accusations flew later that O'Connell's return to the Tories was to act as a mole Mark Boyle Talk 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Myars?

I've removed the claim that Ian Myars "founded" the NF. I for one have never heard of this character within the ranks of the League of Empire Loyalists, the old BNP, the Racial Preservation Society, or anywhere else for that matter! He doesn't even appear as one of the LOEL or BNP negotiators during the talks to create the party.

It's solid fact that A K Chesterton founded the NF, and indeed was responsible for most of the moving, shaking and financing to unite the various far-right groups to create it in the first place. Mark Boyle Talk 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

GrumpyTroll on International Third Position

Just a warning that User:GrumpyTroll several times tried trolling the International Third Position entry, putting left-wing instead of right-wing to describe the BNF. i have now put in far right which is from the summary on this entry, the BNF entry. If someone seriously wants to claim that the BNF is left wing, let them do it here with appropriate references and then see what NPOV results. Boud 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The otherside of the argument is: The national front are a party that claims to stand up for the working class, I think that sounds like a left wing party to me although they are fundimentaly a fascist party. Just because a party is fascist does not mean they are right wing. The national front are a contridiction in terms, they are a authoritarian left wing party.

"they are a authoritarian left wing party" -what utter nonsense. Are you thereby claiming them to be in someway Marxist/Communist? I propose that the NF are neither far-right or left-wing: thay lie somewhere in the middle, which is occupied by the label "Nationalism". For evidence please see their manifesto regarding the economy: they would replace Capitalism with Distribuionism -which is far more Socialist than Socialism is. See also their adherence to Proportional Representation -what kind of authoritarian party expouses P.R? Switch on, people and do the job correctly. -RD

"Left-wing" is an economic term describing Collectivism, as opposed to "Right-wing", which describes Laissez-Faire Capitalism (search wikipedia, or better still, read an academic book or paper). When the media (and the uneducated or bigoted) talk about "left wing" and "right wing", they tend to be conflating social positions on the authoritarian-libertarian axis, with economic positions on the collectivist-capitalist axis. The NF has an economic policy that is derived from ideas of Chesterton and Belloc; similarly, the BNP has a distinctly collectivist bent. So it is technically accurate to describe both as left-wing parties, with the caveat that the terms should have links to articles to explain to the uneducated or bigoted, what these terms actually mean. I don't think it's right to cave in to populist terms as (ab)used by the media, such as "far right", because they do not accurately describe anything; and as wikipedia is a reference that seeks to illuminate and provide accurate descriptions of things, it is right to avoid subjecte and emotive terms, and aim for ones backed up by academic consensus. With that in mind, the above typo-ridden invective of "RD" should be set aside, and the NF should be described as it actually is, as a left-wing party. On the social side, it is an authoritarian party, and that description should also go in. What we all strive for is accurate and precise (two different concepts) definitions and explanations of things that do not deviate into indulging users particular agendas to sway the reader to hold a particular prejudice towards the subject of the article, in line with wikipedia's long-establised NPOV policy. I also question the use of the term Fascist, which to most informed people refers to parties that espouse the policies of Giovanni Gentile. I think that the term "Fascist" is used as an emotive term, rather than a factual, objective, and accurate and precise descriptive term, and for that reason, should be exluded from this article (unless a credible, and tangible argument accompanied by evidence can be provided). I do not think that it is at all constructive to describe the user "GrumpyTroll" as "trolling" simply for amending an article. The change they made is not an emotion-driven one, and unless some evidence can be provided, I support the change. macdaddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.31.5 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

National Front Disco

Why was this bit removed? It was definately relevant.82.69.80.20

• • • • Don't ask me Anon! A disgrunted Morrissey fan perhaps? I wonder what they'd say if they knew Morrissey had wanted it to be a single but his record company refused? Well done on adding it back in, however I have corrected the bit about the UAF fiasco - though big enough to add his signature to their launch letter, afraid old Morrissey is understandably wary of anything involving the SWP - having picketted his concerts in the past & tried to intimidate fans going in, hardly surprising. Mark Boyle Talk 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey. And Morrissey is hardly old. He's 47!82.69.80.20

Election statistics

I know a bit about the early years of the NF, and its fascist predecessors, but sort of lost track of their activities around 1980. So, I've been looking into elections and have managed to come up with a list for each General Election since 1970 in which the NF took part (using mostly Wikipeda articles in the series United Kingdom general election, 1970 and so on. I wanted to compile a table showing number of NF candidates, total vote, % vote, but have a slight problem from this page.

