Talk:National Front (UK)

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 [[1]],so is it Hull or London? Well the electoral commission think it is Hull [[2]]. 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)

Library? Emeraude (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

cooperation? If you have access to a source as we do not it is fair to ask for confirmation (ohh and not all libraries have a copy of every book ever published, yours may do, you are lucky, hell nowadays not even every town has a library).Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned to Sandy over at the (recently terminated) unsuccessful FAC, I'm going to have to make a trip to a specialist library to check these sources in order to find the quotes for them. Ordinary libraries won't have this type of literature on their shelves. Obviously, that's a bit of a faff for me, so I'm not enamoured with the prospect of having to do it, but if it's the only way to get past some of Sandy's objections to the article becoming an FA then I will of course oblige. The things we do for Wikipedia... Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you go, Sandy, the two quotations that you asked for:

"While the membership figures of the NF have not been released, Searchlight has produced the most reliable estimates." - Thurlow p. 290.

"The NF steadfastly refuses publicly to state membership numbers." - Fielding p. 38

I hope that this allays any concerns that you may have about how accurately this article reflects the contents of the Reliable Sources. Apologies if my previous message above was a bit brusque. As far as I can recall, I don't think that there have ever been any serious concerns about the accurate presentation of Reliable Sources in any of the 29 articles that I have successfully brought through the FAC system, so I was a tad put off by your comment that there had been POV issues with previous work of mine. More broadly, I've been working on cutting down the amount of direct quotation in this article (as you suggested) and splitting off much of the text into sub-articles (as you and other reviewers thought a good idea to get the overall word count down). If you had any other thoughts about how to improve the article in the build-up to another FAC (third time lucky?), let me know. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say the first one fails verification, it does not say they have refused to. But the second one does say it, so I think we have a winner.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The Thurlow quotation goes on to say something along the lines of "they were also secretive about" (not a direct quote, I'm citing from memory), implying that there was deliberate secrecy on the part of the NF about its membership. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The second quote satisfies and I'm sorry you had to go through the work, but yes, I vaguely recall although I cannot remember from where having POV concerns, so this minor check helps allay my concerns. On the other-- length-- I have always been on record at FAC as opposing extra long articles, believing that our best work should stay within an easily readable size, per WP:SIZERULE. I hope you can make progress on that front! Unwatching for now, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Security and violence

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 1970s–1980s, with many of the attackers often being members or supporters of the National Front.

• Nahid Afrose Kabir (2012), Young British Muslims, Edinburgh University Press
• Taylor, Max; Currie, P. M.; Holbrook, Donald (2013). Extreme Right Wing Political Violence and Terrorism. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 40–53. ISBN 9781441140876.
• Ashe, Stephen; Virdee, Satnam; Brown, Laurence (2016). "Striking back against racist violence in the East End of London, 1968–1970". Race & Class. 58 (1): 34–54. doi:10.1177/0306396816642997. ISSN 0306-3968. PMC 5327924. PMID 28479657.

Can you guys give a reasonable explanation for why you keep removing this sentence? Maestro2016 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting or removing well-sourced content without explanation is a form of WP:Disruptive editing (see WP:Revert ninja), as mentioned by Uamaol 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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed Changes to the Lede

An editor operating from multiple IP addresses in Slovakia has, over the past few weeks, been making various alterations to the lede. Some are absolutely fine and in my view are an improvement. Others I think raise problems of one sort or another and for that reason I reverted them to the longstanding, GA-rated version of the article. As per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, I would ask them not to WP:edit war but to discuss their proposed alterations so that a consensus might be reached. As they are the ones introducing changes, it is incumbent on them to make the case and gain consensus first, not for editors opposed to the changes to gain consensus for their removal. I'm sure that this can be discussed in a sensible and productive manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Midnightblueowl. I did read your concerns on this talk page and in the edit summary, but I can't address them if you are not specific about which edits may be problematic. A concise list of how each individual change cause possible problems would be a good start on resolving this dispute. You did say that you are reverting to the "GA-approved long-standing edit", but didn't say anything concrete than that. As a reminder, GA-rated articles can still be changed for that matter, as they are in no way "perfect", even less "perfect" than FA-class articles, which are usually of professional standard. I know you are a primary contributor to this article and that you have worked to a great part to get it where it is today, but others can alter it too and add their improvements in if they deem it neccessary, and that is what makes Wikipedia the great project that it is today. I will wait for your response, and I trust we can resolve this constructively. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. First, please stop the edit warring and revert your most recent edits. As per WP:BRD, it is incumbent on the individual proposing the changes to gain consensus for them after they are initially challenged. It is not the responsibility of other editors to gain consensus for the reversion. That's just the procedure we work with at Wikipedia. So please, revert your own edits (at least those I have raised objections to). Second, I have concerns about some of your changes (although as I've said before, a lot of them look fairly decent and I don't wish to disparage all of your work):

• Removing "far-right" from the opening sentence raises problems. I understand your point that fascism is intrinsically far-right and thus saying the NF was "far-right" is perhaps not necessary but to my mind that isn't a reason for removing "far-right" here. Saying "far-right, fascist" outlines the broad political position of the party within the British political spectrum and then states its specific ideology. We have very similar wording on other UK political party articles: British National Party, English Defence League, etc. There may well be readers who aren't familiar with the relationship between fascism and the far-right, so having both terms here helps keeps things clear.
• Removing "far right" from the third paragraph. Again, why? I don't see the reason for its removal here.
• My third concern was the manner in which your edits lengthened the lede, often with unnecessary wording. For instance, "before disbanding" has been lengthened to "before finally disbanding", "condemning interracial relationships and miscegenation" has become "condemning interracial relationships in general and miscegenation in particular", "new" has been replaced with "splinter party called the". I think that this is just unnecessary, and raises problems because the lede is already long enough as it is. The second paragraph now spreads onto nine lines (at least in my browser), whereas it was eight before. Wikipedia is meant to be concise and I think that a lot of this additional wording is just not necessary. It's padding.
• "ethnic nationalism" has been changed to "ethnonationalism"; this isn't a big deal by any means, but "ethnic nationalism" is probably going to be a term that readers unfamiliar with the topic might understand.
• "biological racism" has been changed to "scientific racism"; granted, our article on the topic is called Scientific racism, but if I recall correctly most of the literature on the NF and British fascism leans toward "biological racism". Again, this isn't a big issue but I'd say that "biological racism" was a term that readers would more readily understand.

