Talk:National Party (UK, 1976)

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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).

Could the anonymous user who keeps deleting the text about the Strasserite wing of the party please check M. Walker, The National Front, Glasgow: Fontana Collins, 1977 where this is dealt with at some length. Also please provide a source for the party being called National Party of the United Kingdom or NPUK as any books I have read do not refer to this. Thanks for your input to the article otherwise and please consider registering with Wikipedia. Keresaspa 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted edits on the John Kingsley Read page for the same reason. I can only conclude that someone is reading the title National Party (UK, 1976) and assuming the bracketed UK is part of the name and not just there for disambiguation. Emeraude 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatisation/Denationalisation[edit]

The article says the NP was the first party to advocate privatisation of utilities, even before the Conservatives. I feel this is confusing; while it may be true regarding utilities, the Conservative governments elected after 1951 did reverse nationalisations made by the 1945 Labout government (e.g. steel). I'm also fairly certain that the policy was not one for which the NP was widely known. Should it be even mentioned, or does it need clarifying? Emeraude 10:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

The anonymous user in Alan Harvey, a former member of this party, who has recently returned to editing this article (April 2014). Harvey has previously been blocked from editing under his own name: User:AlanHarvey and User:AlanDHarvey. His peculiarity of calling the party the National Party of the United Kingdom or NPUK is to avoid confusion (in his mind) with the National Party (South Africa). Another personal peculiarity of Harvey's is his use of the term 'neo-imperialist' as a description, when in fact it was John Tyndall who was the neo-imperialist. Harvey also removes any references to Strasserites and holocaust denial, and makes edits to claim that the party was in some way 'Conservative' - editors will draw their own conclusion as to why he might do that. The reason Harvey seeks to remove Anthony Hancock's name is because Hancock may have been involved in circulating the nude photos of Alan Harvey in 2011 (much to Harvey's embarrassment).--John Goodheart (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit warring is continuing, with the anonymous user removing sourced material with which he discagrees. perhaps it is time to protect the article from editing by unregistered users. Ground Zero | t 16:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Could somebody please tell us why this article continues to be reverted to a previous inaccurate entry whenever we try to correct it? We were members of the NPUK (and that WAS its proper correct name) during the late 1970s, and know that what was said in an earlier version which we have been trying to restore was accurate. The NPUK WAS a "populist" or neo-Conservative breakaway from the neo-fascist NF, it DID advocate neo-Imperialism (indeed the flags of all the core Commonwealth countries were always displayed at party meetings), and it WAS very pro-Israel (something which sickened the Tyndall and the NF). All this talk about a "Strasserite wing" (whatever that might be!) is complete nonsense, no matter what a very dated book from Glasgow may have asserted! GeorgeandGeoff (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply sources/references for these claims as per guidelines - WP:REF & WP:VER? --JHumphries (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, asserting that you were there does not make you a reliable source. I understand that this is frustrating, but you must understand that on the Internet, anyone can make any claim they want -- see On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. This is why Wikipedia has adopted a policy on verifiability and a guidleine on reliable sources. Ground Zero | t 19:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Read recanted his views?[edit]

Did John Kingsley Read ever officially recant his views, as is mentioned here? I believe he did re-join the Conservative party, but at the time there were still many in the Conservatives who shared to an extent the Far-right's views on immigration and race, so did he actually recant his views, or just disguise them when he re-joined the Conservatives?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsmithsmith (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. However, the text was reliably sourced when added so we must assume good faith. That said, I have been unable to locate the particular issue of the magazine cited which, of course, does not invalidate it. Pehaps someone else has access. Emeraude (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]