Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nick Griffin/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Nick Griffin edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Nick Griffin is to be a panellist on next week's BBC Question Time. The programme may generate increased views for this page (I don't know if it will or not), and I think its important that on such an occasion, Wikipedia should be able to present as unbiased and as neutral an article as possible on what is obviously a contentious subject. I have no support for Griffin or his policies, or for those of his peers, but in the recent GAR there was still evidence of my bias against him, in the edits I have made (I've probably written most of this article).

I'd very much like this to be reviewed quickly, so that the article is ship-shape before next Thursday's (22nd) broadcast, which has been reported regularly in the media. The article is already protected against vandalism.

Thanks, Parrot of Doom 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Steve Smith edit

This is a good article about a somewhat less good man. The prose is some distance from perfect, though I've tried to improve it where I can. It also uses some terminology that is unlikely to be familiar to all English speakers (me, for example). Some specific comments:

  • The article frequently uses a comma after the first item of a two-item list. I've removed those occurrences, but now I'm doubting myself: is there some British grammatical convention by which this is done? I've certainly never seen it, but, as I am loathe to admit, I don't know everything.
    • No there isn't really, so thanks for that :) Parrot of Doom 12:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest replacing the {{quote}} templates whose contents are not integrated into the article (i.e. all but the first, sixth, and eighth) with {{quote box}} or similar, as the current format seems to break up the text unnecessarily. For the three that are incorporated into the text, I'd advise removing the speaker's name, since it's clear from context.
    • I've put the Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson quotes in a quotebox, and removed one quote entirely as it wasn't really long enough to warrant inclusion (I changed it to prose). I've also removed those names as suggested. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The adjective "strong" is rather overused here. I'd actually recommend eliminating all of its occurrences, since it doesn't really add anything and can be construed as being POV.
  • "During a union debate his affiliation..." I'm not familiar with the concept of a union debate. Is it a Britishism? Is there an article to which it could be wikilinked?
    • Possibly there is an article, but nothing specific. Union debates are simply debates held by the local student union (a grouping of students which exists to help other students through their education). Union debates are good training grounds for politicians, many of our current politicians would have been union presidents, leaders, etc. Parrot of Doom 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He helped set up the White Noise Music Club in 1979..." Could a two or three word description of what this is be incorporated into the sentence?
    • I haven't really found anything, but most of the sources would suggest that it was some kind of 'white power' music club (hence the Skrewdriver line after this). Parrot of Doom 12:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a member of the National Front Griffin contested the seat of Croydon North West twice, in 1981 and 1983." While I gather he lost, some mention of the result of these elections would be good.
    • This has been frustrating. I haven't found a single reliable source for this, hence the incomplete table. I'm slightly nervous about putting it into prose without a reference, as such things can easily be overlooked with time. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Malleus Fatuorum has come to the rescue here, and found some sources, which I've added to the article. I've also made mention of the percentage secured, I think any other wording might lead to things like 'well behind the leading parties', and be a bit contentious. Parrot of Doom 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later stewarded a public Holocaust denial meeting hosted by David Irving." I'm not aware of this definition of steward, and I don't see anything in Merriam Webster that seems to apply. Would this be the same as chairing a meeting? Is that terminology used in the UK?
    • In Britain, if you're stewarding something it usually means that you're involved in some minor capacity, like showing guests the way in, stopping people parking their cars in the wrong places, making sure people get to where they're supposed to be, etc. Its a fairly general job role. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Griffin re-entered politics in 1993..." In what capacity?
    • Unknown. The source simply says that he 'resurfaced into extremist politics in 1993'. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Tyndall had in 1982 founded the BNP, its links to extremism helped Griffin in his 1999 campaign to replace Tyndall as BNP leader." Awkward and unclear. As I read it, what helped Griffin was Tyndall's extremism, not the BNP's (if the BNP had been more extremist, it seems more likely that it would have supported Tyndall over Griffin, no?). Anyway, I think the sentence should be rewritten.
  • "One of Griffin's changes included the party's strong emphasis on the removal of multiculturalism," There's a verb missing here. Did his changes include "introducing the party's strong emphasis", "eliminating the party's strong emphasis", "modifying the party's strong emphasis", or what?
    • Another good point, I've added 'moderating' as that seems to be most neutral. The BNP, and Griffin, still object to multiculturalism, although not quite in the same fashion as they once did (boots and fists) Parrot of Doom 12:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...for less serious crimes such as juvenile delinquency." I'm not sure juvenile delinquency qualifies as a "less serious crime", since it can include murder, rape, etc. Juvenile delinquency is a type of crime defined not by the actions but by the people committing them, which strikes me as independent of seriousness.
    • Hmm, I think that might just be a language thing. Over here, anyone described as a juvenile delinquent is merely a minor troublecauser, someone who robs houses, steals cars, etc. I've never seen a murderer or rapist described as a JD in Britain. Can you suggest an alternative phrase, for readers not in Britain? Parrot of Doom 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about just saying "...corporal punishment for non-violent offenses"? Steve Smith (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would lose the "juvenile" aspect, which means that the punishment would only be applied to those under the age of 18. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't suggesting it as a synonym, but as a replacement: juvenile delinquency is given as an example. As the article reads now, corporal punishment wouldn't only apply to those under 18. Steve Smith (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of 2002–2009, I'm not clear whether the vote totals reported (58,347 vs. 8,993) were for all of Wales or South Wales West. The relatively low figures leads me to believe the latter, but the use of "BNP" as a subject, rather than "Griffin", suggests the former.
    • 8993 for the BNP (Griffin), 58347 for Labour (don't know the candidate name). BNP = 5.5% of all votes cast in the South Wales West region, which has about 160,000 voters. Parrot of Doom 12:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of 2002–2009 is a weak spot, both because it's not made clear to whom he appealed and because it suggests that he defended questions, when I presume that he defended the BNP against the questions (otherwise I am confused).

