Talk:Richard Littlejohn

Still working at The Sun

I read his well researched and totally factual column in The Sun on Tuesday. I believe his currently writing for both The Sun and Mail. Anyone know any different? --Jamesedmo 16:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen one since, though? I think that was probably one of the last ones, for now. Tohya 02:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, apparently he's even managed to irirtate Murdoch beyond tolerance - and it's unlikely that he'd be working for both Murdoch and News International given their commercial opposition and mutual antipathy. He's been at The Daily Mail since Late December '05. --Dazzla 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

er...News Int is OWNED by Murdoch, not a case of "commercial opposition and mutual antipathy". ----

Anti-Littlejohn without documenting from where

I'm afraid that this article takes a clearly anti-Littlejohn stance. Stating that he is Zionist and pro-Israel is un-referenced as the Sun link does not work. The general editorial style is clearly balanced against him and I'm afraid that some of the radical views expressed here are both undocumented and perhaps unfair. I have placed a neutrality sign on the article.

There is a neutrality problem in the criticism section. It is undocumented and has no proof whatsoever in some sections. It's actually quite absurd. I have removed anything that is undocumented. I believe there is a smearing campaign against him by his opponents. I urge his opponents to refrain from this smearing campaign. --Bennyman 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the whole article. It pretty much sums up who Littlejohn is and what he stands for. There is no way of having an article that talks about the good he does for Britain and the world because he truely is a pathalogical bigot and has serious hate issues towards minority groups with especial spleen for gays (for may he be one?) and asylum seekers (why do foreigners scare him so much?). I think this is as close to a neutral POV about such as person as possible. 82.29.114.179 08:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really contribute to the discussion at all. The point here is not to register your vote for or against Littlejohn, but to work together to establish the best way to report and reference any notable facts so that we have a good, authoritative encyclopaedia article about the guy. The problem is that the article does come across as having been written primarily by people who want to discredit him rather than report facts. (By the way, I happen to share your view that Littlejohn is a bigot.) 89.243.32.188 (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I hate the man, but this article still reads POV. It's very anti-littlejohn and the 'Opinion' section is mostly just that. No-one has proven, to the best of my knowledge, that the child-slaughtering Tony Martin is a member of the BNP. Ren 10:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.spearhead.com/0405-jtu.html - it discusses the long interview Martin gave to teh Sunday telegraph (sadly no longer on line) in which he supported the BNP and called for a dictatorship in britain. - David R

I'm sure that probably the most dangerous journalist in Britain can handle a 'bad' entry on Wikipedia. Non-POV, unfair, stupid, blah, blah, blah. He's a fucking loon. Spuderoony 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Martin is a member of the BNP. I like Littlejohn, but hate the BNP - as does Richard Littlejohn. Using a BNP-supporting qualifier when refers to his support of Martin suggests it is tied to Martin's political beliefs rather than the event itself.

"I like Littlejohn, but hate the BNP" - I find that very odd. I would think that most fans of Littlejohn are regular BNP voters...

That is an incorrect assumption, and a very childish statement as well as ploy. Littlejohn despises the BNP (British National Party), and this is very well known. I despise the BNP as well, but I like Richard Littlejohn. Stop smearing him for unbased reasons. --Bennyman 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Littlejohn only despises the BNP because they represent an 'unacceptable' face to white supremacist politics.If a more high-brow far-right party were to emerge i'm sure he would be right behind them.No ?

This is my 1st time editing anything or discussing anything on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm doing something wrong. Anyway, I feel this article is very left wing biased, and I'd like one of those banners at the top questioning its bias, or someone to sort it out please. Neutral, not far-right (or of course not far left) biased.

I agree with the last comment. This article carries a heavy left-bias. The references to Tony Martin imply that Littlejohn basically supported him because he was a member of the BNP - which isn't true at all. If the person who wrote this actually read Littlejohn's article, he or she would know that Littlejohn's support for Tony Martin was based on the notion that people should have the right to defend their property without fear of being prosecuted. He was drawing attention to the fact that, recently, innocent homeowners had been charged with assault for tackling burglars and intruders, and this flew in the face of the common sense opinion that the Police Force were on the side of the innocent, defending them against the criminal fraternity. The fact Fred Barrass had hundreds of previous convictions but was still free to burgle Martin was not mentioned at all, nor was the fact that Martin's actions were supported by the vast majority of the population - so much so that it prompted the Government to review the laws regarding homeowners rights when it came to tackling intruders. It seems to me that the person who wrote this article deliberately omitted certain facts to make Martin - and Littlejohn, by association - appear in a bad light.

