British National Party edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in the midst of major POV editing and very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article especially where POV and references are concerned.
Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No. You've listed it because you have repeatedly lost arguments in the talk page and are now seeking other ways to have your views supported. There is an ongoing "debate" in the talk page, but, since there has been no substantive editing to the article for months, how can you possibly say it is "in the midst major" (or any) "POV editing"?Emeraude (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please look at the Good article review of this article which recommends a peer review for this article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Have done. As I recall, it was you who nominated the article for "good article" review as well, for no reason I can discern other than your continued campaign to have your views prevail over the majority of serious contributors to the article and its talk page. You knew it was not capable of achieving good article status, so one can only wonder at your motives. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- This matter has been referred to an administrator for violations of no personal attacks and for assume good faith.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Another tactic that you frequently use. Where's the personal attack? As to "assume good faith", it is something you have been guilty of in the past. I have not said you are acting beyond the bounds of good faith. I am simply questioning your motives given your past history with theis article. Emeraude (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments I am archiving this per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy: Peer review is not resolving ongoing edit wars / content disputes - please use the talk page.
I looked at just the lead and saw several problems that need to be fixed (I did not read past the lead)
- the lead should be no more than four paragraphs long per WP:LEAD (now it is seven I think)
- refs come after punctuation
- several extraordinary claims needs refs (even in the lead I would think here), such as Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic;...
- Fix the citation needed tags
Sorry and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
LucyMarie seems not to differentiate between POV on the Talkpage and in the substantive article. There has been an incredible amount of POV and ad hominem attacks in Talk page - most of which has been directed against me. Registered users have largely kept within the parameters of normal debate, but most of the abuse and on occasion threats -including the prediction that I will be tried for treason when the BNP take power- have come from unregistered and anonymous users, although at least one of these appears to have the same IP number as User EBleisher. On one occasion this spilled over into a message being left on my User Talk page, which I resent. I hope now that this has been archived we can leave it behind and concentrate on the substantive article. Edits to this are restricted to registered users and this obviously disadvantages the pack of unregistered users who vociferously support the BNP. That they wish to remain anonymous and unregistered is their choice,although the content and style of their contributions on the Talk page would suggest they would have little to offer.
The POV criticisms of the article are rarely if ever specific. There seems to be little disputation of facts as such, but possibly the selection of those facts. I can tell you now that no NPOV treatment of the BNP is going to make them appear in the flattering light they would like.--Streona (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is poorly written and does though contain massive amounts of POV for example "cherry picking" three policies which are highly controversial and only portray the BNP in a negative light, is highly POV. A peer review was suggested after a failed GA review and POV and MOS were the basis for which it was requested.----Lucy-marie (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot understand why those more favourably disposed towards the BNP do not add to the list of policies and then an allegedly more balanced view could be seen. I agree with the BNP stance on whaling and supporting Greenpeace - though I doubt that Greenpeace do- and have added this in. However we cannot ignore the defining policies of the BNP. If they are unpalatable they need not have them - nobody is forcing them. If their councillors have achieved anything notable then add this. I have found various claims by them regarding footpaths and street furniture, but this is not notable enough to add. As to it being poorly written- and I wrote very little of it- can we be more precise?--Streona (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The article is currently being peer reviewed lets wait for that to conclude before debating it to death here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)