Talk:Paul Nuttall

"In popular culture"

(Moved from User talk:Smyth)

You undid an edit of mine [Paul Nuttall] without consultation calling it trivia. I have reverted your edit. If you would like to discuss the section I added please start a discussion on the article's talk page.

Thanks. --Pingu7931 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A comedian mocked a politician. That happens all the time, and has no significance. Looks like a textbook case of undue weight to me. – Smyth\^talk 15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that someone made a joke about him is hardly one of the most important events in his life. If this remark has caused a wider controversy then it might be worth mentioning in another section but we don't need an "in popular culture" section consisting of a list of every time he's been mentioned by anybody. And Pingu7931: if someone reverts your edit usual practice is to start a discussion about it rather than reverting the revert. Hut 8.5 16:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly at least I have a substantiated quote. Much of this article has very little citation. It seems to me that my section is the least of this article's issues. --Pingu7931 (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's substantiated doesn't mean it's worth mentioning. – Smyth\^talk 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So I'll remove it unless anyone objects. – Smyth\^talk 12:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm objecting I'm afraid. It gives this article some depth and balance by summarising Paul Nuttall's views on immigration using a validated quote; and highlighting a counter-argument to his position - which provides a balance to his views. It is therefore not trivia. The routine received a fair amount of coverage on Internet media sources and therefore has provenance. I can put it in a section called criticism instead and re-word it. --Pingu7931 (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Education

Nuttall says he gained his degree from Edgehill. Edgehill wiki says, " In 2005, Edge Hill was granted Taught Degree Awarding Powers by the Privy Council and became Edge Hill University on 18 May 2006." . Do we have a dishonest candidate, or do we have an inaccurate article on Edgehill.

Neither prior to 2005, Edge Hill degrees were validated by Lancaster University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.229.129 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nuttall did not complete his PhD and the citation makes no reference to him having one.--95.148.87.160 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that considering the previously disputed claims on Nuttall's qualifications, that we ask for a citation for his degree/MSc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Questioncitation (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed edits

For anybody wanting to add what he thinks about Turkey being allowed into the EU, here is what he HAS said: "We must say no to this, we must ensure that Turkey does not join the European Union." 2. Legal aspects, democratic control and implementation of the EU-Turkey agreement (debate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwin Clere (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Mabelina has been adding disputed material without consensus. I do not want another edit war with this user, so could other editors assist in this matter?

• Adding a flag icon in the nationality section of the infobox, in violation of WP:INFOBOXFLAG (Also, nationality is listed as "United Kingdom" which seems rather clunky and grammatically incorrect)
• Inserting an exclamation mark, not used in the source to a statement by Nuttall which is unencylopedic and against the guidelines at MOS:EXCLAMATION. Mabelina accused me of being "disruptive" for undoing this edit
• Changed "Nuttall defended his record, stating ""I have no interest sitting all day in Brussels committees enacting job-killing, democracy-destroying legislation inspired by the EU"" to "Nuttall reaffirmed that not only does his party oppose British membership of the EU, while also declaring "no interest sitting all day on Brussels committees enacting job-killing, democracy-destroying legislation inspired by the EU"!" which, in my view, is poor wording
• Insisting on linking History
• Insisting on changing Nuttall's bithplace from Bootle to "on Merseyside", using an edit summary of "Yet another display of complete ignorance by you know who". Merseyside was less commonly used at the time of Nuttall's birth, as Bootle was in Lancashire
• Adding an unsourced and poorly worded statement "Like many other politicians in Europe, he is not pro Turkey joining the European Union"

AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You have already made clear your hostility AusLondonder, so please desist from disruptive editing - alternatively go ahead and mangle the English language (which I note you have somehow managed to delete from view!). Strewth mate, your behaviour is tiresome and unhelpful. M Mabelina (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comments and make your comments below. AusLondonder (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I TELL YOU WHAT - NO - BECAUSE YOU HAVE JUST MANAGED TO DELETE MY DETAILED COMMENTS TO RIDICULOUS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT... CARRY ON & WE'LL PICK THIS UP ANOTHER DAY - MEANTIME DON'T SPOUT RUBBISH LIKE YOU NORMALLY DO.... (I SINCERELY HOPE THE ADMINS CAN PICK MY COUNTERS TO YOUR FLAGRANTLY ABUSIVE, UNWARRANTED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS). BYE BYE M Mabelina (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)@AusLondonder:

• Flag - personally I'm neutral. I'm not aware of a consensus for standard practice, but will gladly defer to one if it exists
• Exclamation mark/"defended his record para" - you're right on both counts, though I think that whole section needs to come out since the link is dead (currently ref number 5). It seems a useful bit of info to include though, so would be good to find a new source. I've not done anything with this.
• "history" could be linked, depends how many other links are nearby and whether it creates WP:SEAOFBLUE
• Nuttall was only born in 1976 (thought he was older!), so Merseyside had already been created. I think specifying "Bootle" is better though. What is definitely not correct is "Bootle, Liverpool", which I have removed from the details of his schools.
• Turkey statement - poorly worded as stands, and definitely needs a source so I have removed.

Frinton100 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:Mabelina - if you continue to edit-war, POV-push and edit against consensus I will open a case against you at WP:AN/I AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi AusLondonder - I take your point but it is bit wearisome to receive your constant threats. Now that the drama seems to have abated, let me reassure you that, where possible, I simply try to enhance Wiki (not POV it or anything else..). RSVP M Mabelina (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox religion

• Also, I would like to seek the opinions of other editors regarding religion in the infobox. User:Mabelina has changed Roman Catholicism to Christian (RC). I feel this is clumsy, confusing and uncommon. Does anyone else have an opinion? AusLondonder (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPCAT we should not have this in the infobox unless the subject explicitly self-identifies as Roman Catholic (and we would need a source for that). I've removed it. Hut 8.5 19:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

While it is correct that the Roman Catholic Church is a branch of Christianity, I feel that "Roman Catholicism" is widely understood and would be used by many RC individuals if asked to identify their religion. "Christian (RC)" is clumsy and confusing, and is inconsistent with the thousands(?) of other articles about Roman Catholics that use the term "Roman Catholicism". Given the limited space in an infobox I think "Roman Catholicism" is adequate.

Having said that I agree with the earlier point about requiring a source, so for now the point has become moot. On a similar issue, the political positions section still mentions his religion and membership of SPUC, which also ought to have a RS. Frinton100 (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now re-added Roman Catholic as religion with a source AusLondonder (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed again - the subject has to explicitly self-identify as Roman Catholic in the source for this to be included per WP:BLPCAT. A source which just says that the subject is Catholic, such as [1], isn't enough. Hut 8.5 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5 We usually don't put a subject's religion in the infobox anymore (unless it's about a prominent figure of an organized religion); a consensus has already been reached per this RFC Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes. matieszyn (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Nuttall. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120426064703/http://sefton.gov.uk/pdf/Election_result_summary_2008.pdf to http://sefton.gov.uk/pdf/Election_result_summary_2008.pdf

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} 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tranmere Rovers?

According to this bio, he "played football for Tranmere Rovers in his youth". I suspect that may not quite be the whole truth... but if anyone can find independent confirmation, it may be worth mentioning in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be worth mentioning; however, the authoritative listing of former Tranmere Rovers players here: http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/tranmere/tranmere.html doesn't mention Nuttall. The list has been used as a reliable source for the WP List of post-war Tranmere Rovers F.C. players. Bearing in mind the comments at http://ukiptruth.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-our-elected-represenatives-love-eu.html, it's possible that Nuttall was on the books of Tranmere Rovers albeit not as a player. I've not found anything that proves he had anything to do with the team at all, so the article should stand as it is at present. Twistlethrop (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thousands of kids are churned through youth ranks at football clubs, spat out, and never kick a ball ever again. They won't be documented by anybody. We should wait IF there is ever a reliable source on this, the type of news article with the old team photos and the interviews with the coach and fellow players Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That's true. However, the claim is made on his website - "played football for Tranmere Rovers in his youth" - and has now been accepted at face value by usually "reliable" sources like the BBC, the Liverpool Echo ("played for Tranmere Rovers as a schoolboy") also here ("playing for Tranmere Rovers youth team between 1991 and 1995"), ITV ("former Tranmere Rovers youth player"), the Times ("was a member of the Tranmere Rovers youth squad"), the Telegraph ("he kept goal for Tranmere as a youth"), etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we include words such as: "He was a member of Tranmere Rovers' youth squad in the early 1990s." - referenced from the sources I've listed. If no objections, I'll do that in a few hours time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Now done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Party in the infobox