The Tony Martin section has been 'vandalised' (IMHO) twice to play down the fact that he shot a man as he was running away (a basic fact of the case) so lets not have a return to that please. 'were supported by the vast majority of the population' - figures please if you want to put it in the article PLUS it has to be from a spectrum of the population not a newspaper/pressure group pole. 80% of guardian readers against tony martin, shocka </humour> Dmanning 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted controversial claims without sources

I've deleted the sections of the article that contravene WP:BLP, i.e. :

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

If you put any of this material back, please make sure you cite reliable sources and observe the NPOV and WEASEL guidelines. Thank you. 217.34.39.123 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about all the sourced stuff you remove? I agree broadly with what you have done, but some of the stuff under opinions was cited with reliable sources. You have applied too broad a brush. --SandyDancer 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

On reflection you are probably correct, but I did try to err on the side of caution, as well as trying to maintain NPOV. It's hardly a balanced article if the only sourced statements are those saying what a shit he is. 217.34.39.123 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The article was hopeless so I personally feel no need to rush in and restore deleted material, for the reasons you state - it will then be a sourced article, but a biased one. Perhaps it is good for this one to go back to a stub-like state and develop afresh. For the record, I think he is a shit! --SandyDancer 17:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The changes were so massive that I have RV'd rather than than try to comb the article and insert only the referenced claims. Moreover, you do not achieve balance by removing sourced, relevant and critical material because positive material is lacking or unsourced: you do it by finding and sourcing positive material. Richard Littlejohn is a massively controversial public figure and the article needs to reflect the severe and widespread criticism of him and his work. If the balance of available sourced material presents an unfavourable picture of the man, that does not necessarily make the article biased: a neutral article is one that reflects the subject in an objective manner, not one that presents a balance of praise and criticism where no such balance exists and certainly not one that achieves that sort of 'balance' by removing material rather than adding it.

There is unsourced material that ought to be removed, but please do not do this by sweeping away vastly greater swathes of sourced material.FrFintonStack 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking over the article I've noticed just how much the material was unreferenced. That being the case, the edit may have been a good one. However, virtually everything is a matter of established fact for which references can be easily found, so it might be a good idea to remove the controversial stuff, archive it here, and return it as and when references are provided. I'll maintain that that will not make for a biased article.FrFintonStack 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you now seem to agree with the basic thrust of what I did, I've taken the liberty of reverting back. It may well be possible to re-add much of the content back on a case-by-case basis, but please read WP:BLP before making any changes. When it comes to living people, it isn't acceptable to have unsourced or dubious controversial claims in an article or even in a talk page (which is why I didn't archive them here). I know I applied quite a broad brush, but it's better to do that than risk having non-kosher material in the article. You are correct in saying that references can easily be found for a lot of the controversial claims, and in fact I intend to seek them out.

Regarding the stuff I removed, I won't paste it here verbatim, but here is a summary:

• Right-wing views - I don't see this as controversial, but it should be qualified in some way if it is used at all. Terms like "left-wing" and "right-wing" can be quite vague.

• Nick Griffin's comments, Littlejohn's views on BNP - unsourced. Even with sources, it should not really be in the opening paragraph - it's akin to Reductio ad Hitlerum along the lines of "Hitler was a vegetarian, but vegetarians distance themselves..."

• Viewing figures for Sky One show - unsourced.

• LBC controversy, Radio Authority censure - sources are provided later in the article, but should really be cited here.

• Littlejohn's comments re: Sky News show, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh - unsourced, should be easy to find a source.

• Radio Times "worst programmes" list - should be easy to source, though I'm almost certain this list was not a "poll" in the sense of being nominated and voted for by viewers, it was simply the personal opinion of one television critic. (If the programme in question was indeed Uncut rather than Unleashed, viewers outside London wouldn't have seen it anyway.)

• You Couldn't Make It Up (book) - I just removed a snide "aside" here, and changed the individual topics to "various subjects" as I don't have a source for these.

• To Hell In A Handcart (book) - unsourced comments from critics.

• Opinions section - this needs a complete rewrite I think, it's just a ragbag of unsourced factoids, comments, and weasel words, with just a couple of properly sourced quotes thrown into the mix. (It should not be difficult to find sources for any of Littlejohn's opinions, given that he is paid lots of money to write about them twice a week!)

• Controversy and criticism section - same again, really, apart from the section about LBC, which is for the most part properly sourced. Lots of unsourced, weaselly ("some believe... he is often considered... critics see him...") statements, with just a few isolated, sourced quotes tossed in for luck. Again, it should be easy enough to find decent sources and remove the weasel stuff. Also, I don't think the Viz material belongs in this section - it doesn't count as controversy or criticism, and is arguably not notable anyway (hundreds of celebrities have been lampooned in Viz over the years).

217.34.39.123 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP reverts

Since I made the edits outlined above, a number of editors have reverted the article to the previous version, with one user calling my edits a "whitewash". I edited the article in the first place because of the large number of unsourced controversial statements which are absolutely not permitted for an article about a living person (WP:BLP). The resulting article does come across as a whitewash to a certain extent, and that is unfortunate, but the fact is that any controversial statements about living people need to be backed up with reliable sources. For living people articles that isn't an option, it's a requirement.

