Talk:Nick Griffin/Archive 6

Infobox: predecessor/successor
MEPs are elected in multi-member constituencies. In a single seat constituency it is perfectly reasonable to say Fred Bloggs was preceded as the MP by Jim Bean and succeeded by Mr Kipling. In multi-member constiuencies it is not. For example, consider the lists of elected members for North West England:

Between 2004 and 2009, there were five changes. Between 2009 and 2014, there were also five changes. While it's true that in 2009 the BNP took a seat from the Conservatives it is not possible to say which one, especially given that the candidates changed in the meantime and one sitting MEP changed parties! In 2014, it's even less clear: BNP lost a seat, but UKIP gained two, so which of these new two UKIP MEPs is Griffin's successor?!?! The article says Bours. Why not Woolfe? It makes no sense at all. Emeraude (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, although this could have implications for the succession box on several other politicians' articles. PatGallacher (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed,, including Andrew Brons. Emeraude (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys, I see what you are saying about it being a multi-seat constituency but you just aren't right on this one as there is a clear and traceable line of succession. There is a table on all 12 of the UK constituencies that shows this line of succession. Here is the one for the North West (copied from the article:

Now you ask why it Bours and not Woolfe who unseated Griffin, the reason is very clear, I shall explain why step by step:
 * 1.Under the D'hondt formula Nuttall retained his seat as first on the party list (having been the direct successor to Whittaker at the previous election). So that easily explains the seat at the top of the table (the second seat allocated under D'hondt).
 * 2. Had the 2 sitting Labour MEPs been contesting the election, they would have retained their seats. However, they stood down, so the 1st and second candidates on the Labour party list took their place; Theresa Griffin taking Arlene McCarthy's seat as they were both lead candidates when they were elected. M. Afzal Khan taking Brian Simpson's seat as they were both no2 candidates at their respective elections.
 * 3. Similarly, 2 conservatives were re-elected, they kept their seats, fairly simple. So that's 5 seats that have simply been explained.
 * 4. Under D'hondt Chris Davies was the highest scoring sitting candidate contesting the election to have lost his seat. Therefore this seat gets allocated to the highest scoring party to gain a seat, this was Labour's Julie Ward. So that's 6 seats explained.
 * 5. Nick Griffin was the second highest scoring sitting candidate contesting the election to have lost his seat, this therefore gets reallocated to the second highest scoring party to gain a seat, this was UKIP's Louise Bours. That's 7 seats explained.
 * 6. The final seat was a vacant seat previously held by Sir Robert Atkins. In 2009, this seat was the No1 Conservative seat contested by the lead Conservative candidate, that is no longer the case because positions on the party list have changed. Jacqueline Foster and Saj Karim were still contesting the same constituency and therefore they retained their seats, Robert Atkins's seat is irrelevant at this stage as he had vacated his seat. Now, had a third conservative from the party list been elected (Kevin Beaty), he would have taken Sir Robert's seat, not Jacqueline Foster or Sajjad Karim's seats as they were contesting the election. A third Conservative was not elected, so this seat remains vacant, that is until under the D'hondt method, UKIP wins it's 3rd and final MEP for the region, Steven Woolfe, who consequently takes the vacant seat. If for instance, the Green Party had secured enough votes to win a seat (another 30,000votes roughly), it would have been this vacant seat that Peter Cranie would occupy, at the expense of UKIP's Steven Woolfe.
 * It is worth pointing out that we have included predecessor and successors for MEPs in office holder boxes for years. In many cases the predecessor had always shown "Position established". However this is the first UK EP election where there have been significant changes, so I do understand the confusion but I do not see it as a reason to remove clearly verifiable information. I hope this explains things, the articles have been restored back to their standard form including "predecessor" and "successor". Many Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a convoluted way of approaching things. It may be that we have included before successors in multi-seat constituencies, but I am not aware anyone has attempted such an elaborate method. Consensus can change. I challenge Owl In The House to put forward a general method. PatGallacher (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It may strike you as a "convoluted way of approaching things" but it is known notoriously as a convoluted electoral system, so this shouldn't be surprising. It's not like I'm making things up as they go along, I have merely explained and elaborated upon how the seats are allocated and filled in the blanks for you. What is important is that it is coherent and consistently applied: Given that I have just explained the same thing in another example on the Andrew Brons talk page in exactly the same way, I have demonstrated that it is. Owl In The House (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do know how the d'Hondt electoral system operates, and I realize it is a bit convoluted, but attempting to assign specific successors is making things even more convoluted. I think this requires serious discussion in the wider Wikipedia community. PatGallacher (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no "attempting" to assign specific successors, that's what the public do, vacant seats get left till the end to be allocated and those who are unseated are unseated by those who win enough votes to unseat them and gain a seat. In this case case we have 2 MEPs who are unseated, the highest scoring failure (Chris Davies) is unseated by the highest scoring party to gain an extra seat (Labour's Julie Ward) and the second highest scoring failure (Nick Griffin) is unseated by the second highest scoring party to win an extra seat (UKIP's Louise Bours) and any VACANT seats are filled at the end, again following the D'hondt method. This is remorselessly logical and actually follows the D'hondt method, I do not see why you are having difficulty following this. Owl In The House (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Challenge and Alternative example
OK, these tables were not constructed following a specific process in order to determine who succeeded who, they are just for presentational purposes so that candidates are listed in an order which groups individuals from the same party closer together and looks pleasing.

