Jump to content

Talk:Richard Littlejohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Straw poll on conviction

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes: No reason to exclude it. Philip Cross (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Amended. January (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • No, as per User:Christian1985.--Britannicus (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per what? Can't you try to engage with the arguments put by your fellow editors? FormerIP says: "The sources we have prove, according to any standard you like, that the statement is true because one of them comes from the mouth of the subject on national TV. That's more than enough to show that we have no legitimate BLP concern."David r from meth productions (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David r, this is what I keep trying to tell you. The Observer book review doesn't prove anything and certainly doesn't support the claims made in the 'criminal record' passage. It is pointless trivial information that doesn't belong in the article. Christian1985 (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David, I oppose the inclusion because it is not important enough to warrant entry into Littlejohn's article. I thought that would have been extremely obvious. Certainly if it was important then I am sure there would be abundant sources for such a claim. As it is, the sources put forward—a book review and an entertainment television programme—are to me quite flimsy.--Britannicus (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private Eye has reported on his £50 fine for "bloody affray" and includes an admission quote from Littlejohn (Private Eye, August 30, No. 1631, p.10). It is relevant to the Eye story because Littlejohn is writing about the "milksop" modern teenagers in contrast to his own early years and how they should not expect "safe spaces" and does not mention his conviction for violence as a young man. This would seem to be a reliable source, admitted by Littlejohn and a well-made point on this writing. I propose adding this to his Early Life section.
I think his Daily Mail article should be cited for reference, but the citation tool has lots of warnings on it about this and I am not sure how to verify best practice here, so I am asking for guidance. Suggestion welcome. ITellComputerYes (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Article out of date?

[edit]

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

Ian Stuart Interview

[edit]

In September 1992, Littlejohn interviewed Ian Stuart of the neo-Nazi band Skrewdriver on London LBC radio. [1] Does a record of that interview still exist and has it ever been published? Roandy (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bloodandhonourworldwide.co.uk/bhww/history/the-battle-of-waterloo/

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

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Littlejohn&oldid=1244173105"