In the section "The National Democrats name change" it states there were 12 candidates at the 2005 General Election. A little further on, in "The current NF" it says there were 13 candidates in the 2005 General Election. A clear discrepancy, but it gets worse. The second reference goes on to say they received 8,079 votes. Here's the problem: Wiki article United Kingdom general election, 2005 table of results does not list the NF, or any party scoring 8,079.

Can anyone clear this up?

Emeraude 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just got the details from the Electoral Commission website. It is 13 candidates. I will correct the article. Emeraude 15:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Collapse of the ANL

"for the Anti-Nazi League collapsed in early 1979 amid claims of financial impropriety"

A 'fact' not reffered to on the ANL page, a page which indicates that group went on for some time after 1979.

Er...if you want the truth about the history of the Anti-Nazi League, the last place you should look at is an ANL or Socialist Workers Party source! Let's just say they give the British far right a good run for their money in the selective memory & historical revisionism stakes! :)

The ANL's chequered history - which is NOT appropriate in a page about the NF's history except en passent, can easily be checked by reference to newspaper microfiche/DVD ROM files in umpteen libraries, particularly after the 1979 collapse (which considering the funds raised by "Rock Against Racism" was a nasty shock). The organisation has appeared on-and-off from time to time since then, and been wound up on each occasion with little correlation to far-right levels of activity. Sad to say I would treat Wiki entries on the ANL/SWP with a pinch of salt, as they tend to be both "PR cleansed" by SWP members & vandalised by opponents on a regular basis.

There is some debate as to whether the ANL's real purpose was as an SWP "copycat" for Tariq Ali's tiny but highly influential International Marxist Group, whose members took a "robust" anti-fascist/anti-racist stance (eg. the Red Lion Square demonstation). Ironically, Tariq Ali was later to join up with former NF Directorate member Rodney Legg in the fight for the rights of the people of Tyneham against the British Army (ah, but that's another story!) Mark_Boyle 17th November 2006

Leaders

Both Anthony Reed-Herbert (1974) and Aidan Mackey (1970) were chairmen of the NF (albeit briefly) when the previous chairmen resigned. This is according to the Martin Walker book. What do people think about including them in the list of leaders? Finnophile.

Return of neo-Nazi sock puppet

Note that User:24.203.217.170 is a neo-Nazi from Montreal who has used several accounts and IP addressses and has been banned from editing Wikipedia. Keep in mind that his edits to this article are likely motivated by his political/racial POV.Spylab 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that his edits to this article are likely motivated by his political/racial" -what, you mean like Wikipedia's? For those with a background knowledge of the National Front together with a scutinising eye, it is clear that you editors managing this site are twisting the truth and subliminally entering discreditable text and being remiss with facts and details. It seems to me you are no better than the twisted Indy ("independent") news website, which is tantamount to a pretty colouring book for use only by Marxist silly little boys and girls that are scared of someone disagreeing with them. The TRUTH is something which, like all supposed 'Left-wingers', they are devoid of. I don't want an argument but if you feel you can justify Wikipedias neutral stance, then please feel free to email me: subric@hotmail.co.uk I wait in earnest and defy you to refute what I've said here above (I have evidence, where's yours?) Good day to you all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.236.65 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you've upset him, Spylab! :) Actually I would say the entry for the NF has largely been very good, giving a far broader sweep to its history, personalities, influences & effects than most people have the opportunity to glean from elsewhere. There are of course the occasional mutton-heads from the far-left & the far-right trying to vandalise in accordance with their own testosterone drenched "platforms", but I would say that it has been easier to maintain a sense of perspective on this page as opposed to, for example, the pages for the British Social Democratic Party or the continuing Liberal Party! Mark Boyle 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil Andrews, the NF, and the Isleworth Community Group

I've undone Vivonot's edits, which to be charitable seem to indicate he does not know much about the subject matter in hand!

Phil Andrews, his NF past, and his work with the ICG are hardly a secret. I've put in one link, but a casual visit to any library with back issue of Searchlight (any port in a storm!), Martin Buford's book Amongst The Thugs, or the various works of Larry O'Hara will see a smattering of name-drops about Phil Andrews former views and activities.

Or alternatively, here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

"I was a member of the National Front between 1977 and 1989, and of the International Third Position between 1989 and 1991, before rejecting their racist and right-wing policies, publicly and repeatedly. I have been an outspoken opponent of racism and fascism ever since."