That's it for now. More comments will come, either tomorrow or Monday. Steve Smith (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) -[reply]

  • "...and that the Labour government was attempting to influence the results of the following year's general election." This appears to me to be redundant; doesn't going after an alleged block vote necessarily mean trying to influence an election?
    • Its a watered-down version of the cited article, which "alleged the government was trying to demonise the BNP ahead of next year's election." Its a tightrope, trying to keep everyone happy, I'm trying to keep bias out of the article, no matter who from Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, as long as it's attributed to Griffin I see no problem with the stronger language. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source isn't really very clear on who said what, so I think its best to remain vague. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the day after it was broadcast on 15 July 2004." This is slightly ambiguous, in that it could mean that it was broadcast 15 July or that 15 July was the day after the broadcast.
  • "...charged with four offences of using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred." In Canada, the word we'd use here is "charges" in place of "offences". I didn't want to change it in case it's British English, though.
    • In Britain, you're charged with an offence. For example, "charged with the offence of Armed Robbery" Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the same as here, but in Griffin's situation we'd say that he was charged with four counts of one offence (using words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred). Steve Smith (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...debates at several university institutions." I know a university institution can be just part of a university rather than the whole thing, but I still think that replacing "university institutions" with "universities" would be more concise without losing meaning. I leave it to the article's regular editors.
    • I'm not sure - you can have separate institutions within the same university. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize that; I'm just saying that just as it's true that he had debates at several university institutions, it's also true that he had debates at several universities. They don't mean the same thing, but both are true, and the second seems to me to flow better. But I'm only here to give advice; I'll let the article's regular authors make the actual decisions. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, I'll remove the 'institutions'. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two had met earlier in the year..." I assume this refers to Griffin and al-Masri?
    • Yes. I'm fairly sure the debate proceeded, but haven't ever found a reliable source. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake wanted Griffin to visit the university and explain the BNP's policies to lecturers and students. It was, however, viewed by some as an attempt by the party to establish a foothold on the university campus." I don't see any inconsistency between these two views that would justify the use of "however". They seem not only compatible, but mutually supporting. Am I missing something?
    • No, its another example of bias, and I've removed it. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Steve Smith (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC) -[reply]