To those editors: please improve the article if you think it's a whitewash, but I'll continue to re-revert any wholesale reverts unless you can state, on the talk page, why I am wrong, and why the old version is in fact acceptable under WP:BLP. It wasn't my intention to whitewash Littlejohn, and I fully intend to add back controversial stuff once I've found proper sources for it (but not before). Citing sources will also allow the article to be worded in a non weasel way. ("...some critics say...") 217.34.39.123 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting large sections of sourced material

If you take the time to read the contoversy section you will see there are many citations. Some of it IS unsoured, but in deleting the whole section you are removing much sourced material, there are also links at the bottom of the page. So if you are going to clean up the article or add some 'citation needed' tags that is fine, but dont delete the whole section.

Also the opiniouns section has an abundance of citations, there is no excuse for removing this section.

Thank you

Thefredz 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There are only 2 citations in the opinions section, one was a BBC news story about Tony Martin which did not even mention Littlejohn, another was an Observer article which quoted a sentence that Littlejohn wrote in 1991. Everything else is unsourced.

Aside from the unsourced comments, there were other things that really needed pruning. Even if a source was cited, is it really appropriate to mention Nick Griffin and the BNP in the opening paragraph? The Robert Fisk article doesn't start off by saying that Osama bin Laden and Adam Yahiye Gadahn have praised him (though it is mentioned much later in the article).

I admit to being quite heavy handed when it came to deleting large sections of material. At first, I was just going to remove some of the more contentious unsourced comments, but deleted the whole lot when I realised how much of it was unsourced. "Citation needed" tags aren't appropriate for articles about living people, by the way. If Littlejohn was dead, or was a fictional character, none of this would be necessary... 217.34.39.123 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A vandal changed Littlejohn's ctachphrases to ""I hate black people" and "fucking wogs!"'"

I have reverted this for obvious reasons. I disagree strongly with the person trying to whitewash this article, but equally there is no plcae for vulgar abuse and libel on wikipedia.

Biased article

This article in its current form does not present a neutral, unbiased view of Littlejohn. Examples:

• "a right-wing British newspaper columnist"

Before we use inflammatory and potentially POV terms like right-wing, we should make sure that the use of the term is properly sourced from mainstream information sources across the political spectrum. I don't see any evidence of this at the moment, therefore I propose deleting references to "right-wing". In this instance, we could replace it with the word "controversial".

• "brief unsuccessful careers as a TV presenter and novellist"

"Brief" and "unsuccessful", particularly "unsuccessful" are negative POV terms and should be removed. In fact, according to the BBC, he is a best-selling novelist. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/3957715.stm)

• "has been widely accused of racism and homophobia by critics"

It might be appropriate to list convictions or police investigations into racist or homophobic remarks in an encyclopedia, but not accusations by critics. This comment should be deleted, since his controversies are covered further down in the main article.

• "Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party, describes Littlejohn as his favourite journalist"
• "Littlejohn distances himself, describing the party as "knuckle-scraping scum""

Both of these comments are non-informative and irrelevant, and should be deleted. Johnx10 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree John. It is highly informative to know that Littlejohn has been praised by the leader of the BNP, and that he distances himself. Many wiki entries describe who has praised and condemned the subject.

By any reasonable measure, a man who attacks Iraqis as "hideous", proposes massive tax cuts, hates trade unions, obsessively attacks gays, and describes murdered prostitutes as "hideous drug-addled street whores" and "no great loss", is right-wing. Moreimportantly, Littlejohn describes himself as rightwing in his 1991 book 'You Couldn't Make It Up', P37.

Of course accusations by critics should be listed, so long as they are sourced. Look at the entry for any other high profile columnist, from polly toynbee to mark steyn to johann hari. They all list common criticisms of the authors. It is an essential part of an encyclopedia entry.

The reference to his unsuccessful career as a novellist should go though, it does seem like POV to me. 86.129.135.219 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

completely agree with johnx10, this must be the most over the top biased article i have ever read on here. I really cant get over how biased it is, sorry if im repeating myself. Can someone who knows what they are doing please sort it out!!!!! Daveegan06 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

86.29.252.244 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) There needs to be a word for when people utilise simple-string concepts and tie them together with the path-of-least-resistance, some thoughts are agreeable purely because they are simple, and people should call it Littlejohnism. 86.29.252.244 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Naval personnel detained in iran.

An anon ed added:

Whoever wrote this article has no intention of factual reporting. These last paragraphs as proof - a majority of columnists in Great Britian wrote the same things. Yet the author of this article does not mention this in a hurry to degrade Littlejohn.

Please discuss on discussion page. Thankyou1Z 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Neantherdals?

In the second paragraph of the section entitled Controversy and criticism, the quoted phrase "Racists and Neantherdals" should be changed to either '"Racists and Neantherdals" (sic)' or "Racists and Neanderthals." I haven't seen the original quote, so I can't tell if this misspelling was committed by Littlejohn or a Wikipedia editor. --Steven J. Anderson 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No citations

Comments like this:

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

Need to be cited.

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

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

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

Speeding Deaths?

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

Comment left by an IP address on main page

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

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

Huge numbers of unsourced controversial claims here.

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

Johann Hari section

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

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

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

Johann Hari's views dominating the Littlejohn article

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

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

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

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

Florida Residence

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

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

And that's by a friend of his.

Welfare payments

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

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

Homophobia

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

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

SUGGESTION

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

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

Littlejohn's Books

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