As I understand it, Phil is somewhat sick to death of having his NF/ITP past dragged up every election ad nauseum. Mark Boyle (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, firstly my username is spelt "Vivenot". Secondly, you should not be so patronising! I made my edits as there were no references cited linking Phil Andrews' departure from the NF and policy of standing as an independent to the NF's obtaining the Green Book. Now that you have provided a reference, I am happy for the text to stand. --Vivenot 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Vivenot" sunbeam, you asked to be patronised. Everytime there is some fleeting reference to the far right within the British media, you can happily put your house on some self-styled "anti-fascist" or "British nationalist" type waltzing in & doing half a dozen edits based on what they read 5 minutes earlier in Searchlight, The Flame, The Sun, etc. If you haven't a clue about the topic, keep out of editing it and leave it to those Wiki moderators that are clued up enough to know when to step in & when not to. Mark Boyle (talk) 18.30, 05 January 2008 (UTC)

Political activites

Here is a vid that shows that as of late the NF is as active as it was in the 70's and 80's http://youtube.com/watch?v=4gkNusLZgZ8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere near as active as they were in the 1970s/80s! This one small bunch of thugs is nothing like the massive demonstrations they organised then. Where are the hundreds of election candidates? Emeraude (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascist

Whilst the BNP is characterised as Fascist the NF is not in the ideology box. The opening of this article reads like an advert for the NF. Can be cleaned up or will some pruning be required ?--Streona (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I did write that the NF had Orthodox Jewish members Albert Elder and Gerry Viner but that was deleted. Please do not do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not by me --Streona (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is a specific ideology that advocates primarily a one-party state and a government-run market. The NF advocates neither of these, and can therefore not be correctly labelled as "fascist".

Cherry picking what you say are two parts of fascist ideology and presenting them as the sum total of fascism is disingenuous, to say the least. There are sufficient independent, reliable, academic sources that say the NF is fascist and, however much you may dislike or they may deny it, that is the Wikipedia criterion. The NF denying it is is facist is arther like the Yorkshire Ripper denying he is a mass murderer: he has a perfect right to do so (and, indeed, pleaded not guilty) but the overwhelming body of evidence is to the contrary. Now, if you can find a source acceptable to Wikipedia that says, specifically, that the NF is not and has never been fascist, then we might get somewhere. But find it and submit it here first. Emeraude (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Emeraude, you appear to be being subjective and unreasonable.

Subjective in your use of comparisons and emotive language; and,

Unreasonable in your asking for someone to prove a negative - which cannot be done.

Describing the NF as not Fascist is not cherry-picking; nor is it disingenuous. This is merely being accurate and precise in the descriptions. Use of the term "Fascist" for subject and emotive reasons, such that it may sway the perception of the reader, falls foul of NPOV.

As YOU are the one so keen to see a change, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence that you feel is so compelling - find it, and submit it here.

Certainly it is absolutely unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative - can you prove that you have never been a Fascist?

It is important that the article does not become the subject of personal agendas of particular users. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's a site that strives for unbiased, objective, accurate, and precise information. Please do not undermine this principle. macdaddy

Ok Emeraude, you win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick363 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The NF ideology is neither fascist nor Nazi. Nor can I see any reason to repeat in the introduction the irrelevant mantra about "accused of Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is hardly a mainstream policy of any group. Only jews withs a financial or political agenda are obssessed by what they call "Holocaust Denial"- which in most (though not all) cases is no more than an desire to investigate the truth, and a willingness not to accept propaganda as unarguable truth.

Homophobia

I've removed the Category:Homophobia. Per WP:CAT, homophobia should be a "defining characteristic" of the organization. If that's true (and it might be, I don't know), then the article should actually say something about it. Since there's absolutely no mention in the article, and therefore such a controversial claim is unreferenced, I've removed the cat. Feel free to expand the article, reference it, and replace the cat. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1990's and 2000's

The sentence: "The NF came ahead of the Green Party of England and Wales and the United Kingdom Independence Party" lacks any contextual support and so I'm going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickeninapram (talk • contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting my comment about Simon Beacon please FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is relevant information linked to a forum site and it is importand that people know.

I am deleting it. As an administrator, it is one of my responsibilities to ensure that our policy on biographies is adhered to; this includes, where necessary, locking pages and blocking editors who do not understand this. A blog is not a reliable source, as I have repeatedly pointed out in edit summaries and now on your talk page. Also, please bear in mind that personal attacks are not tolerated here. Rodhullandemu 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Split it in the vote"

What does this section in the article mean : "polled 44% in Deptford, London (with a splinter group), almost beating the incumbent Labour candidate, who only won due to the split in the vote"? My best attempt to interpret it is that Labour "only" won because more people voted for them than for the National Front. Is that it or is it getting at something else? 92.39.197.192 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I interpret this to say that labour would not have won if their opposition had been united, i.e. one party. E.g. two opposing parties get 28% each as against one party getting 56%. Unless this is sourced, however, it's original research and needs rewording. Rodhullandemu 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Membership Numbers