To give an example of how you're trying to see logic where there isn't any, consider points 3-6. Imagine that instead of standing down, Sir Robert Aitkin stood for reelection, and was in spot 3 on the list. In that case, he would have become "the highest scoring failed candidate" and, under your logic, would have been replaced by Julie Ward instead of Steven Wolfe. Then Chris Davies would have become the second "highest scoring failed candidate" and would have been replaced by Louise Bours instead of Julie Ward. Then finally Nick Griffin would have been replaced by Steven Wolfe instead of Louise Bours.

Effectively your process says that the determination of who was succeeded by who can be completely change not by the candidates order of being elected changing or the number of votes cast changing, but by the decision of a former MEP deciding not to stand for reelection, even though his decision not to stand for reelection wouldn't have changed who got elected. If it were true, it would be a weird system to say the least. But its not, your just trying to see some logic in the tables that isn't there.

If you look at tables for Scottish Parliament regions or Dail Eireann constituencies they have the warning "Note: The columns in this table are used only for presentational purposes, and no significance should be attached to the order of columns". We should probably make the same note on European Parliament constituencies. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the table in your hypothetical situation would look as follows:

But of course that did not happen, in any case the event of a number 1 candidate moving down the list to number 3 is incredibly unlikely. That said it is possible and I have just proved that no complications or whatever occur if you change things around a bit, using unrealistically hypothetical situations. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about reallocating vacant seats. I have just demonstrated this process to be perfectly consistent when put under scrutiny, can we end this discussion now. For those who understand the D'hondt method fully it is really very simple, admittedly I studied Maths at University but you really don't need my qualifications to understand this. Owl In The House (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, its not unrealistic, as incumbents have frequently changed their order on the list from one election to another: Sir Robert Aitkin was third in 2004 but first in 2009, and Saj Karim was ahead of Jaqueline Foster in 2009, but the order was switched in 2009, so its not "unrealistically hypothetical". Secondly, you're claiming that the way of determining it is merely through an understanding of d'Hont and nothing more (as you're not providing a source from anyone else who believes this is the case), so let me ask this: where in the allocations of seats under the d'Hont method does it say the seat allocation is affected in any way by whether or not incumbents are standing for reelection or not? It doesn't, it merely prescribes which party gets to provide a candidate for the first seat, which for the second and so on... One person could be the first person elected in one election and the third in another election, it does not mean they are holding the same seat in any way.

