Talk:Richard Littlejohn

Removal of material from last year

Please see this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Littlejohn&action=historysubmit&diff=267435526&oldid=267416879 which removed material about the Michael Winner incident. It was removed as unsourced. I remember this incident and it did indeed happen. Could someone please find a suitable source to back it up and restore it to the article? 15:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.60.26 (talk)

Johann Hari

I feel it is a tad unfair having a Johann Hari section. He is a very outspoken and hardline left-wing journalist so his views on Richard Littlejohn are hardly neutral. I think this section should be removed for NPOV. If there was a section on Hari's entry with Littlejohn slagging him off there would be outrage. I feel this unbalanced section should be deleted Christian1985 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What specifically are the issues with this section? Describing someone as "hardline left-wing" without explaining what you mean isn't terribly clear. As for the article on Hari, there's an entire section called Public disagreements which lists several public arguments with people from all over the political spectrum, from Mark Steyn (on the right) to George Galloway (on the left).Autarch (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You very much for your comment, if there is such a section on the Johann Hari article then that's fair enough I withdraw my suggestion to remove this section. However there is a group of IP users trying to add edits to the section referenced from 'AngryMob' which is clearly just a very biased left-wing blog. I have tried to explain that blogs are not reliable sources and they are not taking any notice. Anyway thank you for your advice Christian1985 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

Is there really any good reason for it to be in the lead section? Unlike the other descriptors, which are relatively neutral and shows his influence (bad or good), this is just there to make the point "Littlejohn is a shithead because fascists like him". Even if he is a shithead, it isn't for this reason. It just shows an anti-Littlejohn, anti-Mail, or leftist bias, something we constantly get accused of and should try not to appear. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

At best, the mention is trivia, at worst guilt by association - it shouldn't be in the lead, if in the article at all.Autarch (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention now removed.Autarch (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it should not be in the article at all. It's basically a reductio ad Hitlerum. ralian (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was inappropriate for it to be in the lead, so I have moved it further down. It is highly notable and has attracted much comment in reputable sources, meeting NOTE criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.23.1 (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian and reliable sources

WP:RS says Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources - there was an objection to a book review from the Guardian on the grounds that it was a secondary source - perhaps the editor meant primary source?Autarch (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually reading the RS guidelines you are correct I meant to say primary source. I just feel a book review is insufficient to be used as a reliable reference. It is just somebody's opinion on a book, this is not reliable account on the person in the article. I feel this is just an attempt to force negative material about Mr Littlejohn into the article. Christian1985 (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, NOTE criteria are very clear. It is well-sourced to a reptuable national newspaper, making it an established fact. You cannot remove facts just because they are not congenial to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.23.1 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Record??

Is there any reason for the 'Criminal Record' section to be in the article? I feel this is just an attempt by a Littlejohn critic to try and force negative material into the article. I feel there is no need for it to be there as it is just pointless trivial information. I suggest it should be removed. Christian1985 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's negative, but it's sourced, and to a reliable source, and we certainly don't exclude information about crimes in someone's past. However, while I don't agree with your conclusions regarding the reason it's in the article, I think it's probably a rather minor thing, and could be removed. However, we should wait to see if there's anyone else to offer any input here for, say, a week, to gather a consensus. There's no rush. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. It has an impeccable source, and is a subject of controversy meeting the NOTE criteria. It is not trivial that he has convictions for acts of violence; not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.23.1 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 'criminal record' seems to derive from the 'Pass Notes' column of The Guardian (4 March 1994) which stated "Any scandals? Not really, but for what it's worth he was fined £20 aged 17 for brawling outside a Peterborough nightclub." I think this is such a small issue and so long ago that it really ought not to be mentioned. A fine of £20 in the early 1970s was hardly the punishment for a major criminal offence. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Littlejohn referred to it in his 1993 appearance on Have I Got News For You readily available online. Specifically the conviction was for Affray and the fine was for £40. For comparative purposes, the amount was the average weekly take home pay around 1974, though I am not sure if it was median or mean. A link probably infringes copyright, but for any interested party the relevant passage is from about 2'30" in the third part. Philip Cross (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is +outrageous+ that one biased editor keeps removing impeccably sourced information about Littlejohn's criminal record and praise from Nick Griffin

This must stop. It's totally unacceptable. They meet the NOTE and NPOV criteria very clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.24.133 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of these issues have been discussed several times and there was a consensus to remove these edits. They are simply pointless negative information and should stay removed. Please stop restoring them and do not hurl abuse at editors for removing them. What does it matter if Littlejohn has a criminal record for something petty decades ago. There are lots of famous people with criminal records for petty things, it has no place on an encyclopedic article. Christian1985 (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody reading the material above can see there is absolutely no consenus to remove this material. three people comment: one is against, one is equivocal, and one is for. By no definition is tyhat a consensus. It is contrary to the wikipedia rules to keep removing well-sourced material in these circumstances.

Convictions for acts of violence are not "trivial." It was reported in an impeccable source, the Observer, and should remain. Being praised by a far right leader is not "trivial. Again the sources are impeccable: the Independent newspaper. You must stop this.David r from meth productions (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We opened a discussion on it and noone replied and now people are moaning because trivial material is removed. I feel it is trivial information. You call me biased but you are clearly biased to the left. This is simply an attempt to try and smear Littlejohn by forcing negative information in his article. I feel it is unfair how all the 'sources' are left-wing newspapers, I feel they are biased sources. Notice there is no negative information in the left-wing articles like Johann Hari, The Guardian or The Independent. I may refer this to dispute resolution as there is a conflict of interest. We need a third party view I feel. Christian1985 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy for there to be a third party come in at this point and I'm happy to have an ongoing dialogue with you while we wait for their judgement. Far from being 'biased to the left', I am a Conservative voter. Wikipedia doesn't work by dismissing people with their own perspectives but by requiring all material and entries to be factually sourced and neutrally phrased. These claims are very well-sourced to national newspapers, not denied by the subject, and far from trivial. If a prominent public figure who advocates being 'tough on crime'; himself has a criminal record for violence, that's not trivial. If a prominent public figure is praised by the leader of the BNP, that's not trivial. They are described neutrally in this entry.

I am however keen to achieve compromise with you. In the interests of balance, I think it would be useful for you to find some quotes where Littlejohn criticises the BNP and rejects their leader's praise, I know there are some. Please insert them clearly and prominently into the article. I believe that would achieve the effect you seek, without removing highly valid and pertinent information so other wikipedians can't see it. I hope you're happy with this compromise and I'm happy to discuss it with you further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.28.111 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment, that sounds very reasonable and I completely agree. I will see about gaining a third party comment. Christian1985 (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Criminal record should stay in. Nick Griffin comment shouldn't be. Sure, they're both fascist demagogues, but the inclusion of the Nick Griffin comment is, as I've said above, an example of guilt by association. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre, what if it is balanced by quotes from Littlejohn condemning the BNP? I do think it's a salient fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.28.94 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article full stop. It is simply a deliberate attempt to force negative information into the article to smear Mr Littlejohn. Unlike most on here, I actually read the Mail and Littlejohn regularly condemns the BNP as does the paper. The article should be left as is. Christian1985 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the newspaper doesn't go far enough to condemn the BNP, as they still share a lot of talking points on the overstated problems of immigration and "elf and safety" and "yuman rites". It's like the person who seems forced to say "I'm not being racist, but...", you know? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While the Nick Griffin source seems to be okay, there is no reference to the criminal conviction in the 70's (I just checked the review in the references), so I'll be removing it until someone can come up with a verifiable source. Skeptic sid (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Skeptic sid, the 'reference' does not support the claim made by the creator of that section. The 'reference' is also a book review from a left-wing newspaper hardly a solid source. I have removed this section from the article. If it is restored without a proper reference it will be reverted. Christian1985 (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Observer newspaper is a very reliable source and easily meets BLP and NOTE criteria. I'm putting it back and will appeal for adjudication. You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'bias': if a reliable newspaper makes a factual statement that somebody has a criminal record, then the 'bias' of the person speaking is irrelevant: it's either a fact or it isn't, and the Observer have reported it as a fact, and many years later have not published a correction, as they frequently do and would have had to if it was incorrect. Bias affects the expression of opinion, which quite properly is not included in this entry. If we were inserting statements like, say, 'Richard Littlejohn is a fool', that would be bias and would quite rightly be removed by me and other editors. I'm happy to discuss this but the Observer is unquestionbly a reliable source for a serious factual charge like this, and this is unquestionably a matter that meets NOTE criteria. David r from meth productions (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

But the source is a book review and it does not support the claim made in the article. I will be removing it. A book review from a left-wing newspaper is hardly a solid source. As Skeptic Sid says above the 'reference' does not support the claim. Christian1985 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To Phillip Cross; the 'source' is a biased book review on a left-wing newspaper website. It is NOT a reliable source and even then the source does not support the claim made in the article. Please stop reposting it. A book review is not an article and not an acceptable source. It is just opinion. Christian1985 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What you think of The Observer is not a basis for excluding an article cited from that source, I was following Wikipedia practice in what constitutes a 'reliable source'. The exact quote (rendered in parenthesis) is as follows: "Let's pray that Richard's youthful conviction for brawling outside a Peterborough nightclub doesn't constrain what might otherwise be an understandable enthusiasm for the return of the birch." Easily missed. Review articles do not generally contain false information, whereas if this Guardian reference to Littlejohn's conviction for violence had been used it would be an unsatisfactory reference. That is because it is a deliberate mix of fact and invention. Philip Cross (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not excluding it because it is from a left-wing paper. But a book review does not meet reliable source guidelines. It is simply someone's opinion and therefore is not a reliable source. I have referred this matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The 'source' does not support what is stated in the article. It is not a fact, it is written in an opinionated review. Christian1985 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I am not excluding it because it is from a left-wing paper." Elsewhere you write: "The 'source' they are trying to use is a book review from a biased left-wing newspaper which is known to have a dislike of Mr Littlejohn." Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Observer like all left-wing papers is well known to dislike Littlejohn and that review makes no secret of it. But I stand by what I say I am objecting to the edit because a book review is not a reliable source and the claim made in the article is not verifiable Christian1985 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor wants to include a report of a criminal conviction of a BLP, it needs to be more reliably sourced than a book review's offhand comment ("Let's pray that Richard's youthful conviction for brawling outside a Peterborough nightclub doesn't constrain what might otherwise be an understandable enthusiasm for the return of the birch."). Moreover, by giving the alleged conviction its own section of one sentence, it gives it far too much prominence. If in fact Littlejohn was convicted of something when a juvenile, you need to find a reliable source that reports on the conviction directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A book review is subject to the same fact-checking as any other part of a newspaper. If something is stated as a fact in a book review in a national; newspaper then it clearly clears BLP criteria. Please go and read the BLP criteria. There is no exclusion for book reviews.

No consensus on this issue has been reached permitting you to add this back just because you say so. I've reverted the change. Please keep the article the way it is unless there is a clear consensus that the information can be added. Also, note there is a discussion of this issue on the BLP notice board here. Feel free to express your views there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23, there is no consensus it should be in the article. It was referred to the BLP noticeboard and it was agreed the section does not belong in the article. The 'source' doesn't even support the claims being made in the article anyway. As mentioned above, it is an 'offhand' comment in a book review, that is not reliable evidence. Please just leave it out of the article. Christian1985 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Observer source is too vague to be used here. It doesn't even specify what offence it claims he was convicted of ("brawling" is not an offence, assuming it's not referring to brawling (legal definition)) or describe in any detail what happened. We can't ensure accurate and neutral coverage of the incident based on this source. January ^(talk) 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly, there is no mention at all of a 'criminal record', it doesn't mention the 70s, about the true thing is Peterborough. But as another contributor said above, it is simply an offhand comment in a book review, hardly an encyclopedic source.

I move that the section is left out of the article. Christian1985 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to compromise - although I don't want to - on the criminal record. But the Nick Griffin section is impeccably sourced and highly relevant. If you're unhappy with it I suggest a reasonable compromise is to find quotes where Littlejohn condemns the BNP and rejects the endorsement of their leader to balance it. But this information absolutely should not be removed.David r from meth productions (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That has a similar problem. It does not support exactly what the article says; "Littlejohn was described by Nick Griffin" because it does not quote Griffin. From what I can see it has three words "Griffin's favourite columnist" mentioned in passing to support another argument, this does not support the relevance of the addition. January ^(talk) 13:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't keep putting in a comment that seems to dictate consensus when no consensus has been reached and then changing the article essentially based on your own comment. I've reverted your change until consensus has been reached about whether the comment by Griffini belongs anywhere and, if it does, where. My view is it's a trivial comment. Whether a notable person (Griffin) likes Littlejohn's column generally is of virtually no value. If Griffin had some relevant comments about something that Littlejohn said that was notable, it might be different. Even if it were worth mentioning (and I think it does not belong in the article at all), it doesn't merit the prominence of its own section. Please don't add it back in until consensus has been reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Bbb23, I feel the Griffin bit has no place in the article. I have read the source and as with the criminal record problem, the source doesn't support the claim being made. It is an opinionated profile and a trivial comment by a left-wing article, it is not a solid verifiable statement of fact. It is like me saying Piers Morgan is Ed Miliband's favourite journalist because he wrote for the Daily Mirror. It is a trival offhand comment. I back Bbb23 in that the section should be removed. I will revert it. Christian1985 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't favour inclusion either although my reasoning is different; the problem is not the suggested bias of the sources, it's the lack of detail - it's not clear whether Griffin actually said this or whether this is the opinion of the writer of the article. In any case it makes no sense to be creating an entire sub-section based on three words in the Independent. If this was significant there would be reliable sources reporting it in more detail. January ^(talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the source doesn't back up the claims being made. I believe it is simply the opinion of the writer of the article. I agree there is no need for a whole section on such a trivial matter which doesn't even have a solid verifiable source. Christian1985 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The source does not actually say 'Richard Littlejohn is Nick Griffin's favourite journalist'. It simplys say 'Richard Littlejohn-Griffin's favourite journalist' it is simply an offhand trivial comment where someone is making a biased assumption about Mr Griffin, it is not a statement of fact. Please stop putting it back in the article, a consensus has been reached that it does not belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a news story from the Independent, June 27th, 2001:

"At least the British National Party knows whom it likes. And it likes Richard Littlejohn. Two weeks ago, David Aaronovitch wrote in The Independent that "Littlejohn may not be a racist, but his novel (To Hell in a Handcart) could be a recruiting pamphlet for the extreme right." How prescient. Next week's edition of New Nation, a weekly newspaper for the black community, contains an interview with Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP. And who is Nick's favourite writer? Richard Littlejohn, of course. "I don't think Richard would want to comment on that at all," a nice lady at The Sun told Pandora. Perhaps he'd rather let the novel speak for itself."

Sadly it's not online that I can find, but it can be located in the print edition and on Lexis-Nexis. Wikipedia rules are very clear: it is legitimate to refer to a print source. It is a reputable newspaper saying that Griffin named Littlejohn as his favourite journalist in an interview. That absolutely belongs in this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David r from meth productions (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 December 2010 UTC

Even assuming it says that, it's trivial and doesn't belong in the article. Just because something is in a reliable source and is factually supportable doesn't automatically make it noteworthy. You've never explained why it "absolutely belongs in this entry."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Because of the recent attempts by User:EelJuice to keep this section in the article and to avoid an edit war, I've asked for help from the BLP Noticeboard here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair enough request. It's relevant because Littlejohn is very widely accused of being a far right winger, while Littlejohn denies it all the time. The fact he is praised by the most notorious far right-winger in Britain does cast light on that, in a way that's highly significant. David r from meth productions (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevance to a WP article is determined by the significance to his life/career, not what it might say about him or his ideology. Using Griffin's opinion of Littlejohn to support the idea that he is a far-right winger would be WP:SYNTH. January ^(talk) 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm not saying we should comment on it. I do think it's a salient fact. I think a good compromise would be a section "Littlejohn and the BNP', in which we point out both that Griffin praises him, and that Littlejohn describes them as "knuckle-dragging scum." That's very fair and raises the issue in a neutral way. I'm keen to hear people's opinions.David r from meth productions (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't see the relevance, and even that section heading is a little close to synth. Have many other reliable sources discussed Littlejohn's views or positions on the BNP? If not, you could only do this by bundling quotes by him and one quote about him into a section. Presenting them as if they are somehow related or part of a broader debate is WP:SYNTH. January ^(talk) 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

An alternative source for the Littlejohn Affray comment would be Have I Got News For You, produced by Hat Trick Productions, broadcast 30th April 1993 on BBC2. Littlejohn is a guest on the programme and says that he had been convicted of affray 21 years earlier. The clip is on YouTube under the title HIGNFY S05E03 - Part 3 - go to about 2 mins 45. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now we have an an indisputable source for the criminal record claim - Littlejohn himself - I'm putting it back in.David r from meth productions (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't use YouTube as a source, though. You need to cite it to the TV broadcast or the material will likely be taken out. --FormerIP (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is included, it should be in the personal life section, it is not controversy or criticism. January ^(talk) 16:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way I just noticed my earlier removal was marked as a minor edit, this was accidental - my apologies. January ^(talk) 19:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kind of you to apologize, but really not necessary considering your clear edit summary and the fact that rollbacks are marked as "minor". I, for one, appreciate your hard work maintaining the integrity of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And let's make sure it's sourced to a reliable source that gives enough details to make it credible, not to YouTube. Also, let's try to edit in conformance with Wikipedia standards (not web citations right in the body).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for that silly and trivial 'criminal record' section to be in the article. I know I will be controversial saying this but I cannot help certain users are trying to insert it purely for ideological reasons as they dislike Littlejohn. But whatever the reason we have a consensus between several editors, it is NOT verifiable and does not belong in the article. Can we please just leave it out? Christian1985 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's definitely verifiable. I agree that it shouldn't have a section all to itself but, since Littlejohn expresses strong views on violent crime, it would be appropriate to keep it somewhere within the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that when someone finds a reliable, verifiable source, they come back here and give it to us. Assuming we agree the source is citable, we would then be looking at something concrete to decide whether (a) it belongs in the article and (b) if so, where.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject's own statement on Have I Got News for You is reliable and verifiable. The only restriction is that we should not include a YouTube link. {{cite episode}} can be used for citing TV shows. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable with a third-party source that explains precisely what he was arrested for, when, what he was convicted of, and the punishment. I haven't look at the YT clip, but I doubt those details are there, plus it becomes very difficult for others to rely on it later. We're talking about a criminal conviction, not something that should be dealt with lightly in a BLP article. The "cite episode" template is frequently used for plot points in television episodes. Using it for something like this is not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in the clip he is quite open and he does give the details. Being "uncomfortable" is all well and good, but it isn't a policy-based objection. Plus we already have a third-party source. It was previously objected to as left-wing, but I think this objection loses any weight it might have had since we have very clear evidence that it is truthful. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uncomfortable is a figure of speech, it just softens my comment, as opposed to THIS VIOLATES POLICY. The third-party source we had before was awful. Without a better one, it's a BLP violation (you like that better?).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There's no policy barring either source. Third-party sources are not required, there's no actual policy against sources being "awful" and there's no possibility of a BLP violation unless there's a question as to whether the material is verifiable and accurate, which there isn't. Theoretical reasons why the sources might be doubted don't cut much ice, IMO, once they are established as RS and the possibility of them being inaccurate is excluded. --FormerIP (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Britain's leading newspapers describing in a book review how a person has a criminal record is not an "awful" source, it's a very reliable one. Book reviews are subjected to the same fact-checking process as the rest of a newspaper. Coupled with the subject himself admitting on camera for anyone to see that he has a criminal record, it's hard to see how this could be more verifiable. Anyone who wants to can literally watch Littlejohn admit to it, live on camera. I'm happy for this to be cited to the date of broadcast rather than to the YouTube clip if editors prefer. But this easily passes BLP criteria and absolutely deserves inclusion. I'm open to debate about whether it should have a seperate section; In the interests of consensus I'd reluctantly compromise on it being included in 'personal life.;David r from meth productions (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the Observer is not that it isn't a reliable source, but the sketchy details it gave, such as not specifying the exact offence, that's what made it "awful". The issue here is not whether this really happened or not (I'm sure no-one seriously suspected the Observer of making the whole thing up). The source being reliable is far from being the only requirement of BLP, neutrality is also crucial and if a source is reporting facts in a biased way it is almost impossible for a WP article based on it not to do the same.
The way this is being worded is very problematic, Ian Hislop's wording on HIGNFY "crimes of violence", an obvious exaggeration for comic effect, is being repeated here and that is completely unacceptable, as is giving it it's own heading, thereby making it as prominent as possible. "BLPs must be written conservatively ... it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". January ^(talk) 07:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

