Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 22 April 2019

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

	National Front (UK) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 10, 2018 Good article nominee Listed October 28, 2018 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive bar

Template:Election box metadata

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Front (UK)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nomader (talk · contribs) 15:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. Nomader (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Really excited to be doing this review, fascinating subject matter. One note here is that I obviously don't have access to all of the books that you've cited on the subject, and so I will be AGF with a number of sources here.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• "Over the following months" should have a comma at the end of it.

• Added comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• GLC should be in parentheses next to "Greater London Council" in its first appearance so you can use it moving forward.

• Added acronym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Although never won a seat on local council" should say "Although the party never won a seat on local council"

• I've gone with "it never won a seat on a local council". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm good with that. Nomader (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• You note that the party did "better" in Hounslow-- better than what? (Is this against the other ridings or just in general? Think it can be clarified better here).

• Good idea. I've changed the prose to the following: "while its best result was in Hounslow". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perfect. Nomader (talk)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Who is Gordon Brown? (Obviously not the PM in this context). Should be clear in the prose.

• There's no Wikilink for this figure, but I've added "formerly of the Greater Britain Movement" to give a little more context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is there anything since 2015? Did they succeed in switching over BNP members?

• I'm not aware of any Reliable Sources that actually discuss this. Academics have basically ignored the NF as it has existed in the 21st century, with their attention switching decisively to groups like the BNP and then the EDL, so there is very little material out there dealing with more recent events. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see the party's explicit LGBT stance when one of its chairs was a member of that community. Was that a shift over time? Think it would be good to expand on it here.

• As far as I'm aware, there was no shift over time, it was simply an odd contradiction; a part with gay male members in senior places that nevertheless espoused the criminalisation of same-sex acts. The same was true of the original Nazi Party as well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Haggerston caption on the photo in the 'Voter base' section should absolutely have a reference there.

• Added (and I've altered the prose in the caption slightly too). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's a discrepancy between the source and the article here. You wrote: "The NF did not publicise the number of branches that were active across the UK." Fielding, the reference, states on the page you cited: "The number of branches is also information the party is not eager to publicize." It's a small difference but significant, and then he goes on to list estimates in the paragraph afterwards.

• I've amended the prose to state that "The NF was not eager to publicise the number of branches that were active across the UK". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I could not find ref 87 on that page or anything near it-- talked about Tyndall there but not him resigning. 84 checks out though.

• I've checked my paper copy of the book; on page 23, at the end of the first paragraph, it states that "Tyndall resigned at the NF Directorate meeting held on 19 January 1980." I'm using the second edition, which was published in 2008; might you have been looking at a version of the first edition, published in 2004? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like I am-- did a search for that quote and I found it on a different page, so we're good. Sorry about that! Nomader (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I did a spot check with the pages that I could get for free on Google Books. Checked the following refs and they all matched up: 28, 75, 372, and most of the other Copsey refs. AGF on the others-- the differences from the version that I've spot-checked are either incredibly minor or we likely have different editions of similar books so page numbers are slightly off.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• This doesn't matter for a GAN, but if you're thinking about taking this to FAC, there should be a section talking about the legacy or impact of the NF. This article easily meets 3a, but worth considering moving forward.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very well done here on an incredibly contentious topic.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A. K. Chesterton photo is alright because of his deceased status. Yorkshire NF photo is CC and good to go. Strasser photo seems fine, although the only edit the user ever made on Commons was to upload that one photo which seems weird to me-- but that's a Commons problems, not a GAN one here. Flags and 2007 protest are good to go. Rock Against Racism photo is good to go too.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Have a few items that need to be changed, but they're all easy fixes. Really amazing work here! Nomader (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Nomader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed to pass, I have no additional concerns. Absolutely brilliant work! Nomader (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Still going?

Any evidence they are still up and running, as the latest news seems to be three years old.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it appears that the Front are still active, although nowadays they are clearly fairly small, a far cry from their 1970s heyday. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Any sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look at their website. They updated it with the latest news only a few days ago. They're still active. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, when I did a search the website I got up must have been an old one.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, still active. Registration with the Electoral Commission is up to date and the 2017 accounts were published by the Commission on 31 July 2018. Emeraude (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

HQ

Well we have this ],so is it Hull or London? Well the electoral commission think it is Hull ]. ON Balance it seems to be Hull.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This issue has come up because Mrnobody1997 repeatedly reverted contrary to usual practice and ignoring explanations. On his talk page yesterday, I posted the following, but still he reverted:

A BM Box is not a physical location. It is a service company called British Monomarks that provides accommodation addresses to companies and organisations all over the UK. Here is the company's website. Please take a look at it, and then go back to the article and delete London. The NF headquarters can be reached via a London PO Box, but it's just a forwarding address and does not mean their HQ are there. Quite frankly, we don't know where it is, and that's the point. The NF's most recent Electoral Commission registration was in 2015 and that gave an address in Hull, also a post box (but a Post Office one so almost certainly in Hull).

As I said then, while Hull seems likely, it's not definite. Emeraude (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, a search for the NF's Hull postcode HU9 9GL goes to a trading estate. An aerial view shows a building with lots of red vans, presumably a post office sorting office. So, again, no evidence the NF HQ is actually in Hull. Emeraude (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

But it is (legally) its registered offices.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's its registered address. Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, it is the address they are formally registered as using. So why cant we use what clearly the officiating body thinks is enough, their (in effect) official address.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

We can't second guess what we think the EC thinks! That's original research/synthesis gone mad. All we know is that mail addressed to the NF goes to a post office box in Hull. Their headquarters could be in Hull, or anywhere in the surrounding county/ies convenient for picking up the mail. If the post office deliver it, then it's reasonable to assume (!) that NF HQ is somewhere within the HU postal area, but that extends way beyond Hull. If the infobox wanted an address that might be OK, but it specifically says "headquarters". Emeraude (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Err, we are not second guessing what we think the EC thinks, the registered address is on the EC website. I really am having difficulty understanding why this is such an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The address is a box in a postal sorting office. It is not the building where the NF has its headquarters. The HQ must somewhere exist as a building in which the NF leadership does its work (it used to be a house in Pawsons Road, Croydon) and that you could visit. Except they don't want you to, hence the forwarding address! The fact is, we don't know where the HQ is and neither does the Electoral Commission, so stating that is actually in Hull would be false, albeit a somewhat educated guess. Easier to leave it blank. Emeraude (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Emeraude that we are perhaps best off leaving that part of the infobox blank. They may well not have a formal HQ per se, but rather operate outside of someone's home. Operating a specialised HQ would require funds that the present incarnation of the National Front simply may not have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Request quote

Please provide quotes from both sources for this text:

• The Front refused to officially disclose the number of members that it had. (Fielding 1981, p. 38 and Thurlow 1987, p. 290). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No need. You have the sources. You can read them yourself. Emeraude (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe he does not have access to them, I do not. As a cutesy maybe a quote would be niceSlatersteven (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have direct access to these sources again at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• GA-Class political party articles
• Low-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles