Talk:Richard Littlejohn/Archive 4

Factually Incorrect items

Hi All

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for your help John.

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

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

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

Politics

The article says that he is "noted for his Conservative views." His views aren't really typically Conservative (abolition of the monarchy, against capital punishment etc.), are often anti-establishment and have been described by others as Libertarian.[1][2] He has also explicitly stated: "I am a libertarian, but liberty relies on restraint."[3] Does anybody disagree that the article should be changed to reflect this? BlackberrySorbet 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Littlejohn's republicanism

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

Ellie: Do you think our Queen has done a good job for Britain? Richard: Yes I do - I've never been a royalist but I think her Maj has made the best of a bad job. ... Tim: They say 'king for a day, fool for a lifetime' - but if you were in charge for one day what would be your first policy? Richard: I'd abolish the Monarchy. [4]

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

"I've always been anti-monarchy. A few years ago I'd have cheerfully hanged the lot from every lamp post along The Mall." ("Thin as a rake and sick as a parrot." Richard Littlejohn. The Sun 23 June 2000 page 11.) "The complexity of opinion on this issue is shown by the fact that Richard Littlejohn this week casually confirmed in his Daily Mail column that he believes the monarchy should be abolished, an attitude which, until recently, would have made him unemployable by that paper."[5] "A tax-evading bunch of adulterers." [6] "When the Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn advocated abolition and attacked the Queen for not paying tax, he did not mince his words: 'The royal family underpins the whole rotten edifice of privilege and snobbery.'" ("Down the Royals! Up the Republic!" Roy Greenslade. The Guardian 28 March 1994.) "In fact, however, he has rather more in common with Guardian readers than either he or they might care to admit. He has no time for the monarchy; he despises the Tories; he admires Tony Blair; he is opposed to capital punishment." ("Wheen's world:Cuddly old softy." Francis Wheen. The Guardian 23 November 1994.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lucy Meadows Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

References

Joahnn Hari not a relaible source

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

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