January is right David r, the book review doesn't say 'he has a criminal record' it says 'a youthful conviction' that is hardly a strong facutal statement. I stand by my view it does not belong in the article. A Youtube clip from a comedy panel show is hardly a solid factual reference. We have a consensus that it doesn't belong in the article. Can we please stop this battle and leave it out once and for all. It is a pointless trivial fact that can't even be properly verified. It has no place in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We certainly don't have a consensus. We have three people who think it shouldn't be in the entry and two people who do. We have video evidence of the subject himself admitting to the crime. We have it then being discussed in a national newspaper (and use a dictionary, Christian: a conviction gives you a criminal record). I'm very happy to discuss the best way to word this, and have offered the substantial compromise of it not being its own stand alone section. I now urge the few of you who disagree to meet me in the middle and start offering compromises so we can make this entry as comprehensive as possible.David r from meth productions (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at this point who wants what (some of it is clear, but some of it isn't). This thread is very bloated, so I'll start a new section so people can vote (with explanations if they wish). Bear in mind that regardless of the outcome, if an editor thinks the end result is a BLP violation s/he can always escalate the issue somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

David r, don't tell me to 'use a dictionary', I know what a conviction is. But your 'source' does NOT state 'criminal record' you are just making assumptions from a silly comment in a biased book review. It also doesn't anywhere say 'the 70s', about the only correct bit is Peterborough. Christian1985 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy: Jody McIntyre

Littlejohn made some controversial remarks about the Ben Brown/Jody McIntyre interview recently. The Press Complaints Commission received loads of complaints about it but nothing's happened yet. Should it be included? Or should we wait until (and if) something more significant comes of it? Wikiditm (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've put it in.

Warning

There's a campaign on twitter to try to edit this page re BNP almost-instinct 14:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well whoever it is, will not succeed because the page is blocked to IP users and it is being closely monitored.

Straw poll on conviction

Based on the prior section, this is an attempt to conduct a straw poll regarding Littlejohn's conviction. Please vote one of the following choices:

• (1) No. This means you don't want the conviction in the article at all.
• (2) Yes. This means you want the conviction in the article based on sources already proposed.
• (3) Wait. This means you might want (or not object to) the conviction in the article based on the availability of new sources. You want to wait to see what those sources are before deciding. It has already been agreed that the conviction would not go in a standalone section. So, another issue would be where it would go, how it would be worded, etc.

I'll vote first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wait. I'm not convinced the conviction belongs in the article at all, but I'd like to see if we can get a reliable source with sufficient details first before deciding whether it can be placed somewhere in the article as a piece of information about Littlejohn.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• No. I stand by views, it is pointless trivial information with no verifiable source. The 'source' does not even support the claims being made. It is just a book review and a comedy panel show clip which could be a copyright violation. I move it should be left out of the article.--Christian1985 (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. We have Littlejohn admitting it on camera, and we have it confirmed in a British national newspaper. It is not in any way a "copyright violation" to cite a date and time in which Littlejohn admitted on national television to having a criminal record. It is highly salient that a prominent public figure who talks often about law and order, and it snoted for being very critical of the police force, has a criminal record himself. I've already offered a substantial compromise by reluctantly agreeing that this could be included into an already existing section rather than having one of its own. i did this in the spirit of encouraging others to make compromises of their own. I encourage them to now do this.David r from meth productions (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, of which WP:WEIGHT is part, is a core policy. Ensuring compliance should not be seen as a compromise. January ^(talk) 20:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes: David has a point. I'm not aware that Littlejohn had admitted it, but even so: the Guardian source is reliable. For one thing, the Guardian is of a relatively high journalistic standard that even op-eds may, with care, be cited for statements of unequivocal fact. This is strengthened by the fact that Littlejohn neither pursued a libel action he would've certainly won or even complained to the PCC, two things he would probably do. However, there are issues with weighting, but it probably is relevant to the an article about a person with such opinions on law and order. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes: No reason to exclude it. Philip Cross (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• NeutralWait. My interest here is preventing a BLP violation, which the previous version is, it is a serious misrepresentation (the misleading use of the plural and the vague "acts of violence" which could easily mean a much more serious offence than affray). It can never go back into the article like that, and it couldn't have gone in based on the sketchy Observer source. It was only when other sources came into the picture that the possibility of creating a BLP-compliant version opened up. If a BLP-compliant version can be written, that will eliminate the reasons for my objections (which have all been over the problems with the Observer source and the wording). Of course great care must be taken with the wording and sourcing, but this should be a given with negative statements in a BLP. At this point I am not endorsing a particular wording or source. January ^(talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question. Why wouldn't this be a wait?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This will probably seem a bit picky, but you described "wait" as "you might want the conviction in the article based on the availability of new sources"; I wouldn't use the word "want". I don't agree that it's especially important, so if the decision is no I'm fine with that. January ^(talk) 20:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Picky is my middle name. I changed the wording of Wait slightly (hopefully, that won't bother anyone). With that change, would you classify your vote as Wait?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Amended. January ^(talk) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think January's point is very fair: we have to get the wording absolutely right, and 'acts' plural seems to have been inaccurate. I';m very happy to try to formulate consensus on a form of words in this discussion. To respond to part of Sceptre's argument - Littlejohn admitted it on Have I Got News For You, produced by Hat Trick Productions, broadcast 30th April 1993 on BBC2. It can be watched on YouTube (see Part 3). While of course we shouldn't link to YouTube, we have the broadcast date, and Littlejohn admits in unequivocally, as the video shows. To answer Bbb23's point: I believe it shouldn't be a wait because we have unequivocal evidence. We have Littlejohn on video on BBC1 admitting it, and we have it being confirmed in one of Britain's leading newspapers. I don't see what we'd be waiting for: these are, as several editors above note, highly reliable sources. Since we have three yeses vs. one no and one wait, shall we begin trying to formulate a form of words that would be acceptable to a clear majority? And happy Christmas everyone!David r from meth productions (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The current vote does not establish a consensus. We have three yeses, one no, and two waits, for a total of six votes. That means that the yeses constitute 50%, the votes against doing anything now also constitute 50%, which means no majority, let alone consensus. And Merry Christmans from the colonies.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

But david r, it has NOT been 'confirmed' in a leading newspaper. It is a flippant comment in a biased BOOK REVIEW (not an article) written by an author who clearly doesn't like Littlejohn. There is no need for it to be in the article, I stand by my view, it should be excluded. Christian1985 (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

But even so, if this was untrue, Littlejohn could sue for libel and win, given that libel laws in the UK are such that you can win a libel action even if someone says something unflattering but true about you. The fact Littlejohn did not do this, or even complain to the PCC, gives credence to the fact it is true even without the admission on HIGNFY. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We can't assume from the lack of a lawsuit that something is true. There could be any number of reasons why Littlejon didn't sue. And even if the reason he didn't sue is because it's true, that, in and of itself, doesn't qualify as a "source". We can't source to silence as an admission.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This disagreement is getting a bit surreal. Littlejohn admits to committing the crime on one of the most watched TV shows in Britain. Everyone can see the video. You can watch it, now. So can everybody else. We have the broadcast date. Are you seriously suggesting Richard Littlejohn will sue himself for libel? It's hard to see how to could be more clearly established as a fact than the man himself admitting it on BBC1 for all to see. David r from meth productions (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. It's relevant to the article and we have multiple reliable sources to back it up. What is the "wait" option here supposed to mean? It seems just to mean "I want to make a special case". The claim that British libel law allows people to sue over true statements is just plain false and unworthy (read the link to Simon Singh and you will see that the libel case against him was unsuccessful). The sources we have prove, according to any standard you like, that the statement is true because one of them comes from the mouth of the subject on national TV. That's more than enough to show that we have no legitimate BLP concern. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Littlejohn has a lot to say about violent crime, so his own conviction is highly relevant, and if video footage of him telling us about it isn't sufficient evidence I can't imagine what might be. ciphergoth (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• No, as per User:Christian1985.--Britannicus (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As per what? Can't you try to engage with the arguments put by your fellow editors? FormerIP says: "The sources we have prove, according to any standard you like, that the statement is true because one of them comes from the mouth of the subject on national TV. That's more than enough to show that we have no legitimate BLP concern."David r from meth productions (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

David r, this is what I keep trying to tell you. The Observer book review doesn't prove anything and certainly doesn't support the claims made in the 'criminal record' passage. It is pointless trivial information that doesn't belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

David, I oppose the inclusion because it is not important enough to warrant entry into Littlejohn's article. I thought that would have been extremely obvious. Certainly if it was important then I am sure there would be abundant sources for such a claim. As it is, the sources put forward—a book review and an entertainment television programme—are to me quite flimsy.--Britannicus (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems pretty unanswerable. What's your response, other editors?David r from meth productions (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your response? Can we all agree on the statement above, which seems pretty straightforward?David r from meth productions (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty borderline. The details in the book review are so vague as to be useless for sourcing. HIGNFY appearance is a lot stronger, although it was only a brief mention and Littlejohn has made a lot of media appearances. As usual, if you find something difficult to source it suggests a lack of notability. However, it's a compelling argument that he has made law and order a prominent feature of many articles, and so this is relevant background. I don't have a strong opinion on if it should be included, but if it is, I would prefer to see something like: "When appearing on HIGNFY, Littlejohn admitted he had been fined £40 for affray..." (the phrasing could be improved). This makes the context explicitly clear. Trebor (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise - being pretty detailed about precisely what happened, using the wording he admitted to.David r from meth productions (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Although I'm not that concerned whether or not the point is featured in the article, it should be accepted that The Observer is a reputable source which, together with the author, is legally responsible for what it publishes. There appears to be a suggestion that, because a fact is not in a straight 'news' article at the front of the paper, it is somehow less valid. It isn't. Reviews, diary pieces, editorials, op-ed columns, photo galleries etc. are perfectly valid. In the absence of a correction or a writ to the paper, it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.156.37 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So since there is a majority for inclusion, can we build a compromise around using the wording Littlejohn himsewlf admitted to on television concerning his criminal record? If nobody responds for next three days I'll out it back in on that basisDavid r from meth productions (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just glanced at this discussion page. There is a clear consensus on this poll: 6 yes, 2 wait, 2 no. But the information in question is still not in the article. Can anyone explain why? If not, I'll add it in myself. EJBH (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It was agreed that the 'source' was unreliable and doesn't support the 'conviction' claims being made. The straw poll is now irrelevant. The 'conviction' doesn't belong in the article. The supposed 'source' was a silly offhand comment in a book review hardly solid evidence. Please leave it out, thank you Christian1985 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me where that happened? I can't find the discussion where anything like that is agreed. Thanks EJBH (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one part of the discussion from above; If an editor wants to include a report of a criminal conviction of a BLP, it needs to be more reliably sourced than a book review's offhand comment ("Let's pray that Richard's youthful conviction for brawling outside a Peterborough nightclub doesn't constrain what might otherwise be an understandable enthusiasm for the return of the birch."). Moreover, by giving the alleged conviction its own section of one sentence, it gives it far too much prominence. If in fact Littlejohn was convicted of something when a juvenile, you need to find a reliable source that reports on the conviction directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Observer book review was completely ruled out as a reliable source because it doesn't support the claims and a book review is hardly the same as an article in terms of editorial rigour. The only other source that could be provided was a clip from comedy panel show Have I Got News For You. To make such a bold claim about Mr Littlejohn we need something stronger as a source. The 'conviction/criminal record' section was rejected because of a lack of reliable sources. Christian1985 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-published source?

The article has citations to http://www.johannhari.com/. I can't seem to open the source so I can't determine whether these are reproductions of third-party published articles or self-published material. If it is self-published, this is not acceptable per WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." If this material is published by third-parties, it is still preferable to link directly to the publication. January ^(talk) 09:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Having now accessed the source - the links in the article didn't work but here's the main source - I'm satisfied that it is self-published so I've removed it. This material should not be reinstated without third-party published sources. January ^(talk) 12:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Hari website is clearly a blog controlled by Hari. Even the separate section on Hari (still in the article) troubles me. It's true that the source for the first part of that section is the the Independent, which, even though Hari is writing "commentary", should exercise some editorial control over what he writes, but Hari's style is so aggressive, almost maniacal, that it makes one wonder about the factual accuracy of his accusations. As for the last sentence in the Hari section, I'm going to remove it. The source for it has been marked as a dead link since September, and I've been unable to find a reliable source to put in its stead.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My selective removal certainly wasn't an endorsement of what I left behind, it was purely because I was basing my removal on WP:BLPSPS so I only removed material in violation of this policy. Using commentary in general as a source, such as Ben Summerskill's comment from the same book review we were discussing as a source for the conviction in Attitude toward homosexuality is problematic even when third-party published (I've already removed an unsourced claim that Brian Paddick said the same thing.) January ^(talk) 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Every article on Hari's site is from the Independent, New Statesman, New York Times or other publication he writes for. His website contains almost no original material. It may be your POV that Hari's style is "almost maniacal" but in fact he is one of Britain's most award-winning journalists: the Orwell Prize, Commentator of the Year, Martha Gellhorn Prize, Journalist of the Year, etc etc. He is beyond dispute a reliable source, especially when published in a national newspaper.David r from meth productions (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case they should be cited to the publication he wrote them for, not his website. January ^(talk) 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

David, "maniacal" was my word, and it certainly is just my opinion. However, Hari's style can be as maniacal as he wishes, but if he does so in an edited reliable third-party source, then Wikipedia assumes the facts he asserts have been verified, whereas when he does so on his website, that kind of verification is not present. That's at least part of the rationale behind the Wikipedia policy. As for your assertion that every article on Hari's site is from a third-party publication, I don't buy it. Looking right now at the current article on Littlejohn's homepage, I am hard-pressed to believe that any newspaper would allow him to assist Bradley Manning's fundraising efforts. In any event, as January said, if you want to cite to an article from Hari's website that you believe originally appeared on a third-party publication, then cite the publication.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to show all these articles appeared in the Independent or elsewhere. The Bradley Manning article, to name just one appeared in the Independent on Xmas Eve: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-underappreciated-heroes-of-2010-2168227.html I'll go through and reinsert the Hari section with the quotes from the Independent and other third part sources. I also think it's important to have Littlejohn's response to these charges.David r from meth productions (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you can find similar columns in the Independent to those he posts on his own website. In that way, if one of his columns is citable (and I don't necessarily believe that just because it's in the Independent, it's automatically citable), we can cite to the paper rather than his own site. In this particular instance, although I stopped comparing after Manning, you will note that the Independent column did not have the fundraising appeal that was imbedded in the article on his website.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: it's possible that some of the information is usable and worth including. If he has written articles for published newspapers or magazines, and these articles are considered notable, the cites should go directly to the publication not to his website (the articles don't need to be online to be cited). The last sentence, however, is making a (reasonably negative) allegation about Littlejohn's reponse to Hari. This categorically cannot be sourced to Hari's website under any circumstances - Hari's website is not a reliable source, and BLPs need impeccable sourcing of any negative material. Trebor (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of sources

I've added a refimprove section template to the Journalism section. There are almost no sources for the entire section, and many of the assertions are significant. Some examples:

• It says he won the award Columnist of the Year.
• It says he was the highest-paid columnist and gives his salary.
• There are quotes from people.
• There is extensive discussion about his own show on Sky News, including saying it was not a success and a quote from Littlejohn.
• It says a program was "axed".

Unless sources can be found for these kinds of assertions, they must be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of those details are in the Observer article in the external links so this just needs converting to an in-line citation. January ^(talk) 18:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, are you going to make the changes or shall I? I don't mind doing it, just don't want us to overlap and do double work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. January ^(talk) 21:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those changes - clearly anything that is not properly sourced should be taken out.David r from meth productions (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that there's been some progress on this, I'd suggest giving it another week or so then removing any remaining unsourced claims. January ^(talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Just to add, I think that should apply to the article as a whole not only the Journalism section. January ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced info, I don't think we lost anything important. By the way this was a partial self-revert because I removed a statement tagged {{citation needed}} then noticed part of it was in the BBC source, so I re-added it using a direct quote instead of the previous paraphrase. If anyone thinks it's unnecessary or overweight feel free to remove it. January ^(talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms of murdered prostitutes

At the moment, the paragraph about his comments on the murdered prostitutes is only sourced to his own column. (It could also be argued that the quotes are taken somewhat out of context.) The notability of this column is not established - there is no reasoning for why, out of his many columns, this particular one is mentioned in the article. While I do have memories of hearing about this at the time, a quick google search only seems to go to blogs, and a comedy piece from Stewart Lee. Unless the notability of his comments can be established, this paragraph has to go. Trebor (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The subsection heading is also confusing. The idea of the section is criticism leveled at Littlejohn and controversy stirred up by Littlejohn. The subsection heading is Littlejohn's criticism of prostitutes (not of him). Because it's not criticism against Littlejohn, to belong in this section, it has to be controversial, which, as Trebor says, without outside commentary, there's no indication that it generated any controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be cited alongside the Stewart Lee reaction which is very famous and was described by the Observer as "the single most powerful piece of politically motivated satire I have seen" http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/dec/06/stewart-lee-comedy-interview

An editor above already expressed surprise this wasn't included given the fame of the comedy routine.David r from meth productions (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you watched the Stewart Lee piece? In it, he only refers to Littlejohn complaining about them being called "women who work as prostitutes" rather than "prostitutes" - this is not even in the column cited in the article, it is in a different one. I'm yet to see evidence that the column referenced in the article is notable. Trebor (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Section removed until notability is established. Trebor (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not the article either, that one's more recent than the clip. Lee says the comments were in a column on "political correctness gone mad". (The Littlejohn piece starts at 4:50 on the clip.) January ^(talk) 16:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right about the dates. I can't seem to find the original column online, although it's a theme he has revisited in more recent articles. Either way, it does not establish notability for the collection of quotes which were previously in the section. Trebor (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Call you all go back to the section headed 'straw poll' above?

IPUser has made a very powerful case and at the moment there is a clear majority for inclusion. The very strong case made by IPUser for restoring it hasn't currently been answered. If you have any further arguments against please offer them now.David r from meth productions (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Johann Hari section

I just watched the video of Johann Hari on Richard Littlejohn's Sky News show. Hari says that Littlejohn claimed in To Hell in a Handcart that asylum seekers claim £117 per week, not "hundreds" plural as stated in the article, and the statement is in a novel.

Also this incident is entirely sourced to an opinion column written by a person directly involved in the events described. I cannot find any other coverage that indicates it is a notable incident. January ^(talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After Stephen Fry tweeted it - http://twitter.com/#!/stephenfry/status/4540413314600961 - this clip became the third most discussed topic on Twitter in the entire UK that day. That seems like pretty big evidence of it being widely discussed and noteworthy.David r from meth productions (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't use Stephen Fry's Twitter page as a source for a claim about another living person per WP:BLPSPS. Did any reliable sources report on this? January ^(talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fry isn't the source. The source is Littlejohn's column itself. Stephen Fry's Tweet simply establishes that it was very widely discussed and therefore meets NOTE criteria: are we really saying the third most discussed thing on the whole of Twitter that day in Britain isn't notable?David r from meth productions (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the question is here. The encounter shown in the Sky News clip should not be portrayed as a notable event in Littlejohn's life, clearly. However, the criticisms seem worthy of inclusion in the article, because they are made in multiple RS: [1].

The argument that such sources should be discounted because the authors are "directly involved in the events described" does not seem correct. If our standard is that by commenting on something you become too close to it, that would discount most of the sources ever used on Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the criticisms in general or using David Aaronovich's comment about his novel, which is in the Will Self section. Point is that if no other RS other than Hari in his own column has covered this incident, this indicates that it is not notable. (The first part about the inaccuracies can be ignored now, I fixed that myself.)

Is there a source for it being the third most discussed item on Twitter? Also could you clarify the timing as Twitter wasn't around in 2004 when the incident happened, so the Tweet must have been a few years later? January ^(talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay well I agree about that and I don't think an approving tweet makes a YouTube clip noteworthy in its own right. It might though be appropriate to mention in passing something like: "These criticisms have been echoed by Johann Hari".

Also, the Sky clip has Littlejohn criticising the BNP, so something like "Littlejohn has rejected these criticisms and has described the BNP as 'racist'". --FormerIP (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait. I don't get it - Hari makes statements about a disagreement - which appear on Littlejohn's page - and then those statements are removed because Hari's own statements about his disagreement with Littlejohn are "not a RS" ..? Smacks of POV, pro-Littlejohn editing. Hari's statements about Littlejohn are acceptable in this context. Keristrasza (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported Edits

Keristrasza, you cannot just come on the article and start making massive changes to the article without discussing it here first. There should be a thorough discussion before material is reverted. For example there was widespread consensus to leave the Nick Griffin line out of the article, it is not appropriate. The Hopscotch bit has been removed because a left-wing site like 'Liberal Conspiracy' is hardly a neutral source and the Johnan Hari section was removed for good reason. You can't just say 'your reasoning is flawed' and put it back. I will invite the editor to discuss it here. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Subsection about Johann Hari

I'm the guy who removed the "Johann Hari" subsection. I only found this article because I was reading the article by Christina Odone and wanted to know who Richard Littlejohn is; AFAIK I had never heard of him until then. I'm a strong believer in BLP, so seeing Hari's attacks given that much prominence with sourcing only to a single column by Mr. Hari himself, especially in that context, was alarming enough that I deleted the whole subsection.

At Wikipedia, negative claims about a living person need good sourcing. A single column by a hostile opinion journalist is not good sourcing. A good rule of thumb is that the negative claims should have also been reported by a third-party ‘reliable source’ who investigated the matter independently (rather than just relying on statements by the involved parties). If someone finds such a source in this case, we should put Mr. Hari's claims back in this article. Failing that, it should stay out. If this "reasoning is flawed", Keristrasza, please explain what those flaws are.

This use of sourcing as a filter for significance can be frustrating when we feel it keeps us from putting something important in an article about a person, but it turns out to result in much better articles in the long run. Cheers, CWC 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with above. I have tried questionning the acceptability and validity of these spiteful comments about Littlejohn by Hari and been told that Hari is a perfectly acceptable source. He is a hard-left journalist with an obvious strong disdain for Littlejohn so I feel his website is biased and his opinions are biased. I don't think your reasoning is flawed at all, I think you are perfectly right. Christian1985 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing a section such as the one regarding claims on asylum seekers' benefits (which I've renamed to something more appropriate) would require a dispute over the source, or evidence of the event. I've added the video clip of the interview itself, and a New Statesman article which supports the claim of the figure Littlejohn suggested, v the actual figure. I trust that this resolves any problems. Similarly the Asian Hopscotch article was removed for entirely erroneous, CPOV reasons, and has been restored. If anybody has any issues which would mean it needs to be amended, please describe them in the Discussion section before removing paragraphs. Marty jar (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect items

Hi All

I may be new-ish to Wikipedia, but there are glaring errors in Littlejohn's page that seem impossible to correct. The first example is that Littlejohn does not live in in a "gated Mansion in Florida" nor anywhere else in America but in fact resides in North London. Much of what is written about him appears to be more about trying to change other's opinions about Littlejohn rather than supplying accurate information.

Having to go through marathon procedures and lengthy discussions simply in order to correct obvious inaccuracies, when those original inaccuracies were able to appear instantly, can only reinforce the idea that Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source of information.

I would have thought Wikipedia should be a site of facts, not one of opinions, lies and inaccuracies?

At the very least, the subject of the said inaccuracies, should be given a short-cut to correcting them, rather than having to turn somersaults to correct information that is accepted in the first instance, from an unreliable source yet without question.

Now I understand Wikis are a bit like this, but they tend to work in technical wikis, as many people are simply trying to home in on the best answers and mutually try to help each other. In wikipedias case though, wiki pages are being treated as an opinion battleground and a no-holds-barred vehicle to rubbish a person's reputation, by a person or persons from the opposite side of the political fence or persons who just dislike the person in question.

Maybe I am missing something and there is indeed an easy method of establishing the truth (I think Littlejohn knows where he lives better than anyone else for example!!), but if I am missing something regarding getting the nonsense on this page removed, then would someone kindly tell me? As I am currently under a "Final Warning" for attempting to correct inaccurate information.

Thanks all.

Les  :) Sparksoft (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works through using reliable sources so that all information can be verifiable. For example, the information regarding the subject's residence is sourced from this article from 2007. If you would like to update it, you need another, perhaps more recent reliable source which gives updated information. A newspaper, magazine or book source would be the best. Do you have such a source? --John (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a highly unreliable source of information"
• "I would have thought Wikipedia should be a site of facts, not one of opinions, lies and inaccuracies?"
• "At the very least, the subject of the said inaccuracies, should be given a short-cut to correcting them"
• "''"a no-holds-barred vehicle to rubbish a person's reputation, by a person or persons from the opposite side of the political fence or persons who just dislike the person in question"

This is either a brilliant parody, or completely lacking a sense of irony. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Joahnn Hari provided that 'information' about Littlejohn living in a gated mansion in Los Angeles. Perhaps he's not the most reliable source.

Hi Jon - Regarding reliable sources - Richard Littlejohn can supply the information directly if you wish? The current page does not even have his correct geographical location! There are many other inaccuracies too. I have no vested interest. Littlejohn simply asked how he could get it corrected.

Thank you again for your help John.

