Talk:Richard Littlejohn/Archive 2

No citations

Comments like this:

'...inheritance tax, which is only paid by the richest 6 percent of British citizens'

Need to be cited.

Also, the article seems very left-leaning, I wouldn't describe Littlejohn as 'hard right-wing' at all, the article itself states that he opposed privatisation and supports the minimum wage. Very POV. --87.127.54.17 15:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? you think calling for the sterilisation of women who cheat on their benefits, and describing murdered prostitutes as "no great loss", is a mainstream-right position?

Hitler was against privatization and in favour of a minimum wage - does that make him left-wing?86.129.126.126 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

my concern is that he appears to rely on the Daily Mail for his information and is therefore frequently misinformed. Examples include metrication and RIPA which they (and to be fair, many other papers) constantly get wrong. He clearly fails to research many of his stories properly - a failing of modern journalism where IT systems keep reporters at their desks rather than out interviewing people; relying instead on press agency reports and web blogs for their information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.104 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Speeding Deaths?

I've tagged the claim that speeding causes 1000 deaths a year as requiring a citation. The only figures I can find (from the RAC - http://www.rac.co.uk/web/knowhow/owning_a_car/rac_report_on_motoring_2007/RAC_Motoring_Report_2007_Complete) suggest that in 2005 there were 3201 road deaths in 2005, and speed was a 'contributory factor' in 26% of all fatal motoring accidents. By my maths that's less than 1000 even if it's the only cause of all of them (although still quite a lot, natch). Anyway, without some backup, the statement feels a little POV. Lidz 20:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment left by an IP address on main page

From Journalism and criminal record section concerning last sentence about criminal record:

What's the relevance of that last fact? Seems like something tagged onto the end of a paragraph that it isn't even related to. Notice how a lot of these so-called impartial 'authors' draw extensively from the Guardian: given the animosity between the two publications, is it wise to source from one about the other and vice versa? from 89.240.179.201

Huge numbers of unsourced controversial claims here.

I've added the BLP watch tag at the top of the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the BLPC watch tag that User:HisSpaceResearch placed in 2007 July 9 - article still needs cleanup to meet BLP: eg. unsourced claims. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Johann Hari section

"The article cited Littlejohn's views on the Rwandan genocide (see above),"

See above where? I don't see a reference to Littlejohn's view on the Rwandan genocide anywhere in the article. Maybe I missed it, but I looked through carefully a couple of times. WikiReaderer 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the unsourced negative material (about 7kB worth) was deleted. If you look in the page history, you should be able to find the text mentioned there. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari's views dominating the Littlejohn article

There is a major problem with the article in its current version (version by Stephen Burnett). It is clear that some Johann Hari followers have taken been editing the Littlejohn article;t he problem is Johann Hari is Littlejohn personal arch-enemy, and therefore to quote him as the chief source of references in a biographical article is not unlike quoting from Mao in an article about Taoism. Moreover, the Hari diatribes are further exaggerated here. Consider the following example: "Littlejohn lives in Florida in the United States for much of the year". This statement is given the following citation: Johann Hari "Why does the right hate Britain so much?", The Independent, 6 August 2007. Retrieved on 21 August 2007." If one bothers to click on the link to the actual article, Hari writes: "[Littlejohn] writes many of his anti-British screeds from a gated mansion in Florida, where he spends months on end". Now, there are several problems with this quote alone, implying that Littlejohn is not really British, but it doesn't claim that he spends all his time in America; however, even the fact that he own a house in Florida should not be given is a matter of fact, but rather as a claim by Hari. This list just goes on and on. I challenge you to revise Hari vs. Littlejohn polemic in a way that does not sound like a propaganda piece for Mr Hari. Eliyyahu 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before we start, I think it would be useful to make a few points. First, there is a convention which says that each of us should assume, until presented with evidence to the contrary, that the other is here to improve the quality of the article. This is best done by co-operation and discussion. Throwing out challenges to rewrite the article in a way which will be to your satisfaction, under threat of deleting material you don't like, is combatative from the start and not conducive to working towards a consensus. It would be better if you took on board some of the responsibility for engaging in that discussion with a view to improving the article - which does not simply mean getting rid of anything you feel to be unflattering.