The political party parameter is used for listing the party or parties the person is or has been a member of. There is no requirement of having the exact dates he or she joined or left the party. Another prominent UKIP member, Roger Knapman, has his previous party membership present in his infobox in the exact same manner, and, so far as I can see, that hasn't been a matter of any disagreement. Therefore, I believe my changes to the article should be reinstated. --Glossologist (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of tabloids

Just to remind everyone that content should not be added where the only source is a tabloid as per WP:BLPSOURCES. I will remove any content that is only sourced by tabloids in a few days if there is no other source. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Absolutelypuremilk: It may help to point out the ones you think are tabloids. Some are obvious and well-known to British editors, like Mirror and Daily Mail, but some less so, like the Mirror's local incarnations (Liverpool Echo, etc). --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 20:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I meant simply the Mirror, Mail, Express and Huffington Post but if editors think that the Liverpool Echo should be classed as a tabloid then we should not rely on it for content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree, this article reflects some of the hostility toward Nuttall that is prevalent in Liverpool and is shown quite clearly by the name. Nuttall reaction also makes it note worthy. The Echos format of paper does not disqualify it from being a reference, that it is Nuttalls local paper and also one of the major papers in the region he represents makes it a valid source.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Material sourced only by tabloids is not allowed on BLPs, due to the generally poorer standards of their reporting. If the Echo's reaction to Nuttall was so noteworthy, then surely it would have been covered by another newspaper/media outlet? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that material sourced from "tabloid journalism" is not allowed on BLPs. But that is not the same as saying that all material from sources that happen to be published by a newspaper with a physically tabloid format is not allowed. The physical format of the newspaper is not the issue - it is the type of journalism, such as gossip, etc., that is characterised as "tabloid journalism". There seems to be some confusion over this. If better sources can be found, they should be used, but there is no need to remove uncontentious and sourced material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but in this case the Echo uses tabloid journalism as well as physically being a tabloid. I don't think anyone is disputing the Echo's version of events, but rather whether it is noteworthy that someone commented on an article giving him a nickname, the Echo recycled that comment and then he got annoyed. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I also think that in this case it's non-notable non-neutral commentary, and it should not be included for that reason. But edit summaries like "Liverpool Echo is a tabloid and so not legitimate for a BLP" are misleading. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is notable as Nuttall has made several claims of representing the Northern working class but this demonstrates the rather flimsy basis of that claim. In that, he cannot even garner hometown support. He is the leader of a party with 1 MP, he has failed to become an MP several times, the entire article is disproportionate given his actual political stature as the leader of a very minor political party.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion. If you can provide reliable, non-tabloid sources to back that up then feel free to add them. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This Tabloid argument of yours is false., as has already been explained to you.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox pic

Is a picture from his Twitter allowed? The Madras (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

"In October 2016, Nuttall announced that he would run in the leadership election triggered when Diane James said that she would not become leader despite winning the leadership election.[16][17]" should be edited, as Diane James was in fact the leader of the UK Independence Party for 18 days, as is stated in the sources [16] and [17], which have been reworded to say that she never took up leadership of the party. The sentence also refers to "the leadership election" twice, giving both separate leadership elections the same name, which could also be misleading.

The above sentence could be replace with something along the lines of: "In October 2016, Nuttall announced that he would run in the second UKIP leadership election of 2016, triggered when Diane James - winner of the first leadership election held earlier that year - announced she was to stand down after just 18 days as leader of the party.[16][17]" 2A02:C7D:5B73:A100:3120:997C:5491:1C07 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that wording is an improvement, so I have changed it. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Absurdly biased and hostile.

The text on Paul Nuttall is absurdly biased and hostile - just about everything in the text is twisted against him. And, no, I am not a supporter of UKIP - I am just horrified by the leftist bias of wikipedia.2A02:C7D:B5E6:6400:703C:FAD5:DD2D:EFD8 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't have leftist bias, because anyone can edit and help make it better, including right-wing people. Can you give some examples of biased and hostile material that you've seen, so we can sort it out? Thanks Jdcooper (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral reporting of Paul Nuttall is leftist bias. Accurate representation of him makes him look like a git.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts

Can someone put in some background linking people that are used to using alternative facts - for Paul Nuttall, perhaps adding in Michael Gove, Jacob Rees-Mogg for the UK and then compare and contrast with the US - KellyAnn Conway/Sean Spicer/Stephen Miller in the USA.