The accounts submitted to the electoral comission were cited as indicating 150 members. Then this was inexplicably changed by Werewolf14 to 550. I have checked the reference and apart from indicating they have 2999.98 i the bank does not give any direct information on membership. Unless someone can expalin this, I d=suggest delting this.--Streona (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The membership has risen by over thousands of members from the BNP —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So they (and you) say, but there's no proof of this at all. Emeraude (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Owen

Jason Owen (implicated in the Baby P killing) has been widely cited in the national press - I cited the telegraph, but it was in almost every other paper as awell- as a member of the NF. The NF (& Mr Werewolf) deny this. Who is the more reliable source?--Streona (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish membership

Did any of you know that the NF had two Jewish members, Albert Elder and Gerry Viner?

Stop accusing the NF for anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, they are anti-Zionist and are against the way people try to enforce the Holocaust on everyone else and treating all other atrocities as mere details. I am going to carry on removing that sentence which accuses them of being anti-Semitic when in fact, they have had Jewish candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.56.91 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is the belief that Jews do not deserve to live in their own homeland. Therefore, it is anti-Semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.37.195 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's the belief that people shouldn't take the homeland of someone else (ie. the people actually living there - Palestinians) and exclude them from it, whilst giving the right of entry and settlement to people who have no ties to that land. The National Front, however, is just straight racist and anti-semitic and has a long track record of it. 82.71.39.170 (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

The NF has accusd Nick of selling out and betraying facisum by having a Sikh candate!--86.29.135.167 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aberdeen NF

Why on earth is that link being deleted? It is necessary because it shows that the NF has another website in Aberdeen and its progress there. This site used to have London NF until it closed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.126.248 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, I write in the Aberdeen NF's website and it keeps on getting deleted by the administrator. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.239.115 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links are intended to provide links to further encyclopedic information not covered in the article; I don't see that a branch website offers anything additional to the main website, and if we allow one such link, that strengthens the case to include all of them, which we would not do because they then begin to look like spam. Rodhullandemu 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

sources

Blogs are not considered RS, if you have a better sources use it. Also we can only say what a sources actually says, not what we interpret it to say. If a sources dos not this 'this is part of our core principles' then neither can we. If this is a core part of the NF’s policies find a sources that says that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its all over their web site Slater, do a little research rather than just drive by tagging. To be precise the reference is Issue No.45 June 2010 of the OnLine E-zine of the National Front. How do you call that a blog? --Snowded ^TALK 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided does not say it, it just talks about the BNP it does not say that opposition to the BNP (or anti-Semitism) is a fundamental part of its platform. That is an interpretation of the source and we do not do that we repeat what sources say not read into them. it no more makes opposition to the BNP part of the NF core policies then the Conservative putting out a pamphlet attacking the Labour party makes opposition to the Labour party core to the Tories principles. If you have an RS that says that opposition the BNP (or anti-Semitism) is a core policy of the NF use it. As to the other issue that is another link you are re-inserting withy this one. Which is a blog. In fact this article seems riddled with such interpretation of sources. As well as broken links and OR.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK so we have a misunderstanding there, when you referenced a blog I thought you referenced the NF newsletter reference. In respect of The Battle of Lewisham another source would be this, and like many things on this article rewording might be better than mass tagging. I'm happy to agree that the reference does not firmly establish that opposition to the BNP is a fundamental part, but it does establish that it is a part. Again with some rewording we could get somewhere. Overall I agree the article has a lot of internet sites as references. A problem here is that of recent years attention as gone to the BNP with the NF being treated in so far as it is picked up in reports of the BNP. There is remarkably little broadsheet coverage of the NF and most of the literature is old. --Snowded ^TALK 18:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep thjats a beter source, that we can use. As to re-wording. You might be right bit what I was doing (after I saw the general state of this articel) was to start on the leade. Check soures and tag rather then re-word (its quicker if all you are trying to doi is hightlight a lot of probloms, and there still appear to be a few). As you can see here and there I have atpempted to re-word buts there is a lot of work needed. As to re-wording this section, all I think the soure can support is that the NF has had major issues with vhte BNP and has opposed them and their attempted 'reform'.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As you say it needs work. I did find a BBC report in which the NF stated that they were recruiting from the BNP post the court judgement, so I think we can go a little further. I will try and find it again in the morning--Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be posible (assuming you can re-find the source) to say that they are activly rrting to recruit disgruntled BNP members.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is some pretty direct stuff on their site, but that is much as can cope with for this evening --Snowded ^TALK 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1980s: Two National Fronts

Taged as a wholes ectio since March. I am going to insert CN tags on individual passages in the hope this spurs on some soourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hostility

The introduction is openly hostile towards this organisation - this is contrary to Wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to suggest here which part of the intro is openly hostile. I think it is more than generously fair. Emeraude (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

two national fronts

I would like to question if this section is right in naming one of the men as being called Peter Salt?

