Talk:Nick Griffin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I am reviewing this article strictly according to the criteria. I would like to make it clear from the outset that I have no personal or political axe to grind, being completely indifferent to the subject of the article. I understand that he is a controversial figure, and so NPOV is vital for an article such as this to attain GA standard. Wikipedia is not here to critique Griffin's life/politics/philosophy, merely to state, factually and verifiably, what those might be.

1. Well-written:

• (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
  • 
• (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • The lead section is unreferenced.

• As per WP:LEAD there is no requirement to include citations in a lead section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:LEADCITE "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads" Given that this is a bio, and the subject is a controversial public figure, citing references in the lead is preferable. Keristrasza (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• …but not required. It is my preference not to use inline citations in leads—I'm quite certain the lead contains nothing that is not already cited within the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keristrasza (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

• (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
• (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
  • There are numerous statements which at first sight appear unreferenced. Several sentences later a reference is cited, but it is only by checking that reference that one sees the source for preceeding statements. Given the controversial nature of the subject I recommend that every statement is carefully and individually referenced, even where the reference currently is cited several sentences later, so that a reader can immediately check the source.

• Could you be specific please, and list every objectionable instance? I removed one set of quotes that shouldn't have been there (they weren't a quote). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• An example would be para 3 of the Early Life section: "During a union debate his affiliation to the National Front was revealed, and his photograph was published in a student newspaper. Undeterred, he later founded the Young National Front Student organisation. He graduated with a 2:2 under the British undergraduate degree classification and a boxing blue, having taken up the sport following a brawl with an anti-fascist party member in Lewisham. Griffin boxed three times against Oxford in the annual Varsity match, winning twice and losing once. In an interview for The Independent he stated he gave up because of a hand injury. He claims to be a fan of Ricky Hatton and Joe Calzaghe, and an admirer of Amir Khan." In line citations for the 6/7 assertions are preferable to the current two. Keristrasza (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm not a fan of a half dozen little blue numbers where less would suffice, and I'm not aware of any requirement for a minimum number of inline citations. This may be your preference, but if not a GA requirement then I won't be changing this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keristrasza (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• (c) it contains no original research.
  • 

3. Broad in its coverage:

• (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
  • 
• (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
  • 

4. Neutral:

• it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • "In the same year he lost his left eye in a serious accident, when (by his account) a discarded Shotgun cartridge exploded in a pile of burning wood at his home" The intimation is that his account is untrue. Neither of the cited references offer evidence that the eye was lost in any way other than by Griffin's own account, and one reference uses the weasel word "unexplained". "Griffin attributes his inability to work to the loss of his eye" - does someone else attribute it otherwise? If so, whosays? Otherwise, this intimates he is being dishonest. "He presented himself as a Cambridge-educated family man..." Well, the article says that he is just that! Although that statement is followed by an explanation that this was received in a better light than Tyndall's public persona, it is still expressed in such a way as to undermine the overall neutrality of the article. I stopped looking for NPOV at that point as there were already several violations.

• Good points, I've removed the (by his account) and reworded the 'attributes the loss' accordingly.
• I don't agree with your second point. He used his education as a plus point. Nothing wrong with that, but rather than presenting himself as an "average Mr Public", he presented himself as a professional and intelligent man, educated at Cambridge. The statement doesn't (IMO) suppose any bias on the part of the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• "He presented himself as a Cambridge-educated family man..." -->"Many voters found Griffin's Cambridge background..." The first version, with the "presented" infers, not necessarily intentionally on the writer's part, that this a contrick, that he presented himself as something that he wasn't. Keristrasza (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• He is a politician, and all politicians present an image. Its a fact of life. Tony Blair presented himself as a youthful 'change' politician. Michael Howard as a hardline but sensible man. Margaret Thatcher as a tough middle-class woman. I could go on, but the fact remains that Nick Griffin was educated at Cambridge, he decided to use that education and family life to present a public image, something which voters found preferable to the old 'jack boots' style of his predecessor. However, although I'm happy with the sentence, I'd appreciate some input on this, as it isn't immediately obvious to me how to improve it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keristrasza (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

5. Stable:

• it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • While this has lately been the work of one diligent editor, there have been several other interested editors that have brought contradictory opinion to the article and its discussion page in the two weeks prior to this review. While it is fair to say that the article is not the subject of an edit war, it is still undergoing some change.

• That's to be expected, however such disagreements haven't descended into edit wars of late, in fact you can see from the article's history that I've made several edits to assuage criticism. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keristrasza (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
  • See below.
• (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • The colour images included are relevant, suitably captioned and correctly licensed. The image of Griffin at university is irrelevent, and I question whether the rationale ("To show that Nick Griffin was a student at Cambridge. It is important as his views do not lend to the common view of a university education") is valid.