  • "It would restore the earnings link with pensions..." This didn't make sense to me absent context. Is there a wikilink that can be provided?
    • Its a British thing, basically there used to be a link between the state pension and the average wage. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would something like "re-implement the indexing of pensions to the average national wage" or similar be accurate? It's a few more words, but I think it would be clearer to non-British readers (and I think Nick Griffin's a subject likely to be of some interest to non-British readers). Your call, though. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see where you're heading, but the problem would be that most people in this country only know 'pensions earnings link'. I think a wikilink would suit better, I'll have a search around for a related article/section. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's unnecessary to give the dates of his various interviews in the body of the text (though they should of course be found in the footnotes).
    • I disagree - Griffin has, with greater popularity, moderated and changed his views and the policies of his party. I think its best to keep the dates in, so people don't get confused with the timeline. Have a look for "Nick Griffin The Cook Report" on YouTube, this was well before he because mainstream, and that's the history he has to overcome. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your point is well-taken. In that case, though, I'd still prefer to generalize somewhat (something like "In 2001 he stated that Hindus and whites had both been targeted in that year's "Muslim" riots. The same year, he claimed that radical Muslim clerics..." I think it's possible to provide temporal context without listing the date and publication in which every comment is made; for readers who want that information, it's available in the footnotes. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had a think about this, and I think I'll leave them as is. I was going to change them but then, there are doubtless times where Griffin has appeared on the same channel or programme more than once in a year. It isn't a biggie though for me. Parrot of Doom 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a decision by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the BNP's membership criteria." This could use elaboration: we're given Griffin's response to the investigation, but nothing about the basis of the investigation itself.
  • Though I recognize that this is somewhat inevitable, the "Policies and views" section sometime speaks more about the BNP than about Griffin.
    • The BNP is however primarily directed by Griffin, and the article does mention this. I included those policies by request, at the recent GAR. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I know there's only so much you can do, and you do establish Griffin's primacy in BNP policy-development. Wherever possible, if you have sources showing the BNP and Griffin expressing the same view, I think you should use the one that attributes it directly to Griffin. But year, there is some inevitability there. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some concerns about sourcing: swaths of the article seem to rely on primary sourcing, including old versions of the BNP's website and YouTube-hosted videos of press conferences. This is supposed to be a tertiary source, in which we let secondary sources interpret the primary sources for us.

I don't think that this article is FA-ready: before it went there, I'd want so see a shift towards secondary sourcing, a better job of establishing the context of some statements, a better narrative structure (with a focus on Griffin himself), and at least two or three more copyedits (I could do another once I've re-acquired some distance from the article). Good luck! Steve Smith (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think its a problem to use primary sources in these instances. The YouTube video is linked from the BNP's site, and appears to be their 'official' channel, and its indisputable that it is Griffin making the comments in the video. It certainly isn't a copy-vio from a major news source, its a very amateurish job, and appears to have the best view of events. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I didn't mean I was concerned with the accuracy or copyright status of the sources (my concerns would be much stronger if I was). The issue is that when using primary sources, you're either going to provide a bare listing of facts (which is fine in some cases; I often use primary sources to source vote totals in elections) or insert a degree of your own analysis. Besides that, we're supposed to use secondary sources to decide what's important and worth including: if Griffin gives two speeches, and secondary sources ignore one but report on the other extensively, we're supposed to take from that that the second speech is more important, and should be given greater prominence in the article. It's easy for two editors to write radically different articles about the same subject relying on the same primary sources, but somewhat more difficult to do with secondary sources, since you're relying on the analysis (implicit and explicit) of the secondary source authors. Anyway, this article's pretty good, and people drawn to it on Thursday shouldn't be disappointed; I just don't think it's ready for the bronze star at this juncture. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments. The trouble is, most of the online sources are very heavily biased against him. We had to remove one (see the talk page) as it was almost certainly full of made-up nonsense, and that was from The Times! Parrot of Doom 21:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          If mainstream media are frequently hostile, this is worthy of note, with qualification/attribution ("The Times alleged...") Geometry guy 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geometry guy edit

I've watchlisted the page for Thursday (the broadcast is compatible with my timezone), but I'll base my comments on the idea that you might want the article to have some of the gloss of a featured article candidate in case it receives significant attention.