What does this pattern of alternative facts mean?

Why are they getting picked up now, but not before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Your idea is original research, unless a reliable source picks up on Nuttall linking his false claim to the other cases. Philip Cross (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Other controversies

Apologies, I'm new here, but I've noted that theres been quite a few inconsistencies and false claims of late, including the following (theres another claim that on Paul Nuttalls website it said he was a professional footballer (two different articles) and the claim stood on the site for years, regardless of whether he wrote it or not. I've not wrote about that as educational attainment and electoral fraud are more relevant here. I've submitted the following edit request but it may be the wrong place, so I've copied and pasted my request here:

In light of UK news that claims on Paul Nuttall's website that he had lost a close personal friend, then denied losing any such friend on radio, perhaps a section should be included covering further false claims. It seems that there have been a series of half truths/false claims very recently and due to upcoming elections this is a very current issue...

Suggested subsections under controversy:

PhD claims

In December 2016, Paul Nuttall was accused of falsely claiming to have a recieved a PhD in history from Liverpool Hope University in 2004 following an investigation by the Daily Mail into Paul Nuttall's CV.  Up until the newspaper investigation the PhD had been listed on Paul Nuttall's LinkedIn profile - a social networking service that is mainly used for professional networking, including employers posting jobs and job seekers posting their CVs. Once the investigation was published, all claims to having a PhD were swiftly deleted however the profile remained. It was noted that it would have been impossible to receive a PhD in 2004 as Liverpool Hope wasn't granted the authority to award Doctorates until 2009. A spokesperson for the university later confirmed that Paul Nuttall 'gained a Masters qualification from us in 2003 and not a PhD in 2004.'

When questioned on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show in December 2016, Paul Nuttall denied ever claiming to have received a PhD saying "It’s not on my website. It’s on a LinkedIn page that wasn’t put up by us and we don’t know where it’s come from” and that it was "nothing to do with me". A spokesman for Paul Nuttall later said the entry had been misleadingly completed by an "over-enthusiastic researcher".

Election fraud investigation

Following a Channel 4 investigation on 3 February, 2017 showing that the home in which Paul Nuttall had given as his registered home address on nomination papers for the upcoming Stoke by-election was empty, a Staffordshire Police spokesman told The Independent newspaper "We have received a report of an allegation of election fraud relating to the Stoke Central byelection on Thursday 23 February 2017. Officers will be investigating the circumstances." Although there is no legal requirement for a candidate to live in their prospective constituency, under the Criminal Administration Act 2006, it is an offence to supply false information to the Electoral Registration Officer. Defendants can be fined or jailed for up to 51 weeks for providing false information on a nomination paper, under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Shortly after the Channel 4 investigation aired Paul Nuttall was seen moving into the registered property. As of 11 September 2017 Paul Nuttall is reported to have of moved out of the property due to fears for 'personal safety' following trespassers at the back of the property.

Schneidiana (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

}} Schneidiana (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

BBC's Hillsborough article

The text added by kitchenknife[1] (who has previously stated on this talk page that 'accurate reporting of Paul Nuttall makes him look like a git') is extremely misleading as the BBC article contains a word for word copy of the press release (written by Lynda Roughley) on Paul Nuttall's website. I request kitchenknife's edit be reverted.

