Talk:National Front (UK)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Any sources?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Still going? 

message: The following well-sourced sentence has been removed from the "Security and violence" section by Midnightblueowl and Snowded without giving any explanation:
:"Paki-bashing", a form of racist violence against Pakistanis and other South Asians, peaked during the 1970s1980s, with many of the attackers often being members or supporters of the National Front.
:*Nahid Afrose Kabir (2012), Young British Muslims, Edinburgh University Press
:*
:*
Can you guys give a reasonable explanation for why you keep removing this sentence? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting or removing well-sourced content without explanation is a form of WP:Disruptive editing (see WP:Revert ninja), as mentioned by  on the article history page. You can't just revert or remove something without giving a valid reason. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is: Is it relevant to the article? No matter how well-sourced, text has to be relevant to the subject of the article: this seems to be an aside or a footnote about a nasty phenomenon in UK society that was contemporaneous with the heyday of the NF but not confined to it or even particularly associated with it. Emeraude (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When multiple experienced editors are reverting an addition, then it probably doesn't constitute Disruptive Editing, so please don't jump to that accusation. As the editor seeking to include contentious new additions in the article, it was always your responsibility to gain consensus for the addition; the onus was not on others to gain consensus for its removal. Now, when it comes to the actual content itself, I have no firm objections. However, as far as I can see, none of the sources provided explicitly says what you are claiming of it. The sources discuss the "paki-bashing" phenomenon, and sometimes mention the National Front, but none seem to explicitly link the two (if I am wrong, please do correct me with direct quotes from the sources in question). Moreover, given that this article already makes use of a particular citation style, it really would be best to format your additions in the same style, rather than expecting other editors to have to do that work for you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've found an alternative reliable source that discusses the National Front in some depth and specifically cites it as one of the leading causes for racist violence during that era. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security and violence 

message: Should the third paragraph of the lede use the term "ethnic nationalism" or "ethnonationalism"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a difference?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a meaningful one. They are synonyms. The article has used "ethnic nationalism" for many years (which is the title of our article on the subject) and which I believe is a slightly clearer term for readers. It also has the advantage of facilitating a rhetorically clean distinction between ethnic nationalism on the one hand and civic nationalism on the other (I don't think that there is an equivalent portmanteau for the latter term). An IP user has instead suggested "ethnonationalism" as a replacement, which they argue is the more common term in the academic literature on nationalism (although I'm not convinced about this; they haven't presented clear evidence to support this claim). This is why we've gone for the third opinion request. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no valid reason for a change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "ethnic nationalism" would be easier to understand. I'll remove the third opinion request, as it seems that more than two users have expressed opinions now. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion request: Ethnonationalism or Ethnic nationalism?

message: The lead of the above is pretty much unreadable. And I’m not sure it matches what this article says. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the above. Sock edits there reverted. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ideology of the National Front (UK)]]