Can anyone confirm thats true? Does anyone have that book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delighted eyes (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the book which does not mention Peter Salt. TFD (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Aberdeen Community Councils

Slight problem with the recent additions by Iloveredhair concerning NF "councillors" in Aberdeen. Firstly, the info does not need to be included twice. More importantly, Wikipedia does not normally concern itself with councils at such a low level (in Scotland, a community council is equivalent to a parish council) so I wonder at the significance of this. Further, the only source is a NF Scotland website (hardly independent) which fails to fully support the text in Wikipedia. Aberdeen Councils' website states that the elections were on 25 October (not in November) and does not list any NF members elected to community councils in its area: all candidates, and those elected, are listed as Independent (see official results for Torry and Queens Cross and Harlaw) or were returned unopposed (see Notice of Uncontested Elections). Does this mean that NF has been devious or that Aberdeen labels everyone as independent? I don't know, but until such time as an independent reliable source can be found I thought it best to remove Iloveredhair's edits for now. (If we want to include parish councillors anyway.)Emeraude (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right to be doubtful. The sources are not independent or reliable (see WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY). You're right about community councils. They are the bottom tier of government, and as such are not only apolitical (usually) but often are co-opted without election. WP:POLITICIAN deals with this sort of thing pretty well, I think. In other words, if someone from a NF source is claiming via a NF website that they've got councillors worth talking about, you're right to revert their edits doktorb _words^deeds 12:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 09:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

---

National Front (United Kingdom) → National Front (UK) – to use the standard, shorter disambiguator. Per the discussion at the top of this page, the official name of this party is "British National Front", but its WP:COMMONNAME is "National Front". However, that is ambiguous (see National Front (disambiguation)), so we need a disambiguator ... and the conventional disambiguator for UK-based political parties is "UK". (For examples, see Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Party (UK), Social Democratic Party (UK)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per above. — Richard BB 07:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; natural disambiguation should be used instead of parenthetical; why not move it to British National Front instead? (That's currently a redirect). Sources don't call it "National Front (UK)" or "National Front (United Kingdom)", and readers aren't going to be looking for that. bobrayner (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the group actually called British Nation Front since if it's not I don't think it should be used? Natural disambiguation may be a good idea but not if results in making up a name.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd been going on what BrownHairedGirl said; but it does seem that some sources actually call it the BNF (example). Which makes that a better title than "National Front (UK)" whose only appearance in Google Books is in indexes and glossaries. bobrayner (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The organisation itself uses "National Front" not "British National Front". Given the long histoy of extremist organisations splintering and using rather similar names we should avoid alternate names that can easily confuse in this area. And a search including a disamiguation tag is missing the point somewhat. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to National Front (UK) largely in accordance with previous comment and for consistencey. As for "British National Front", despite what some have said and a source given, the party is legally registered with the Electoral Commission as "National Front" and its own reports to the Commission are from the "National Front". There is no party registered with the Commission called British National Front. Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a good argument; however, they don't call themselves "National Front (UK)", and they're not registered with the Electoral Commission as "National Front (UK)", so it is unclear to me why that argument supports a move to National Front (UK). bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The disambiguation is for wikipedia purposes and has no relevance on the actual name the organisation uses. (UK) is the standard disambiguation term for articles that have conflicting names but can be separated by country GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support for National Front (UK) Per my comment above GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ideology

I would like to suggest that under the description of ideology, that it be made more concise.
With the removal of 'Fascism' & 'Neo-Fascism', also removing 'White Nationalism' and replacing with White Racialism.
This would be equally descriptive covering their main ideology with rather less clutter.