That would be excellent, I hadn't originally planned for FA but the article is now getting into quite good shape, and I think it may just pass. Feel free to chop and change as you desire. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the prose suggests intention or implication (implicitly or explicitly), be sure that it is sourced. Here are a few examples.

  • In the lead, "...since becoming leader of the BNP he has distanced himself from these opinions" suggests a causal relationship, which is probably true, but needs to be sourced, and I'm not sure that the material in the article does this. Instead, the next sentence ("He is a critic of aspects of Islam") might be used to set his views in context, by noting that he remains critical of aspects of Islam (in contrast to his moderation in relation to Sikhs, Jews, Hindus etc.)
    • I can't really think of anything in the article that isn't already sourced. Certainly several sources demonstrate that he has distanced himself from his more right-wing history. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but do the sources make the causal link that he has done this because he became leader? (They probably do, but is this clear?) Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they probably place the same emphasis on this change as the article does. Its undoubtedly true, but the article (I think) doesn't actually say that his BNP leadership has caused this shift in policy. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first section "Undeterred, he later founded the Young National Front Student organisation" is there a source saying he was undeterred?
    • The first source after that says "did not dampen his enthusiasm". Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This realignment was designed to position the BNP alongside successful European far-right groups, such as the French Front National." Surely, but does a source credit this as design?
    • "In 1999, Griffin began the long process of making the party electable in emulation of the successes of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France and Jörg Haider in Austria. " Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a teenager he had accompanied his father to a National Front meeting,[1][11] and by 1978, he was a national organiser for the party." This is confusing. Did he become a national organiser as a result of attending one meeting?
    • Probably not, but there isn't yet a reliable source that says so more conclusively. Its unfortunate, most of the material available online is somewhat negatively biased, and what isn't, is the exact opposite. Its hard to pick out whats true, and whats false, but generally I think we've managed ok, User:Slatersteven has been excellent at finding faults with the article, leading to its improvement. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result the party became more radicalised, and a dissatisfied Griffin,..." Are "radicalised" and "dissatisfied" sourced?

My remaining comments concern the prose, which is pretty decent, but might benefit from the attention of a good copyeditor. I rate myself only as A minus here, so I will just add a few general comments.

  • Long noun phrases are hard to read: the first sentence of "Early life and education" is an example. Also don't try to say too much in one sentence.
  • Try to find the best (most interesting and active) subject for each sentence: "The National Front had, since the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher, seen a distinct drop in its membership" is a good example. Membership of the National Front is crying out to be the subject here, and this would also fix another issue: the subclause does not need to interrupt the main clause.
    • Would 'The National Front's membership suffered a steady decline following the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher"... be better? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but if I had copyedited the original, I would have written: "Membership of the National Front declined significantly following the election of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher". (Substitute "steadily" or some other adverb for "significantly" if it would be more accurate.) Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed the article to this wording, it works for me. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit needless words: "The location of the venue..." is one example; similarly "does however maintain" could be "maintains" (leaving interpretation to the reader).
    • Thanks, my grammar is improving with experience but I miss things like that. I've removed 'the location of' Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a dislocation between the prose and the Timothy King quote.
    • I may have originally added a line to introduce the QC, but in truth, I think its quite obvious how the quote fits in. I could put it in a quote box but I'm not sure how it would effect the layout. What do you think? Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      My feeling was that it might be easier to integrate the Gordon Brown quote into the text, leaving the Timothy King quote as a right quote box, but trust your own judgement. Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have a look now, see what you think. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Still disjointed: we need to know at least that Timothy King was the defense lawyer for Griffin and this was part of his closing statement. Geometry guy 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time in the next few days, I will comment further. Geometry guy 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, its much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, and thanks for your clarifications. Geometry guy 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Nick_Griffin/archive1&oldid=321298446"