[1]However, Nuttall had himself told the BBC in August 2011, "Without them being made public we will never get to the bottom of that appalling tragedy when 96 Liverpool fans including close personal friends of mine lost their lives. 125.168.153.139 (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Well he did say that, and there is a source to prove it, and it does seem relevant to the topic. What exactly do you think should be changed? Jdcooper (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Raises the question of how you know it is a press release. It also highlights that the "quote" has been in the public domain for 6 years, not on some obscure personal site but on a major news site.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

for the posting (which was reported by the BBC)

ACtually we do not know this, we do not know which came first, the press release to the BBC or posting on the website. We don't know who or how the BBC got hold of it. It could quite easily have been that the BBC asked for some quotes and got them and it was then put up on the website. I doubt the BBC monitors the site if it comes from there someone most likely told them.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Crass Insensitivity Quote

In his most recent edit Jdcooper[1] failed to mention that the Merseyside chairman resigned over Arron banks' comments and 'completely' endorsed Mr Nuttall as party leader.[2] Arron Banks was said to have showed 'crass insensitivity' not Paul Nuttall[3], however Nuttall was accused of being 'unprofessional' (for not fact-checking comments made on his website) by the Merseyside Chairman Adam Heatherington.[4] The fact that Cooper made these errors is concerning. Cooper do you not even read past the first paragraph?

[1] The two chairmen of UKIP's Liverpool and Merseyside branch later resigned from the party, accusing Nuttall of "crass insensitivity".[74]

[2] Mr Heatherington said he "completely" endorsed Mr Nuttall as party leader and claimed most of the anger in Merseyside was directed at Mr Banks over the "total disregard" he had shown for the victims' families. He told BBC Radio 4's World At One programme: "It was the Arron Banks' remarks that I cannot put up with."

[3] Two UKIP officials have resigned from the party, claiming leader Paul Nuttall was "unprofessional" and donor Arron Banks showed "crass insensitivity" about the Hillsborough disaster.

[4] Mr Heatherington said the party leader should have taken down the comments about losing close friends at Hillsborough from his website sooner. "That's where he was unprofessional, but he's apologised, it's been taken down.

125.168.153.139 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Jdcooper (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Section headings

Personally, I would combine the "Early life" and "Teaching career" sections back into one section, probably without even sub-sections. The paragraphs are short and unlikely to expand very much further. Does his teaching career really need such prominent treatment? Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me

Info about false claims in lead?

This section was removed from the lead recently, and replaced today:

"His campaign was compromised by his various questionable claims which came to light during the election: that he was present and "lost close personal friends" at the Hillsborough disaster; that he had a PhD; that he had been on the board of directors at a vocational training charity; and that he had been a footballer for Tranmere Rovers; all of which emerged to be untrue."

In my opinion this detail is not really appropriate for the lead. For a start it places undue weight on the controversies. In the context of his whole career, saying he stood unsuccessfully in the election covers the event, in my opinion. We can go into more detail later on. Also, removing all context like this removes the nuances from the stories and makes the text slightly POV, in my opinion. And lastly, it is original research to say that it was these false claims that compromised his campaign. It is just as likely that the residents of Stoke decided he was an awful candidate who would represent them poorly. We can't know. This info is much better treated in the controversy section. Jdcooper (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Contentious passage about Nuttall's essay citing David Irving

Hi, I would like to explain my edits, rather than have an edit war! :-)

The disputed passage reads as follows:

During his time at Edge Hill, on his class being required to supply essays on the theme of the "causes of the Holocaust", Nuttall submitted one which partly posited the contentious argument that "the Jewish people had brought it on themselves," citing the work of the historical author and legally declared Holocaust denier David Irving. His lecturer David Renton regarded the paper's submission as Nuttall using the exercise to test the acceptable limits of freedom of speech, and on discussing the submission with him Nuttall explained the inclusion of the contentious quotes from Irving as "he was not responsible for the citations: his girlfriend had found them on the internet."

1. "on his class being required to supply essays on the theme of the "causes of the Holocaust", Nuttall submitted one which"
2. "Nuttall submitted an essay about the causes of the Holocaust, in which"

1) is overly wordy. The Manual of Style stipulates plain English. I therefore suggest 2) - I don't see any difference in meaning there at all, except the second one is simpler.

1. "partly posited the contentious argument that "the Jewish people had brought it on themselves,"
2. "according to his lecturer David Renton, he "suggested that there was an argument to be made that the Jewish people had brought it on themselves"

I'm not sure what "partly posited" means, but here we can sidestep such problems by quoting the source itself and attributing it to Renton.

1. "citing the work of the historical author and legally declared Holocaust denier David Irving."
2. "citing the writer and Holocaust denier David Irving."

The most basic and NPOV description of someone who writes is "writer". As for holocaust denial, David Irving himself would surely not dispute that he is a holocaust denier? I'm not sure what "legally declared" has to do with it.