No, as the fascist and nationalist ideologies are sourced, whereas white racialism isn't, and appears to be a mostly made-up term. — Richard BB 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, so if things can be sourced would it be valid for change or only addition?92.236.192.126 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please add some recent up-to-date reliable sources for the current ideologies claimed? Quoting sources over 30years old is not exactly reliable, otherwise these need to be removed as they are just heresay until then and should not be portrayed as party ideology.92.236.192.126 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because they are old, doesn't mean they are invalid. The party has had long-term ties to the Neo Nazi movement's ideology. This is explained and sourced in the article. Wikipedia is not only concerned with what is happening right this instant, but what is historically relevant. Please don't edit war, you've already started a discussion on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with them being on there but if it is claimed they are current ideology then RS are needed to support it.

you can use them sources in other areas of the page for past ideology but for this section a recent source is required.92.236.192.126 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it's misrepresenting the party? Why is a recent source required for an infobox? I'm not seeing that in MOS:INFOBOX, Help:Infobox, or Template:Infobox political party. I can see that it might be confusing if it's a significant point of contention. Is it? Is the NF being reported as distancing themselves from neo-Nazi-ism, or is there some reason to believe that the sources have become invalid? Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I believe it is misrepresenting the party, I have seen on their website (www.national-front.org.uk this is the party website endorsed by the registered party leader) several times that they denounce Nazism, I do not deny that they may have had and have members that are as such but individual members are not the party.

I welcome the inclusion of past ideologies in other sections as there currently are but to have it in that section would be appropriate only if recent sources are quoted.92.236.192.126 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No one seriously doubts that the NF was ever other than a neo-Nazi group. Apart. that is, from NF leaders and members from its foundation to today. Which is rather like a mass murderer pleading not gulity! They had good reason to deny they were Nazis- they wanted people to vote for them. Emeraude (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Registered Party Details and Officials

Changing of the National Front Party details has to stop, as this is a fraudulent act if details are false. Unless a valid source for this information can be provided (only the Electoral Commission provides this information, https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/ViewRegistrations/Profile.aspx) then please refrain from editing this section regarding Party officials and Party address details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.192.126 (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not fraudulent at all, even if it is false. You assert that the details are false, but provide no independent evidence. The Electoral Commission is not the only source for this information (and, in fact, the latest NF document in the Commission's database gives the Hull address). There has clearly been a power struggle raging within the NF for some months now. This is not unusual - the fascist and nazi right in the UK has been riven by such schisms from the 1960s - but Wikipedia is not the place to air that. Unless and until there is a clear outcome to this latest split, then we stick with what we've got and what we've got is the NF website that bears the address that the Electoral Commission has providing sources. That's what lawyers would call continuity of evidence, not fraud. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in this party, but you both need to clarify your sources and stop edit-warring. There seem to be at least 3 NF websites being quoted:

1. http://www.national-front.org.uk is the long-established site, registered 27-May-2009, & it quotes the London address, & Ian Edward as Chairman.
2. http://www.national-front.org (registered 21-Nov-2013, with the London address in the registration details) redirects to http://www.britishnationalfront.net (registered 22-Dec-2013), & quotes the Hull address, Kevin Bryan as Chairman, & gives a gmail email address (which doesn't sound very official).

As far as independent sources are concerned, the search at the Electoral Commission gives the London address & Ian Edward as Chairman. Emeraude says above that "the latest NF document in the Commission's database gives the Hull address", but hasn't given a link to this document; perhaps he/she will do so?

If there is a significant dispute, then the article should probably say so, and quote sources on both sides until independent sources make any outcome clear. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the Statement of Accounts for 2012, filed with the Commission on 22 April 2013 and published on 21 May 2013. The document is available by searching the database for accounts here. (Unfortunately, it is not possible to give a direct link to any docs on the EC's website - you have to search.) Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The accounts address is not the registered party address, I repeat, is not the registered party address as is noted above. the details which are stated as the registered party address is BM BOX 5059, London WC1N 3XX, with Ian Edward as Party Leader & Nominating Officer, with Nicholas Wash as Treasurer. Until the registered Party address and officials are changed you have to acknowledge those details are right. Simply put there is no split because there is only one set of Party Registered Details for the National Front. The above noted website address's: www.national-front.org & www.britishnationalfront.net are some random persons attempts to impersonate the NF.92.236.192.126 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I randomly create a website and claim to be Party Leader and source that and say that the hull address is proof, when that has nothing to do with the Registered Party details, does that make me Party Leader, no it does not, just the same as Kevin Bryan is not.92.236.192.126 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Kevin Bryan is Party Chairman (Sourcing a blog is not a RS, the Electoral Commission, are the ones that hold this information, yet why doesn't the person saying that kevin bryan is chairman use the Elector Commission as source. Obviously its because he is not registered as such and cannot be proven to be. To Nick Levin and others search the Electoral Commission website and see for your selfs. nowhere does it say that Kevin Bryan is Chairman. Prove me wrong!92.236.192.126 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Edward is Party Leader & Nominating Officer, Nicholas Walsh is Treasurer. The Party address is BM BOX 5059, WC1N 3XX. All easily checkable from this link, just make the effort and actually search for it. https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/search/searchintro.aspx92.236.192.126 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Prove that Kevin Bryan is the National Front Leader and use the Electoral Commission as RS.