Your method says that the highest unsuccessful incumbent is replaced by the first highest newcome, but why should it. If instead of looking at how many votes an incumbent gets you look at the order the parties came in the last election. In the North West, the Lib Dems, Conservatives and BNP lost a seat in 2014, in that order as LD1 received more votes than CON3 which received more votes than BNP1. So now, Chris Davies was replaced by Julie Ward, Robert Aitkin was replaced by Louise Bours, and Nick Griffin was replaced by Steven Wolfe. This is just as correct to argue for, as why should whether an incumbent stands determine the order of succession? You are claiming that all you are using is a special understanding of the d'Hont method, but the d'Hont method doesn't have extra paragraphs saying "if the candidate elected at the previous election chooses not to stand..." or "if an incumbent chosses to stand for a different election at this election than the previous election...", it is merely a formula that says which parties get the first, second etc. seat. Please point me to a guide to the d'Hont method which says why your method of transfering one seat to another is righ and mine is wrong. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste my time giving a full answer to your first paragraph, as I actually went to the trouble to prove that your hypothetical scenario was not a contradiction of what I have presented to you already. Your argument was to demonstrate contradiction, you failed in doing so. Frankly, I don't care how likely or unlikely a situation is, we're not in the business of doing that.
 * You are now really starting to deliberately over complicate things when it is really very simple. In elections parties tend to come in different positions each time an election is held, you can see that from scrolling through. Take the example of Paul Nuttall of UKIP, in 2009 he was the 3rd MEP elected under D'hondt but in 2014 he was the 2nd, does this mean that he takes Arlene McCarthy's seat and go and sit with the Labour and other S&D MEPs at the end of the hemicircle in the European Parliament, no, that's ridiculous. Nuttall was standing for Re-e;lection in the same constituency, he retained His seat, he doesn't take anyone else's seat. This is obviously the same for ANY MEP that gets Re-elected, regardless of where they are on any list or whatever position their party comes in the poll, if they are successful in getting re-elected they retain their seat, I really do not see how that is in anyway complicated. They have no predecessor or successor at that particular election if they have been relelected, the position they come is irrelevant to their incumbancy status because they got re-elected. That is so simple to understand. I am not going to repeat exactly what I've written above but this clearly means Nuttall, Foster and Karim have been re-elected and that is really very simple.
 * Moving on to the next most simple thing; two Labour MEP's retired, they have direct and traceable replacements, the first Labour seat is filled by the first Labour candidate, the second by the second, two Labour seats were re-elected and another is newly elected (I shall get on to the third in a minute). Again this is unbelievably simple.
 * Sir Robert Atkins was replaced on the party list by incumbent candidates, does that mean that Jacqueline Foster and Saj Karim are suddenly fighting for different seats, no, they are contesting the same constituency to retain their seats just as other incumbent candidates are. This means that this seat is now a vacant seat. However had Sir Robert been the 3rd candidate as you suggest and been unseated, his seat (as the highest scoring loser) would have gone to Labour's Julie Ward, this did not happen, so let us just completely ignore your hypothetical situation as I have already addressed that point and I've even given you a visual representation, just in case anyone was struggling to follow. Ok, now that we have established this is Vacant seat (i.e. the person who previously held it is not contesting it), we leave it to one side.
 * I have already explained that the highest scoring newly elected candidate unseats the highest scoring candidate running for re-election etc etc. I do not wish to repeat what I have written above but I will add that had everyone who was standing for re-election actually been re-elected and if you follow the D'hondt method backwards in this case, you will understand more clearly why the highest new winner takes the highest incumbent loser's seat. It is much easier to understand if you look at the numbers of it at the same time.
 * In the example of 2014, lets say everyone standing for re-election had been relected, this includes both Chris Davies and Nick Griffin (and for the purposes of this argument Theresa Griffin and M. Afzal Khan - I have already explained there direct line of succession for those 2) but obviously excludes Sir Robert Atkins (who's seat is left until the end). Ok so in this scenario Labour would have one less seat then they actually achieved, 2 and UKIP would be down to just one seat as obviously Sir Robert Atkin's seat has been set aside until the end as it is Vacant.
 * Chris Davies being the highest scoring of these parties retains his seat from the highest scoring of the successor parties, Julie Ward isn't elected fairly simple.
 * Nick Griffin, being the second highest scoring of these parties retains his seat from the second highest scoring of the successor parties, Louise Bours.
 * Sir Robert Atkins has not contested the election and has not been re-elected, his seat has been set aside until the end, UKIP are the only party who have improved their vote share to such a point that they claim the extra seat. If for instance this extra seat had been an incumbent from another party, say a Green for instance, then that Green would have gained the seat instead of Steven Woolfe, 3rd on UKIP's list. If However, this had been an incumbent Conservative say Robert Atkins (or if the list was rejigged or whatever), then yes you are right it would be as in the table I created above, whereby Julie Ward takes Atkins's seat, Bours takes Davies seat and Woolfe takes Griffin's seat. Obviously though, Atkins wasn't defending his seat, the seat was left Vacant and is therefore distributed at the end after candidates had been unseated in the correct order as explained above. If it helps imagine it as a 7 seat constituency (without Atkins's seat) as opposed to an 8 seat constituency, in such an instance UKIP wouldn't have gained 3 seats, they would only have 2 (go and do the maths if you dont believe me) and as a result, Steven Woolfe, 3rd on the UKIP list would not have been elected.
 * I am trying to explain this as simply as I can without skipping details but if you don't want to try and understand it then you are not going to understand it. The line of succession is in the most part very clear and obvious and the bits where it is slightly more complicated it isn't even that complicated and it is still directly traceable. The only reason there is any complication here at all is because the way seats are allocated is slightly complicated but really it isn't hard to follow or indeed understand. To me it just seems that editors don't want Griffin or indeed Brons to be seen as having a direct successor (for whatever reason) as these are the only 2 MEPs that there seems to be a big issue with on here....oh look and they were both elected as BNP...coincidence? Of course I shall assume good faith though. Owl In The House (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggesting route of how to find a solution
I understand what you have done, explaining it over and over again doesn't address my point what I am saying is: I will meet you half-way, I'm not deneying a process can be made up and followed which determines who succeds who (as you have done), I am saying that you are not taking the d'Hondt formula and following it to its only inevitable conclusions as you claim. You are taking that as a starting point, making some assumptions on how to decide who succeeds who, and following that process through. But if you make different assumptions, then you can arrive at a different method and get different results to who succeeds who. Therefore, if the method you are using requires on making one assumption rather than another it needs concensus. If my method can be dismissed only using the d'Hondt formula please explain to me how. I repeat, I understand what you have done completely, I'm telling you that your method is not the only one available. As for saying we're overcomplicating this, we're saying there's no need to include predecessors/successors when its not obviously clear who succeeded who (as is the case for Scotland) and no one reproting the results elsewhere has bothered to make such claims, whereas you are claiming there is an indispuable method for doing it when there is no presedence anywhere on Wikipedia/news websites/newspapers/psephologists to my knowlege making such claims when they report the results. So I'm afraid the facts suggest you're overcomplicating this.
 * You are not giving any source that says that this is the established way that political scientists would determine the successor in multi-member constituencies. You are saying that what you have done follows from understanding of the electoral system works and folowing it to its inevitable conclusions, and coming to the only conclusions available.
 * You are saying in points 3-6 that the successors are determined by an incumbant standing for re-election by the number of votes they received, followed by incumbents who don't stand for re-election. I gave in the previous example a different method that can be used, by that parties that lost their seats should have their old MEPs replaced by the new candidates from parties that gained a seat. It arives at a different order of succession.
 * Then what in the d'Hondt method (the only justification you are using to back up the order of succession you have determined) says that your method which takes into account whether an incumbent stands for re-election is right, and mine, which doesn't, is wrong. The d'Hondt method is a formula where the individuals on the list bear no importance to who gets elected, it only allocates a certain number of seats to each party.