I hope that this clarifies my concerns and that you will understand where I am coming from here. We have to assume that the reader will know little or nothing about the topic so things need to be kept very clear, clean, and concise. Your other edits all seem fine from my perspective. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Midnightblue. I am gonna respond to your concerns one by one, so that we can resolve this more easily.

"Removing "far-right" from the opening sentence raises problems. I understand your point that fascism is intrinsically far-right and thus saying the NF was "far-right" is perhaps not necessary but to my mind that isn't a reason for removing "far-right" here. Saying "far-right, fascist" outlines the broad political position of the party within the British political spectrum and then states its specific ideology."

I removed "far-right" in the first sentence because fascism itself is overwhelmingly classified as a far-right ideology by virtually all reputable scholars on the subject, and asides from fringe proponents of the discredited notion that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were "leftist socialists", the vast majority of readers are well aware that fascism is synonymous with far-right ideology, and therefore there is no need to say "far-right fascist", as it creates a tautology, AKA saying the same thing twice. Plus, we already have fascism wikilinked multiple times in the article, so if a editor did want to learn more about fascism, all they would have to do is simply click on the link and read said article. The party itself is already classified as far-right in the infobox, making the "far-right fascist" phrase even more unneccessary.

"Removing "far right" from the third paragraph. Again, why? I don't see the reason for its removal here."

Because both "extreme right" and "far-right" refer to the same type of political orientation, as they are synonyms, and therefore there is no need to insert both of them into the lede, as they both refer to the same subject, similiar to the first example above.

"My third concern was the manner in which your edits lengthened the lede, often with unnecessary wording. For instance, "before disbanding" has been lengthened to "before finally disbanding", "condemning interracial relationships and miscegenation" has become "condemning interracial relationships in general and miscegenation in particular", "new" has been replaced with "splinter party called the". I think that this is just unnecessary, and raises problems because the lede is already long enough as it is. The second paragraph now spreads onto nine lines (at least in my browser), whereas it was eight before. Wikipedia is meant to be concise and I think that a lot of this additional wording is just not necessary. It's padding."

Ledes are meant to provide a complete overview of the article's subject for those who don't want to dig into its details, which in this case would be the party's history. I added these wording because the Official NF ultimately disbanded, because the NF condemned both interracial relationships (AKA any form of social mingling and fraternization between ethnic groups) in general and miscegenation (AKA sexual intercourse between members of different ethnic groups) in particular, and because said party was indeed a splinter faction which broke away from the original NF. My understanding of the guidelines regarding the lede is that as long as it sticks to only four paragraphs at most, then it is compliant with the MoS, regardless of how many words are actually in it.

""ethnic nationalism" has been changed to "ethnonationalism"; this isn't a big deal by any means, but "ethnic nationalism" is probably going to be a term that readers unfamiliar with the topic might understand."

I changed "ethnic nationalism" to ethnonationalism because that is the term used more frequently in political and historical literature, as evidenced by Google Scholar:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ethnonationalism&btnG=#d=gs_hdr_drw

Per Wikipedia guidelines, we use terms that are more frequently used in the relevant literature, and if a reader may not understand what ethnonationalism is, they can click the wikilink and learn more.

"biological racism" has been changed to "scientific racism"; granted, our article on the topic is called Scientific racism, but if I recall correctly most of the literature on the NF and British fascism leans toward "biological racism". Again, this isn't a big issue but I'd say that "biological racism" was a term that readers would more readily understand. "

Same reason as with ethnonationalism. Scientific racism is the term most commonly used in scholarly literature to describe forms of racism built upon pseudoscience, an example of which would be eugenics and phrenology. "Biological racism", while being a alternative term to describe scientific racism, is used comparably less frequently in the relevant literature compared to "scientific racism".91.127.132.128 (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see that you have your reasons, but you still need consensus for these changes, however. I suggest that you revert them and then we take some of the more pressing issues to RfC. It may be that the RfC leads to most editors supporting your proposed changes, but either way, as per BRD, you need to revert your edits for the time being. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure whether we need a RfC here, especially since you are the only editor thus far that disputed my changes, and hence you are the primary contributor to this article, I was hoping that a discussion between the two of us would be sufficient enough to resolve this. But I am not sure whether a RfC would be proportional to this issue just yet. Perhaps we could consult a third opinion from a uninvolved and impartial editor instead? If we are unable to reach an agreement from there, then we will open a RfC. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that an RfC would be necessary for the "far right, fascism" wording because that has repercussions for how we present other articles on political parties and movements. However, I'd agree that in the other cases, a third opinion would probably suffice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion request: Ethnonationalism or Ethnic nationalism?

Should the third paragraph of the lede use the term "ethnic nationalism" or "ethnonationalism"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there a difference?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

I see no valid reason for a change.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Ideology of the National Front (UK)

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)

Ignore the above. Sock edits there reverted. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)