If you can prove he is I will gladly make the edit that he is the leader myself. (nb. Referencing random websites is not a RS, anyone can make a website and put whatever they want on it, that doesn't make it true though.)92.236.192.126 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is disputing what the Electoral Commission database on party registrations says. As I said previously, the EC is not the only source that gives details and it most certainly can never be regarded as up-to-date. It even says so itself. To quote the Commission, "Every year we ask parties to confirm their registration details in an annual registration confirmation." (Source) So any changes made since the last annual return will not be on the EC database. Wikipedia works by establishing consensus amongst editors, not by the diktats of one heavily involved partisan, especially someone who claims that there is "No need for consensus". Until that consensus has been reached, there is no point in you constantly claiming that the EC supports your view - it may do, it may not - but what is certainly the case is that a registration that reflects a moment in time is not the same as supporting the current position. That is self-evident. Emeraude (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The current registration detail from the Electoral Commission is below - doktorb _words^deeds 10:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Name, address and emblem - http://i.imgur.com/k0DzYhN.png

the party officals, address and website details should then be removed, as you say there is not a consensus on this matter, yet you allow one side to have publicity over another. I can provide just as biased links as provided by kevin bryans proclaimers aswell, please see link. http://www.national-front.org.uk/people Ian Edward is Party Chairman and Steve Rowland is Deputy Chairman. http://www.national-front.org.uk/apps/blog/show/40051099-egm-the-result http://www.essexnationalfront.com/2013news.htm How they were elected.

(Note: Both National Front & Essex National Front Websites have existed for a number of years) See its easy to provide numerous website references, that is why you should only use the Electoral Commission in regards to official political party details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.192.126 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Negative. Once again, no one is denying that the EC's current record is as you say. What is most certainly in doubt is how accurate it is in reflecting the current position, and seeing as neither you nor the EC provide a date for the entry it is of no practical use in resolving this issue. Emeraude (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, as such I have provided equally valid sources and given equal and fair platform for both.92.236.192.126 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Ha, just proved that those who are undo edits are biased towards kevin bryan, as I gave reference to both Ian Edward and Kevin Bryan yet the party details were still undone.92.236.192.126 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually the one who undid your edit, and that's because you do not have consensus for your edits. Until consensus is reached, we revert to the status quo. This is nothing to do with bias, so take off your tin-foil hat. — Richard BB 12:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Bryan was not the 'status quo' Ian Edwards was, until consensus is reached either both or neither should have their details up.92.236.192.126 (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The official detail on the Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties may well be incorrect, but from a Wikipedia perspective, it's a reliable source unless and until a) it itself is changed, or b) another verifiable source is found. doktorb _words^deeds 12:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doktord, that is exactly my point both the national-front.org.uk and national-front.org websites are not reliable sources as both are biased towards a particular side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.192.126 (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are sources for both sides of the dispute, and it seems clear that the Electoral Commission does not provide a current independent source, so it seems reasonable to include both until the matter is resolved. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks once again, this was exactly the point I stated at the very beginning but my unbiased opinion was thrown out the window, so I became irate to prove a point that just because something has a source supplied, does not make it fact.92.236.192.126 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Party Leader's

I was wondering if adding a section under history for former party leaders would be of value as a brief reflection of its leadership. I would suggest that its layout be simply and concise, please see below: Party Leader Name (link to relevant wiki page), Term of office.92.236.192.126 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Clear bias here

Both the BNP and National Front pages are dominated/patrolled by editors with open left-wing political views (e.g. if you go to their userpages you see their political userboxes). Looking at the history pages of both articles, the same two or three editors have been on these pages for 5+ years. This is biased and incredibly unhealthy.