As for the claims this is about the BNP, I couldn't give a damn. This is just poor original research, which even if you were 100% correct, doesn't really add anything meaningful or of interest, so what's the point of including it MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a classic case of not following No original research, I intend to raise this at the NOR noticeboard. PatGallacher (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, look, there is no point in repeating myself again and again. The fact is that we have had MEPs with Successor and Predecessor in their info box for many years now. I think removing such content is unjustifiable, especially in the instances where the line of succession is indisputable. (i.e.) Theresa Griffin succeeds Arlene McCarthy and M. Afzal Khan succeeds Brian Simpson. To take some other examples from outside of the North West: In the South West, Julia Reid succeeds Trevor Colman and Molly Scott Catto succeeds Giles Chichester, in 2009 Ashley Fox succeeded Caroline Jackson and Julie Girling Succeeded Neil Parish. In Yorkshire Godfrey Bloom's predecessor was Robert Goodwill and his successor was Jane Collins (as UKIP's no1 for the region), Diana Wallace was succeeded by Rebecca Taylor who was then succeeded by UKIP's no3 MEP Mike Hookem. If we cross the border into Scotland (gosh I feel like I'm doing the weather) you will see that Neil MacCormick was succeeded by Alyn Smith, as well as the 2changes in 2014.
 * This shows that actually we have been including successors and predecessors in office holder boxes for European multi-seat constituencies for years and that it is only now that complications have arisen. I accept that this election has brought about the greatest amount of change to seats since these multi-seat constituencies were created (what with one of the main parties that had seats in every region being wiped out and another major party doubling it's MEPs and in some regions trebling their number of seats - this hasn't happened before). However, that is not a good reason for us to stop including Predecessors and Successors when the line of succession can be clearly traced. I do not see why we should not include predecessors and successors for most MEPs but not for a select few and I am certainly dead against removing predecessors and successors from office holder boxes from those where there are no complications at all. Why should we remove clear and indisputable information that is useful to the reader. I accept that there does seem to be more then one way of skinning a cat if you go down the hypothetical route, which is why we need to reach some form of agreement here.
 * What is without a shadow of a doubt here is that we have a long precedent of including predecessors and successors in MEP office holder boxes which is in direct contradiction of the initial assertion that multi-seat constituencies don't have direct predecessors and successors, the precedent says they do and indeed so does the evidence. I for one would be dead against changing this established practice for a few seats that are being disputed.
 * What we have here is a need to decide on a hard and fast rule for the line of succession in these (so far) very rare cases. I have explained to you the most mathematically logical route in accordance with the d'Hondt method and I have demonstrated that it doesn't throw out any complications or anomalies when challenged. I'm happy for this to go through whatever procedures you see fit but to out-right dismiss that there is a line of succession in multi-member constituencies is provably false. We are talking about a few exceptions here where the line of succession isn't obvious to the naked eye because of the system of how seats are allocated. I do not consider this to be original research, I haven't had to research anything, I'm merely applying and following the mathematical logic of the d'Hondt method. Owl In The House (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote this contribution at the NOR noticeboard: There is no concept of "predecessor" for individuals in these multimember constituencies, so no, this shouldn't be included in WP, certainly not without a source. Caroline Lucas was a Green Party MEP in the South East region, now Keith Taylor is a Green Party MEP in the same region, but Lucas isn't directly the predecessor of Taylor, and we shouldn't oversimplify by this kind of loose wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote: "The fact is that we have had MEPs with Successor and Predecessor in their info box for many years now." True, but as I wrote elsewhere on the same issue (Talk:Andrew Brons), just because other articles do something, and have done for years, does not make it right. That's lazy arguing. Emeraude (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because something has been in place for some time does not mean that it is OK, it may still be a violation of NOR. An important example was Line of succession to the British throne, where we did have a list consisting of hundreds of entries for some time, but it was substantially reduced on NOR and BLP grounds, see Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 11 for some discussion. "What we have here is a need to decide on a hard and fast rule for the line of succession in these (so far) very rare cases." Exactly! If we have to decide on a hard and fast rule then there is not one at present, so to adopt one would be OR. I would add that, like the lengthy line of succession to the British throne, attempting to determine this is more like a parlour game than serious research. PatGallacher (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

