Talk:Adam Walker (British politician)

Any reason not to cite Walker's bnptv interview for the two "citation needed" passages?

The following passages (both now marked "citation needed") were previously supported by a citation of an interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0za9XwEq_j8, posted by a BNP-run YouTube account:

Walker was born in Bishop Auckland into a working-class background. The eldest of three children, his father was a joiner and his mother a seamstress.

and

According to Walker, on 14 June 1985, two months after his sixteenth birthday, he joined the 15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars and served for five years as a battle tank crewman.

As a matter of common sense, it seems to me that since this is a video interview, and we're citing it only for claims made by Walker, the reliability of the interviewer and publisher don't matter here. What the interviewer says is immaterial, and we don't need to fear that the publisher has misquoted Walker because we can watch him speak for ourselves. When assessing whether this is a reliable source, then, all that seems pertinent is the reliability of Walker when talking about himself.

Digging into help pages for guidance, it looks to me like they agree with me on this point. I note the essay at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interviews (which attempts to describe current policy and guidance as it applies to interviews) states:

The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source.

And how should we decide whether an interviewee's statements are sufficiently reliable? The essay has this advice:

Primary sources are generally acceptable for supporting uncontroversial claims by interviewees about themselves, and they may be authoritative (e.g., for what the interviewee said during the interview).

Based on this, it seems to me that the article was citing this interview precisely correctly. When it comes to uncontroversial stuff about Walker's background (his number of siblings, the professions of his parents) we can just take his word for it. When it comes to conceivably controversial stuff (like his alleged army career, which he would have had an incentive to make up for political gain given the BNP's approach of using army-related imagery, rhetoric, and talking points in its campaigning at the time), we perhaps might not want to take Walker at his word, but that's fine - the article cautiously qualifies the claim about his army service with "According to Walker", and the interview is an authoritative source for the fact that he made the claim, which is all we're using it for.

I thus think we should restore the YouTube video citations and that this is compliant with policy. @Kind_Tennis_Fan, as the user who removed the citations in the first place, what are your thoughts? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So long as the video's copyright is owned by the person posting the video and the content is not controversial/promotional etc - which does seem to be the case here. I reverted your reffing of a Newsnight interview, since it is inherently unverifiable to simply record that this was said on a certain date on TV. We need something that the reader/other editors could actually verify. Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I'll go ahead and add the BNP interview...

... but also, I actually want to argue with you about the Newsnight ref! That the quoted content was included word for word in the program exactly as stated can be verified via at least one clip of the Newsnight interview available on the internet, which you may also be able to find if you have a think about where to look. I did in fact verify it before adding the citation - though since the clip I watched was not uploaded by the BBC, and it's not clear to me that it was fair use, I think it would be at least arguably against policy for me to direct you to it, and so I will offer my apologies and refrain from doing so.

The date of Nick Griffin's appearance on Newsnight being 24th April can also be verified via https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/04/saturday_24_april_2010.html.

So in fact, although it might not look it at first glance, this is verifiable even by an ordinary editor with just an internet connection and a willingness to go digging, as I did. But even if that weren't the case, my understanding of policy is that the citation is still legit, since someone blessed with access to BBC Archive Search (or some other TV archive that includes BBC content) could presumably verify it for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility says:

Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Based on that, the Newsnight citation should be kosher, no? ExplodingCabbage (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Six years ago in 2018 I didn't feel that a YouTube video was a good source, but I have no objections now to the BNP YouTube video being used as a citation. Although guidelines at WP:BLPPRIMARY do state that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Please also see WP:YTREF. Ideally, as well as a YouTube video, there would also be a secondary source as an additional citation. But as there is no doubt about the authenticity of the BNP video, I think it can be reinstated as a citation.

For the Newsnight citation, although it's possible to verify that Walker appeared on Newsnight on the date itself, I feel there should also be a secondary source to establish the importance of including the quotes. If there is no secondary source to verify the actual quotes being said (as well as the date he appeared on the programme) then the quotes have not yet been established as important enough to include. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any other mainstream/reliable source that reported on the quote in some kind of secondary reporting after it aired on Newsnight - not even to paraphrase it. I've spent a while looking and can't find such a thing.

But I'm not convinced we really need such a thing to decide that Griffin's response is notable enough to mention. The quote follows after us mentioning (with citation) the criticism that Walker / Griffin / the BNP received for Walker wearing the uniform - so we've decided, and established via citation, that the criticism was notable. IMO that automatically makes the response to the criticism - from Walker, and from Griffin - significant enough to merit at least a brief mention as well, regardless of whether any other source reported on it. WP:Notability doesn't seem to disagree with me on this; in fact that page seems to stress that "notability" in Wikipedia-speak is a criterion for determining whether a subject should get an article, not for determining what content should make the cut.

(I would also argue that balance/neutrality calls for including at least the response from Walker & ideally the response from Griffin if we're going to mention the criticism. I haven't checked if WP:NPOV or other policies agree with my common sense on this, though.)

That said, including the full quote seems a bit gratuitous to me; it's long, a bit waffly, and in the context of this article is surely less important than Walker's own response (described in one of the cited sources - he said he was wearing the uniform in "solidarity" with our troops) which we're currently not including! We're also devoting far more words to the BNP response to the criticism than the criticism itself. If I had an uncontroversially verifiable cite for the Newsnight quote, I'd be inclined to edit to something like this (with appropriate cites):

During the 2010 general election Walker campaigned alongside Griffin wearing army uniform, which attracted widespread criticism and questions from journalists about whether Walker was a real soldier. When questioned, Walker said he was not a current soldier but was wearing the uniform in solidarity with British troops in Afghanistan, while Griffin said the uniform was to draw attention to the BNP's opposition to British military involvement in Afghanistan.

If the two of you are both against including the Newsnight stuff there, though, we can drop the entire "while Griffin ..." clause at the end.

I'm inclined to edit to the paragraph I propose minus the bit about Griffin's response for now, and possibly restore the bit about Griffin at a later date, with a Newsnight cite, if I manage to address @Pincrete's verifiability concerns somehow. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we accept sources that are behind a paywall, or which might require access to a particular book or archive, (that's why I said "the reader/other editors could actually verify") but AFAI can see, you can't point the reader to a specific 'place' where the quote is actually verifiable + as KTF says a secondary source would be far better to establish the importance of the quote. Pincrete (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. So I guess on the verifiability front, there are a couple of possible things I or somebody else could do that (I presume?) would satisfy you:

• confirm the availability of the episode in a specific, non-pirate archive that at least some Wikipedians have the right to view (even the majority of the public don't), and identify that specific archive here on the Talk page, or
• drop an email to BBC licensing to get permission to either rehost or simply share a link to the clip (which is already in the internet, but probably without BBC authorization and with unclear legality under either US or UK law) for the specific purpose of verifying this Wikipedia article, then link to it here on the Talk page

I guess at least one of those might be doable. I might look into it, more out of curiosity about BBC archives and licensing than anything else!

(I'll reply to the separate notability point under KTF's comment.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that BBC would grant permission in the fashion you mention. They are extremely 'territorial' partly as a result of contactual agreement with their 'contributors' (actors, presenters etc). Pincrete (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A third idea: I think roughly all BBC broadcasts since 2007 may be accessible on TRILT, and that even as an ordinary member of the public I may be able to access TRILT from the British Library if I get a reader's pass. I've been meaning to check out the British Library at some point anyway to look up a source I suspected was being misquoted in another, unrelated article, so if I find myself there anyway, maybe I'll check out TRILT, see if the Newsnight episode is viewable and report back. Obviously not something I'm going to do in a great hurry, though, so this might be something I return to in many months. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)