This is a sad website, because I tried to make edits only to be slandered by these biased editors who sit on these pages 24/7 and don't allow a more balanced view for these entries. GarrettTemplar (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever any editors views, including your own, we work from referenced material. If you want to make a case for a change make it here don't edit war ----Snowded ^TALK 04:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Looney-tunes. I added a referenced academic source only for you to revert my edit and write crackpottery "I'm a pro-BNP editor" (when i'm not). The problem is the small number of biased politically-motivated individuals like yourself (people can just look at your user-page) that monitor these BNP and NF entries, anyone that tries to make these entries more neutral you revert.GarrettTemplar (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Show where I have ever written anything pro NF or BNP. All I've ever posted is academic sources. There's just however a handful of staunch left-wing editors that patrol these pages and revert any progress to make these entries more neutral. Is it any surprise this entry has been rated low-grade, and the BNP was failed multiple times by an admin in a "review". GarrettTemplar (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat disingenuous, you took a single quote out of context to support a NF criticism of the BNP. Similar edits on other pages resulted in my edit summary. Otherwise you are over reacting a little with terms like Looney-Tunes and crackpottery not to mention a series of accusations. If your edit is reverted then you make the case on the talk page. You don't simply reimpose it then sound off on the talk page ----Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Balance does not mean balancing left-wing and right-wing views, but in representing views according to their acceptance. TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, this article has never been "failed" by an admin. I'm not even sure what that means. I can only assume that GarrettTemplar is referring to this article not being adopted as a "good article" when nominated for review. (Not the same thing at all.) But, being somewhat long in the tooth, I also recall that that nomination was a ploy by an editor or editors to get their way in an argument they had already lost to consensus. And I seem to recall that they were arguing on much the same lines as GarrettTemplar is now. Plus ça change.... Emeraude (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BNP, NF and now I see UKIP are all pages that are basically 'hit-pieces'. They don't read neutrally at all, they are very negative and just read as articles largely written by biased editors (LIB-LAB-CON's 'dirty tricks department'?) who personally despise these anti-immigration parties and so try to demonise them and present them as bad as possible. I clicked on the page history and see there have been edit wars and people complaining about the neutrality of the BNP page for over 5 years! this has now shifted to UKIP who are polling well and that page has been locked because of a neutrality dispute too. Why cant we just edit these pages and present them more neutral? GarrettTemplar (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not 'neutral' it reflects what reliable third party sources say. The fact that advocates of these parties appear regularly is just part and parcel of life. Rather than moaning you would be better trying to find some sources that actually support a change. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090212170836/http://www.hopenothate.org.uk:80/news/article:960-Decision-day-for-BNP-parish-councillor to http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article:960-Decision-day-for-BNP-parish-councillor

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reverts of sourced contributions

Please opine so that we reach consensus. There are two fellow Wikipedians who reverted this edit:

They were one of the few British parties or movements that publicly protested against paedophilia in front of Paedophile Information Exchange conferences in the 1970s. The Front was also protesting against the Rotherham Muslim paedophilia scandal in 2014, alongside EDL and BNP, keeping up the decades-long presence in the region.

Some editorial background: some weeks ago I had made similar edits to the Paedophile Information Exchange and the Campaign for Homosexual Equality articles. It was reverted a couple of times (see their histories), but after a third-party edit trimming them down, they were both accepted after a consensus was reached (see the talk pages).

I enquired with the editor for the reasons (that is the objective Wikipedia policies) as I see these reverts contravening WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:BRD itself, see my query here, but only learnt that they were reverted because:

1. "The fact that you have sources for something does not mean that it passes tests of weight and bias. WP:BRD is pretty clear." (the first editor)

2. "This is not the place to imply other parties were in favour of peodophilia or do a snow job on a nasty hate campaign. That is a correct interpretation. To reinsert the same with an extra source does not improve matters: it remains inappropriate and it is definitely one-sided with a pro-NF bias." (the second editor).

Leaving the editor's reading in my mind aside and arbitrariness in what is "correct", here is the quote from WP:BRD itself:

Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When everting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

As you see, these two editors keep removing sourced statements across these articles without starting the discussion on the articles' talk pages first, requiring the contributing editor(s) (e.g. me) to start it myself. I find it condescending, but much more than tending to my feelings, I am interested in properly learning the relevant Wikipedia policies hereby.

What do you think? Zezen (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Reasons have been given on the talk page - you quote them. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Besides the sources only mention the NF in passing, so it lacks weight. TFD (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded and TFD. This was made perfectly clear in the respective edit summaries. Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial category

@Snowded: responding to special:diff/735200881 where you restored Category:Holocaust denial in the United Kingdom.

The reason I removed this is because the article doesn't actually call the National Front 'deniers', and we should only be using this category on articles where we can clearly state that they are deniers and reliable source it.

While the Holocaust is mentioned, it is not done so assertively:

the party is critical of the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, and is inclined towards historical revisionism, but claims that it has no official view about it

I've fact-tagged the two claims here, I looked into its source and found quotes which supported some of this paragraph but not all of it.

I'll be removing this category again soon unless you can provide a source which supports them being deniers. This source does not, so it seems like OR right now. Ranze (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the case for its founder. Removal would be controversial without talk page agreement ----Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

NF chairman John Tyndall was a holocust denier (and anti-semite). Richard Verrall, former deputy chairman, wrote "Did Six Million Really Die" and used the NF's magazine to deny the holocaust. The article does not go far enough in calling the NF holocaust deniers. Emeraude (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)