 * Answering a request for comment posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland - successor and predecessor fields for multi-member constituencies are commonplace but I too feel they constitutes OR (or at least isn't NPOV). It is very frequent that you will read that such-and-such a person is the successor to someone else in a multi-member constituency but it is just the opinion of the writer. A different source may decide that someone else succeeded that person or that a newly-elected candidate has no predecessor. It's not suitable material for a definitive statement on a seat in multi-member constituencies (such as an infobox) IMO. There's no definitive source to say who "replaced" who and no definitive way to derive it. Leave it out of the infobox and discuss it in the article. (And I hope this discussion is intended across the board for all multi-member constituencies, including PRSTV in Ireland.) --Tóraí (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that BBC doesn't give it to Louise Bours but reported that "Labour MEP Afzal Khan..... said he was "delighted" with his election victory at the expense of the BNP." And there's no logical justification for that either. Emeraude (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The template for single seat constituencies is fine. There is an unambiguous precession, incumbancy and succession. That template is entirely inappropriate for multi-seat constituencies. No new member can be said to success another individual. The entire panel succeeds the previous panel. This is true even if every member is returned in the succeeding election (unlikely). The idea that a member from 1 party is said to "succeed" a member from the same party is ridiculous. What is that person changes party allegiance mid-term? Can he still be said to have succeeded from this previous party. And what he he fails to get elected in the next election but a person from his former party gets elected - does he "succeed" from a Non Party of from the previous party. What to do with a new party in a multi-seat? Suppose all 3 seats were held by Party X and in the next election Party X gets 2 seats and Party Y gets 1 seat - has it "succeeded" from Party X or is is a new position? Just scrap the succession/precession temple for multi-seat constituencies. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Potential edit war
User:John deleted some comments made about Griffin in the sections 2009 appearance on Question Time and Policies and views. Specifically:


 * Max Hastings wrote "... the panel had little difficulty making Griffin seem slippery and indeed repugnant ..." in the Daily Mail, and The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected."


