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)

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)

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)

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 I'm keen to get your reactions to it so we can get a consensus on the criminal record passage. At the moment there is a majority for inclusion, and the very strong case made by IPUser for restoring it hasn't been answered.David r from meth productions (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)