• I do not agree that the matriculation photograph is irrelevant. In fact given his education, and the image he presents, I'd say it was 100% relevant. I agree however the rationale is badly worded and so I've changed that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Again, "image he presents". He is an alumni of Downing College, Cambridge, according to the article. Unless the article can verifiably show that he is not, then you are over-egging the pudding. There is no explanation in the body of the article asserting that he or his philosophies are unique within the British university system. It does come across to a neutral party as almost a sneer, I'm afraid. Keristrasza (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no intention of using this article as my political sounding board, so please try not to imply that when I say things like 'image he presents', I mean anything other than the image he presents in public life—because I do not, and as I have told other people, I don't appreciate comments like that (apologies if this wasn't your intent). I chose to take a poison chalice and improve this article for the sake of this encyclopaedia (look at the version before I started on it here). This is a unique historical image, and may well support Griffin by visibly demonstrating that he was resident at university. I presume that many people would be surprised at this. Its a cropped low resolution copy of the original, itself a poor quality scan of (presumably) a medium format photograph of much higher resolution - and its the only photograph of him I've found at a time when he wasn't in public life, or at an NF demonstration. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

7.Overall Pass/Fail

• Tightening up the references is easily remedied. Removing the picture of Griffin again a minor issue. The article's only substantial weakness is that it does tend in several areas to stray from NPOV, and it was obvious to this reviewer that it was written by someone who dislikes Griffin. Personal feelings of the editor towards the subject of the article, however, should be irrelevant, but only where this does not tend towards non-neutrality. In this case it does. Keristrasza (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can't stand the man or his policies. I have however tried to remain as neutral as possible, and have gone out of my way to balance criticism of the man. Thanks for the pointers though - a controversial subject like this needs a rigorous review. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article is in need of very little to justify GA standard. Lead section citations will save work later when somebody comes along tagging the statements asking for verification. The npov isn't ingrained throughout the article, only those few areas that I have raised. Certainly, an explanation of how Griffin's background may have been exploited for PR purposes wouldn't be out of place: a non-English or non-UK reader might have no idea who Griffin is or why his university background is apparently relevant in the way you imply. "Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." Keristrasza (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article has become very unstable lately, but more importantly it still tends towards POV, with editors focusing on "weaseling" in pov rather than writing NPOV. Griffin cannot be an easy subject to write about neutrally if one has strong feelings either way with regard to his politics, and I AGF on their part. Keristrasza (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion by Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• I do not agree with the comment made above that the lead needs to include inline citations. Everything in the lead is properly cited in the body of the article, which is all that's required.

• The prose reads rather repetitively, with many consecutive sentences beginning "He ... He ... He ...".
  • Its a compromise between 'Griffin' (which the article used to have about 50 of), and 'He'. It does seem to have swayed more toward 'He' though so I'll try to edit the prose to reduce the frequency of either. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "... he has denied the veracity of the Holocaust ...". "Veracity doesn't seem to me to be the right word here, as it implies that he denies the honesty of the Holocaust, which obviously isn't what's meant. What exactly is it that he's denying? That it took place at all? That it's scale has been exaggerated? Something else?
  • I think he did question the honesty of the holocaust, as evidenced by "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat." I don't think he doubts it happened, I just suspect (my POV) that he thinks it was exaggerated, and I also suspect (again my POV given his refusal to comment in detail on the matter) that he still believes as such. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If "he has denied the veracity" is based on that Griffin quote, then a more careful and less controversial statement would be "he has compared mainstream belief in the Holocaust to belief that the world is flat", or (interpreting just a little bit) "he has cast doubt on mainstream beliefs surrounding the Holocaust". (Oddly, although the first is closer to the objective facts, it's the second that seems more NPOV to me.) Unconventional (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• "... and has written several anti-Semitic articles, although since becoming leader of the BNP he has distanced himself from such claims." Writing an anti-semitic article isn't a claim.
  • The only other word I can think of right now is 'activities' however that sounds a bit prejudicial. Can you suggest another word? Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Try "...distanced himself from such opinions".Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • That's better although there's a tiny squeak in my head that says 'such' could be viewed as prejudicial. Its better though and I've changed to that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• • OK try replacing Such with these.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "He has also been invited to speak by several educational institutions." Just seems to be tagged on at the end. So what?
  • There's a decent section of the article devoted to this. I could add 'controversial' or variants of onto this sentence but again its dicey. IIRC the lead used to contain much more about this, writing about the Oxford Union, but it was removed at some point in the last month or so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I think something needs to be added, even if it's just what it is that he's been asked to talk about else it doesn't really seem to be relevant. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education