 * "...and in 1996 during a public demonstration at Coventry Cathedral he accused British airmen of "mass murder". Although unconnected, on 9 June 2009 the Royal British Legion wrote an open letter to Griffin asking him not to wear a poppy lapel badge.'

John did this with the use of the simple rationale BLPSOURCES. The deleted text contains three references, so it was not unsourced. None of them is particularly complimentary to Griffin, but BLP does not require they have to; more to the point, Wikipedia is not being uncomplimentary, it is merely reporting that other commentators were and citing this. I therefore reverted John's deletions with the comment "Nothing wrong with those sources".

John later reverted again, with no rationale given. He did, however, leave a message on my talk page saying "I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate." I responded that this was bollocks, pointed out the refs and reverted. I noted in the edit rationale why I had reverted and listed the references there.

He has now removed the content again, with the rationale "WP:BLPSOURCES worth a read at this point" and on my talk page placed a warning: Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is total bollocks.

Of course, the content is referenced and always was. It seems to have been removed by John just because he doesn't like it, based on a spurious interpretation of BLP and sources and just about anything else. I will not accept his warnings but I'm not prepared to get into a 3RR dispute. Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's very wise. Have you tried looking for better sources? --John (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no need. The sources are perfectly adequate. 1 Regarding Question Time: The text says "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." It goes on to give examples. The Guardian is quoted. So is Max Hastings, a senior and respected British political commentator who contributes to The Guardian, the Daily Mail and other publications and foremrly edited The Times and Evening Standard. But, you deleted this,presumably because that particular article of his was in the Mail!? And the attribution was given. What Hastings gives as his view is perfectly acceptable in a paragraph about "the following day's newspapers", regardless of where it appeared. But even if it wasn't Hastings, the source is still acceptable since we are dealing with the reactions of "the following day's newspapers". Likewise, the quote from The Sun. Now, the Mail and The Sun are not always reliable sources, but this is not a question of accepting them as sources but of using them as examples of "the following day's newspapers". Given that we are dealing with the papers with the largest print circulation in the country, they are are perfectly acceptable in this context. 2 Regarding Griffin's appearance in Coventry, the Mail is quoting Chrchill's family in a well written report. There is no reason at all to suggest that this is not a reliable source (and knowing Griffin he would have sued if it wasn't). Once again, the Mail is not an always reliable source, but in this instance it can be relied on. 3 Regarding British Legion and its complaint about Griffin wearing a poppy badge: The source is the British Legion itself! What's wrong with that???
 * Each of the things you want deleted is well-sourced, reliably, and needs to be reinserted. Emeraude (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's possible, when citing an author, to find a better source than the work he's authored. I wouldn't use the Daily Mail to cite a fact, but I see no problem using it to cite its own text. Parrot of Doom 16:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point here of course. If the matter was completely uncontroversial I would be more persuaded by this argument. As it is fairly controversial and introduces negative material to the article, I think I would be arguing for better sources than tabloids even if this were not under the provisions of BLPSOURCES. These publications have a well-deserved reputation for carrying false and defamatory material and challenging the victim to sue if they want it corrected. At Wikipedia we have higher ethical standards and cannot use material like this. I ask again, are there better sources for this? If so, that makes for an easy compromise. If not, you have to wonder why. --John (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The quotes aren't from the programme, they're from tabloid authors writing about the programme. There's nothing wrong with using such material and its illogical to expect better sources to exist. Parrot of Doom 00:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. I'm going to stick to my guns here and maintain that BLPSOURCES applies here. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." --John (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that you've missed the point. The opinion of a tabloid journalist will not be found in a "better source" than the tabloid he works for.  I will restore all of that material.  I don't think it'll be particularly difficult to find a better source for the "mass murder" quote. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. Emeraude (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tabloid-sourced material and full-protected the article pending discussion at WP:BLPN. --John (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)