Second, I'm rather surprised to see you making an ad-hominem attack on Hari. Whether or not they like each other is hardly the point; more relevant is whether the cites of Hari make points which are relevant to the subject of the article and are verifiable. The reason Hari figures so prominently is that he is a journalist positioned well to the left on the political spectrum. You would hardly expect him to view Littlejohn with any affection. (It seems worth pointing out, by the way, that Littlejohn makes no attempt to disguise his loathing of Guardian journalists, and of Guardian readers, for that matter.) All right-wing journalists have left wing critics, with whom they have differences of opinion which inevitably become public. Wikipedia is not just here to say nice things about people; documenting a range of views about anyone who is the subject of an article is standard practice. Take a look at the article on Ann Coulter, for example.

On to specific points raised by Hari. There seem to be three main ones:

Florida Residence

I don't really know why you object to using the Hari cite as evidence for the fact that RL spends a good part of the year in Florida. It's common knowledge. Look at what Jeremy Clarkson says:

Littlejohn, you need to know, spends a deal of time in a gated community in Florida. Much of his family lives in Detroit. He really thinks America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. If you cut him in half . . . I’d be grateful.

And that's by a friend of his.

Welfare payments

References to the amounts of taxpayers money spent on welfare benefits are a staple of RL's articles. No news there. What definitely is news is Littlejohn's reply when asked if he knew what the current level of benefits actually are. Are you seriously suggesting that that isn't relevant to the article? Or are you saying that Hari is lying?

There's no need to speculate; you can see Littlejohn say it on YouTube.David r from meth productions 10:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Homophobia

References to gay sex have also been a staple of his columns. Saying so hardly seems controversial. Take for instance the article by Marina Hyde that Hari refers to:

In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to "homophobia" and six to being "homophobic" (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to "gay sex in public toilets", three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns - an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions.

SUGGESTION

I have a feeling that there are two issues involved here. One is Hari's prominence in the article as a source, and the other is the fact that reference to Hari's writing is consolidated into one block rather than integrated into the article under topic headings: in other words, content and presentation. I agree that the way the Hari section is presented in one block doesn't help the article, and that could certainly be improved. What I haven't heard is any compelling reason to get rid of the Hari cites entirely - and as I've pointed out, they are not exactly unique. Over to you, and anyone else who wants to comment. --Stephen Burnett 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Stephen Burnett about this. But I have a constructive suggestion for Eliyahu: if you feel the entry is unbalanced, by all means find positive statements and information about Littlejohn to add. I think that's much better than cutting well-sourced information that you interpret as critical.David r from meth productions 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Littlejohn's Books

The first paragraph mentions Richard Littlejohn's "Three bestselling books". This is far from true- two of the three, at least, have recieved very poor sales and have been badly recieved publically. The paragraph seems to be copy + pasted from 'Richardlittlejohn.com/about_richard', which is hardly a neutral source. Removing the word "Bestselling"- it's a downright lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.117.40 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversial, but award winning

Why does being controversial mean not winning awards for jornalism? Albeit this arse doesn't deserve one for convincing thousands of readers that his racist views are well balanced and true, the 'but' doesn't make sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.15.17 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Faye Turney sentence incorrect

He recommended that Faye Turney, who was held hostage and had a two-year old daughter, join Celebrity Fat Club, and said she would have been last into the rescue dinghy.[1]

I removed the above sentence because, while apparantly cited, it does not actually match what Littlejohn wrote in that cite. Specifically the meanings let alone the words "recommended", "last" and "had a two-year old daughter" are not present. Please reinsert only when properly cited in accordance with WP:BLP. -84.223.78.86 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguably

His television show was cancelled due to arguably low quality. The low ratings were a result of this low quality. If I was to give my true opinion I would say that the low ratings were really a result of the fact that most people in Britain agree that Littlejohn is scum. However, since I cannot say this due to "neutral POV" policies, I am simply going to say arguably poor quality. This is not against Littlejohn and is obviously correct. It does not change the direction of the article in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertaketwo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly insisted on inserting the pointless and biased comment that "Richard Littlejohn Live" was "arguably [canceled due to] poor quality". I have tried to explain to him why this is not allowed. (See OPs and my talk pages.) Looking for some third party opinions here to avoid an edit war. (PS Its irrelevant to mention, but I had no idea who the article's subject even was before getting into this argument and am merely trying to uphold quality standards.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The user is disrupting and should be blocked. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguably

I apparently have to propose this before I change it. I would like to contribute to the article on Littlejohn's television programme, stating that another reason into its cancellation was its arguably poor quality. Which is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelfistertakethree (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please see Weasel words which reads in part: "Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that" ... With weasel words, one can imply a statement is true when it may be no truer than its inverse."

"Arguably" is the same thing as "some argue that"

Also, new comments go at the END of a page, not the beginning.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has argued to the contrary, I will be re-adding the information at this time tomorrow.--Colonelfistertakethree (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are inserting POV into this article. i personally also think the programme was piss-poor, but this is an encyclopedia, giving facts. If you can find a credible source saying the programme was crap, then by all means insert that and say 'The Radio Times (or whoever) argued this was due to poor quality..." But inserting your own opinion - which is what you are doing, using weasel words - isn't on, I'm afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.29.139 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilford

The article says that Littlejohn was born in Ilford and the East End.

Being east of East Ham, I would suggest that Ilford is certainly part of the East End. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Until 1965 nothing East of the River Lea was part of London. West Ham and East Ham were County Boroughs of Essex and Ilford was past these. Only Tower Hamlets has the right to call itself the East End. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.102.104 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And Shoreditch. But Littlejohn is definitely no EastEnder. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Littledick

10 days? I have this article watchlisted, and it must have gone under the radar. Must try better. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Johann Hari

I've remove the Johann Hari section, because it appears to give undue weight to his views. Also, this section was based on Johann Hari's writing, and so isn't sourced to the standard expected in a biography of a living person. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil, it was all sourced to articles that have appeared in the Independent newspaper and the New Statesman magazine, which easily meet BLP criteria. (It's linked to his website because some are hidden behind paywalls, but they are word-for-word the articles from these reputable sources.) I don't think it is disproportionate coverage at all; it's worth bearing in mind the rules re: Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.145.158 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The removal of well-surced material

His criticisms of murdered prostitutes attracted widespread criticism at the time, and are highly significant, as is the other material that is being removed. What reason is there for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.1.158 (talk • contribs)

I reverted your edits because they were unilateral. You have undone edits that both of us would agree were beneficial (such as adding categories (in this case the categories you removed were Category:1954 births and Category:Living people), or substituting templates to bypass template redirects). I personally agree with you on the prostitute thing. I also agree that normally the onus should be on people removing content rather than those wanting to retain it (likewise in adding information the onus should be on those wanting to add the information e.t.c.). My problem here was that for a lot of the edits you have undone, a reason was given, and these edits were done by a wide variety of people. For example, right in the intro you readded information saying he got the highest marks in his year, which was removed as simply stating a newspaper and a year is an insufficient citation for verifiability purposes. Anyway, I'm not going to revert you again as a revert war is not productive at all. What I will do is bring in other people so we can get a wider consensus for the page, by posting on the BLP noticeboard (done, see here) where there are people with far more policy experience and BLP experience than you or I. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's totally reasonable. I apologize for my error in being too blunt in my reverting, and appreciate your reasonable and consensus-seeking tone. I'm happy to build a consensus and you're clearly right about the grades, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.117.33 (talk • contribs)

No probs. (Don't forget to sign your comments to talk pages using ~~~~. :)) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)