This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Currently building article and expanding sections. Aim to have complete by the end of this coming week. Understand that there's some bare urls etc. will address as moving through.Boredintheevening (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (as my fellow editors can see, there is a 'criticism' section at the end of this article. the article is not written in promotional language or phrasing. this article is written in a similar tone and style to similar articles about comparable groups related to the UK's referendum concerning exiting of the EU such as The 3 Million and Bollocks to Brexit. As I have made clear in this article's talk page, this article remains under construction. At this time, deletion is inappropriate and a rash application of Wiki standards. If my fellow editors would like to highlight portions of the article which they find objectionable, particularly regarding alleged promotional language, I would be more than happy to address these specific highlighted issues. Although I disagree with your reason for flagging this article for deletion, thank you for your commitment to enforcing Wiki's standards regarding notability. ) --Boredintheevening (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the article concerning deletion, I struggle to see how this article meets the criteria stated in G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc."Boredintheevening (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the lede is written no differently to other organisations. I dont understand why speedy deletion is necessary as it was only created today. Though it's citations need cleaning up and some other improvements are necessary, it is easily improved. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonjonjohny, thank you for this feedback. My personal interpretation is that the editor who flagged this for deletion may be being overly enthusiastic about deleting pages and is not entirely familiar with the rules surrounding (speedy/) deletion. Are there any improvements in particular that you had in mind? I'll sort out cleaning the citations this evening.Boredintheevening (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boredintheevening, I declined the speedy deletion, but you're probably fortunate that no one was patrolling G11 immediately, as your later corrections saved things. At the time it was tagged ([1]), the article was heavily promotional, including verbatim regurgitation of "aims and principles" type stuff. The simple presence of a "criticism" section at the bottom of an article does not render it non-promotional, and indeed criticism should not be segregated into a separate section; it should be worked in throughout the of the article at appropriate points. So, I didn't delete it as it was when I saw it, but had I seen the tagging immediately, I very well may have. SeraphimbladeTalk to me15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seraphimblade. That's fair and thanks for highlighting. As like a learning point, so is it just generally better to paraphrase organisations' "aims and principles" stuff rather than directly quoting them? I want to find a balance between not fiddling with someone else's wording of their beliefs so I'm not editorializing/inserting my reading, but also not presenting their views as implicitly endorsed. Will hunt around on other ideologically motivated groups and see if I can learn from some best practice.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, following the discussions on this Talk Page, I've been trying to integrate criticism into the article rather than having it as a separate section. Would appreciate feedback concerning the article's tone in this regard. I think at present it feels largely balanced, although would welcome suggestions for sources which either praise or criticize the organisation. Wary of diving too much into the spiraling and gargantuan debates concerning the UK's relationship with the EU, so I've tried to keep criticism directly related to the organisation rather than to the views it promotes. Any thoughts appreciated, and thank you to the users who have contributed so far to improving this page and steering things in the right direction.Boredintheevening (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think the article's 'history' section would benefit from a (brief) description of the organisation's role/presence/visibility in the 2019 British prorogation controversy. Making a note here to work on it when I have more time, but if any other editors are looking for a way to contribute I thought it would be a good idea to signpost that topic.Boredintheevening (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