• "Griffin read all but one chapter of Mein Kampf when he was fourteen and "found all but one chapter extremely boring." That's not entirely clear to me. Is it a joke, that he found what all of what he read boring, or that he found all but one of the chapters he read to be boring?
  • I've reworded that, basically he read the book but in a recent interview admitted he found it boring. Its one statement to balance another. Parrot of Doom (talk)

• "... and also set up the National Front Student Organisation." Is that the same as the Young National Front Student organisation mentioned in the previous section?
  • I've never been able to find out as both wordings are used, but it does seem a coincidence and therefore I've hidden the second usage and reworded to fit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1970s–1990

• "The accident left him unable to work, and owing to other financial problems he subsequently declared bankruptcy (the accident occurred in France, where he later lost money in a failed business project)." This seems to be trying to cram too many ideas into one sentence. He "declared bankruptcy" because of "other financial problems", unrelated to the fact that he was unable to work? Can an individual "declare bankruptcy" anyway? I thought that one had to be "declared bankrupt"? What's the connection with this failed business project?

• if you read the sources for the loss of his eye you will see that he says that one of the reasons for his bankruptcy was a rise in interest rates, which is unlikely to have been affected by the loss of his eye thus unrelated to his inability to work. Yes you can declare yourself bankrupt http://www.becomingbankrupt.co.uk/why-should-i-declare-myself-bankrupt.html. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's very handy. Now all I have to do is to scrape together the £377. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "His parents suported him financially, and he also stewarded a public Holocaust denial meeting hosted by David Irving." The conjunction of these two ideas in the one sentence makes it seem as if he acted as a steward just for the money.
  • Reworded. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1993–1999

• "and following a September 1999 election he defeated Tyndall to become head of the BNP." Didn't he defeat Tyndall in the election, not following it?
  • Doh, this is why you shouldn't leave Malleus. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "One of Griffin's changes includes the party's strong emphasis ...". Not sure why that says "includes" rather than the more obvious "included". Didn't he make that change right after winning the election?
  • Doh, again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Policies included capital punishment, and corporal punishment for less serious crimes." Presumably this should say "Other new policies included the introduction of ..."? Less serious crimes than what?
  • Reworded and added material to make clear the capital crimes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "He presented himself as a Cambridge-educated family man, an image that many voters found more palatable than the extreme picture presented by Tyndall." I kind of agree with Keristrasza here, in that there's a slight suggestion in the choice of "presented himself" that it isn't really what he was, which of course isn't the case. I'd suggest something a little more neutral, such as: "Many voters found his Cambridge-educated family man background to be more palatable than the extreme picture presented by Tyndall". Readers can make up their own minds as to whether or not he deliberately cultivated that image to gain political favour.
  • That's kind of what I was looking for, although I'm pretty sure that he's used his education to his advantage of his image. Its nothing different than what any other politician does, and I don't want the reader to forget that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt you're right, but better to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

2004–2006

• "... Rodney Jameson QC told the jury of six speeches that both accused had made in the Reservoir Tavern in Keighley ...". That's not clear to me at all. They made six speeches together, six speeches each, six speeches between them?
  • Six speeches in total - reworded. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Public debates

• "Once made aware of this, some of those invited threatened to withdraw from the event ...". I presume the "this" refers to Abu Hamza's invitation, or perhaps that bot Abu Hamza and Griffin had been invited? "This" is always potentially ambiguous when used like that.
  • I think its likely that they would have withdrawn had either attended so I've removed the 'this'. I've had a lot of trouble finding information about this out, I still can't find a reliable source that states that both Hamza and Griffin withdrew. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "He was also invited by the Cambridge Forum to a debate on extremism in December the same year ...". By now I've forgotten what year we're talking about.
  • Reiterated. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Views

• "His comments on the Holocaust (which he once referred to as "the Holohoax"[73]) made as an editor of The Rune, demonstrate revisionism." Who says they demonstrate revisionism?
  • I don't think that's a particularly contentious statement, do you? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, it's an opinion rather than a fact. Whether it's an opinion I share is neither here nor there. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair point, but it is hard to see how a revision of history can be seen as anything else. Espcialy as Holocasut denile is listed as a form of revisionism. I woud ay include it, but link to the page on revisionism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It's already linked to revisionism. This isn't a point I'd stick over though, I've just given my opinion, I'm not insisting anything's necessarily changed. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "... in the August 2001 issue of Identity ...". What's Identity?
  • A BNP magazine. I'll add a note. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "When interviewed in August 2009 for RT ...". What's RT?
  • Its hyperlinked. Used to be called Russia Today, now called RT. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Family and personal life

• "He has recently begun writing an autobiography." "Recently" will obviously age, so probably better to say something like "began to write his autobiography in 2009", if he hasn't already finished and published it.
  • The source isn't clear on the status of the book, or when he started it - recently will be ok for another year or so I think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)