1. "His lecturer David Renton regarded the paper's submission as Nuttall using the exercise to test the acceptable limits of freedom of speech"

I'm not 100% sure what this even means, but I don't think its encyclopaedic. It's true that the source is "selectively quoted", but all sources used on wikipedia are selectively quoted to retain only encyclopaedic detail. What his lecturer thought about his essay at the time is appropriate detail for a Guardian think piece, perhaps, but it's hardly the facts of the matter required in a wikipedia article...

1. "and on discussing the submission with him Nuttall explained the inclusion of the contentious quotes from Irving as "he was not responsible for the citations: his girlfriend had found them on the internet."
2. "When Renton discussed the quotations with him, Nuttall told Renton that "he was not responsible for the citations: his girlfriend had found them on the internet".

Plainer, more neutral language.

If you have a problem with my changes, please let me know which ones specifically, and why. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

86.23.10.86 (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Paul Nuttall is no longer the leader of UKIP; he is the former leader.

Already done Already updated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sceptic/Denier Edit War

There has been an edit war over the description "global warming sceptic" vs "global warming denier" User:Mspence835 and User:Rothorpe have changed it three times from "sceptic" to "denier" and it has been reverted twice by myself and by User:Peter Gulutzan. I am going to revert it the original once more and it needs to be justified here if anybody wishes to change it again. The argument for using the word "denier" seems to be that the linked wikipedia article is global warming denial, but "sceptic" was used originally because the cited source from the BBC called him a sceptic not a denier. I think it is important to recognise that the words "sceptic" and "denier" have different meanings. A sceptic is someone who questions the facts claiming that they are unproven and might be wrong. A denier is someone who claims they are wrong. Since the source called him a sceptic it would be wrong to use this to justify calling him a denier. He was described as a sceptic because he questioned the showing of the film "An Inconvenient Truth" in schools describing it as propaganda. There is a case to be made that he is right about that despite the scientific consensus that climate change is fact see Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. By the way, on a BBC program "election questions" during the recent general election Paul Nuttall answered "yes" to the question "do you believe in global warming" (or similar I forget the exact words) Weburbia (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to see he is no longer in denial, then. When it was changed back, I was happy to leave it as 'sceptic', as a euphemism for 'denier'; as you say, the linked article minces no words and is called 'climate change denial'. Rothorpe (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It is possible that there are reliable sources, primary or secondary, that justify calling him a denier. If they can be found then the label can be used with those references. The mere fact that there is a page on Wikipedia that uses the term is not justification. The quotes I have seen indicate a scepticism about some evidence and motivations rather than denialism of climate change itself. Weburbia (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is an example of a primary source where Nuttall calls himself a sceptic Paul Nuttall MEP Here he questions evidence and motivations using strong words. Nowhere does he directly deny that climate change is real although he comes close to doing so. Weburbia (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that Weburbia has restored the original word. It is against WP:WPNOTRS to use Wikipedia itself as if it was an RS. It is against WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE to re-insert disputed material without even asking for consensus. For Nuttall's statement about his party's position re the Gore film see https://web.archive.org/web/20170214163450/http://www.paulnuttallmep.com/page/158. and search for the words "CONTROVERSIAL FILM BAN". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that in my opinion the words in that archived version probably cross the line into denialism rather than just scepticism, but to draw that conclusion here would be original research. I think it would require a reliable source calling him a denier rather than just a sceptic to be able to use that word, and even then it might only be valid to say that he has been called a denier. There is also a question over whether he moderated his view since then. I would argue that it should remain as "sceptic" unless another source is found. Weburbia (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "contentious claims"

Wordforge has removed the content about Nuttall's essay on the causes of the Holocaust, saying "Removed contentious claims". I'm not sure why this content was removed, could you explain further? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, how is a profile of someone in a newspaper a primary source? And as for "consensus practice", I seem to remember information about speculated relationships included on thousands of biography pages. The information is sourced, and as phrased is uncontroversially true. You call them "weasel words", but distancing language in this case is perfectly appropriate. Jdcooper (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Media: Russia Today

Nuttall's opinions are featured on the website RT (rt.com/search?q=paul+a.+nuttall)

• Needs a secondary source. Jdcooper (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)