Johann Hari provides that information about Littlejohn living in a gated mansion - perhaps he's not the most reliable source. plagiarism(Coachtripfan (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Les Sparksoft (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An individual would not be considered RS for material about himself (some are prone to exaggeration, or whitewashing). Please see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As a matter of interest, how do we get the inaccuracies in newspaper articles by Littlejohn corrected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics

The article says that he is "noted for his Conservative views." His views aren't really typically Conservative (abolition of the monarchy, against capital punishment etc.), are often anti-establishment and have been described by others as Libertarian.[2][3] He has also explicitly stated: "I am a libertarian, but liberty relies on restraint."[4] Does anybody disagree that the article should be changed to reflect this? BlackberrySorbet 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Describing Littlejohn as Libertarian is likely to be misleading to be American readers, and people of that persuasion have no significant party in the UK. Most Tory MPs have been against capital punishment for decades, and they may restrain themselves in public on the issue of the monarchy. Margaret Thatcher was reported, long before her illness, to have commented that she could have one much more without the monarchy to hinder her. Philip Cross (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The potential confusion of "American readers" is hardly a good reason for maintaining a flawed article: this is an article about a British journalist, using British English and from a British view. Moreover, given the wild difference between UK Conservatism and US Conservatism, the article is probably extremely misleading to Americans already! As long as statements are verifiable, I don't see what American attitudes have to do with this at all. The lack of a "significant party" is an argument from tribalism: why does there have to be a "significant party" before a person can be said to subscribe to a political ideology? If Littlejohn is a self-described libertarian and other journalists and politicians also describe him as that, then I'm at a loss to see why the WP article says that he is a Conservative. Also, while individual Tory party members may hold certain views, those views themselves are incompatible with Conservatism: the ideology is what it is. BlackberrySorbet 09:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably conservative with a small 'c' would be best, which is how the term is now rendered. My point about there being no party was to suggest there is no significant libertarian current in the UK. Best to stick to established UK terminology, Littlejohn's attitudes are not so esoteric as to use an uncommon term. Philip Cross (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Littlejohn's republicanism

A user removed a category asserting this. I reverted pointing out the comments at the end of the radio section, and the Mail source, a wecbchat:

Ellie: Do you think our Queen has done a good job for Britain? Richard: Yes I do - I've never been a royalist but I think her Maj has made the best of a bad job. ... Tim: They say 'king for a day, fool for a lifetime' - but if you were in charge for one day what would be your first policy? Richard: I'd abolish the Monarchy. [5]

Probably a better source out there, but this is good enough proof. Philip Cross (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"I've always been anti-monarchy. A few years ago I'd have cheerfully hanged the lot from every lamp post along The Mall." ("Thin as a rake and sick as a parrot." Richard Littlejohn. The Sun 23 June 2000 page 11.) "The complexity of opinion on this issue is shown by the fact that Richard Littlejohn this week casually confirmed in his Daily Mail column that he believes the monarchy should be abolished, an attitude which, until recently, would have made him unemployable by that paper."[6] "A tax-evading bunch of adulterers." [7] "When the Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn advocated abolition and attacked the Queen for not paying tax, he did not mince his words: 'The royal family underpins the whole rotten edifice of privilege and snobbery.'" ("Down the Royals! Up the Republic!" Roy Greenslade. The Guardian 28 March 1994.) "In fact, however, he has rather more in common with Guardian readers than either he or they might care to admit. He has no time for the monarchy; he despises the Tories; he admires Tony Blair; he is opposed to capital punishment." ("Wheen's world:Cuddly old softy." Francis Wheen. The Guardian 23 November 1994.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Meadows Section

I have removed the Lucy Meadows section as it is flawed. The link to the first DM article doesn't even work, the Jimmy Saville stuff is just completely irrelevant and has no place in the article and a biased website like "freethoughtblog" is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Such a section must be better written and referenced. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To Halleyscomet; your rewrite of the section is an improvement as you have dropped the inappropriate "source" but the section is just not acceptable. In its current form you are effectively trying to imply Littlejohn's article drove Meadows to suicide which is not true nor proven then by referencing the article minus the Meadows content is almost trying to imply a "cover up", this is just not acceptable for Wikipedia. In my view this classes as original research/synthesis which is in breach of Wikipedia policy. This is my view, if you are not in agreement I am happy to refer this for a 3rd opinion. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point and this is probably just an example of wikipedia not working the way I expect it to. Having said that I do think it was implying he drove her to suicide, there is already controversy around his attack on her and he is getting additional criticism for it in the wake of her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.111.186 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Christian1985 does have a valid point about original research. Wikipedia needs to remain as unbiased as possible. This article from The New Statesman addresses the "Original Research" concern Christian1985 raised. With that article, we have an established news source connecting the article to the woman's death, and connecting her death to the subsequent editing of the article. I believe restoring my most recent version of the section with The New Statesman article as a reference would meet the Wikipedia guidelines. --halleyscomet (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt. User:Halleyscomet, I have taken the liberty of expanding your citation to help prevent link rot. Philip Cross (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, if reliable sources can be provided then I have no problem with this section. New Statesman is a perfectly good source. But biased left-wing blogs like "Liberal Conspiracy" are absolutely not acceptable, it is not a reliable source. I have removed any Liberal Conspiracy links from the article. Christian1985 (talk) 00:14, 22

March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the Petition link as such content is generally not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I feel this should be left out of the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. If any disagrees I would be happy to refer for a 3rd opinion. Christian1985 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've restored a more neutral rendering of that with better sources, I think you were right to remove this before the petition got significant mainstream coverage, but I believe it's now passed that bar. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Joahnn Hari not a relaible source

Disgraced journalist Joahnn Hari was forced to leave the Independent newspaper due to plagiarism and unflattering editing of wikepedia entries of rivals. See Wikepdia section on Joahnn Hari and this section, Joahnn Hari and palgiarism(Coachtripfan (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

I agree, with his history Hari cannot be considered a reliable source. I've removed the reference. However, I didn't remove the sentence it was supporting, as it's still supported by a different source. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Littlejohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2251347/Nathan-Uptons-wrong-body--hes-wrong-job.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Littlejohn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616101832/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=34562 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=34562
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927222357/http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_reports/?content_id=6623 to http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_reports/?content_id=6623

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Article out of date?

Isn't this article out of date? It starts off saying that RL writes for the Mail, but he hasn't contributed anything to that paper for months. What is he doing these days? Lazyzee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian Stuart Interview

In September 1992, Littlejohn interviewed Ian Stuart of the neo-Nazi band Skrewdriver on London LBC radio. Does a record of that interview still exist and has it ever been published? Roandy (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"Richard Littlejohn/Archive 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Richard Littlejohn/Archive 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 30 § Richard Littlejohn/Archive 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)