Talk:Quentin Letts

Inside job?

Nice to get an obvious insider's view: 'He is also alleged to have recently criticised Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, reportedly describing the editor privately as "foul-mouthed and a little power-crazed" and suggesting that he could be regarded as an "arch hypocrite" for "claiming to deplore filth but then peddling it on every page".' It just begs the question - why has it taken Letts so long to work this out?! --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll superficially he seems as the kind of person who would indisputably believe the drivel produced by the Daily Mail that’s swathed in a veil of hysteria, moral panic and fear. However he’s incredibly funny, which in my books excuses him from the normal torrent of verbal abuse I spout unto Middle England. Aarandir (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

He isn't funny in the slightest, person above. Smiling and winking, after saying something bordering on racist, does not make it OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.68 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He's a snide, snobbish piece of colourless turd floating in a cess pool of reactionary drivel. To put it mildly. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He is indeed. I remember him on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions, at the height of the MP's expense scandal. On the live Friday edition he made a 'joke' about the taxpayer paying for Ann Widdecombe's 'dog food'. It was shameful stuff, even to me, someone who dislikes Widdecombe. Comment had mysteriously disappeared by the Saturday repeat. 82.4.188.111 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I find all of the above most distasteful, wiki discussion is not a forum for personal attacks and criticism, if you have a critique of Letts then reference it and work it into the entry otherwise it's just more of the usual internet forum bitching by the usual suspects seeing the world through ideological blinkers.Twobells (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alan Sugar

Should there be any mention of the writ that Alan Sugar has issued against Letts for describing him as "stupid"? Tessaroithmost (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No... it's not encyclopedic, people chuck writs around all the time. Wait until the dust settles, then there may be a comment worth making on the issue.Centrepull (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lynn Featherstone

It should be mentioned. Also that as well as being anti-semitic, Letts writes articles expressing misogynistic views... see example below http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/mary-ann-sieghart-socks-it-to-quentin-letts-for-his-%E2%80%9Cwitheringly-misogynistic%E2%80%9D-assault-on-lynne-featherstone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.18.138 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just read the article mentioned in link above and even though Letts might regard it as tongue in cheek, nevertheless I find it to be a vile attack on the minister personally and so too did Labour MP, Diane Abbott and well known journalist, Patrick Strudwick.

Jamie Reed concerning article on John Bercow

He also makes up deliberate lies .... see this article below http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mp-seeks-apology-from-mail.html

Dear Mr Letts

I was surprised to read in your online column published on 22 March and in the printed edition of the Daily Mail published on 23 March that "Labour's Jamie Reed has sulphurous disregard for Mr Bercow."

I am surprised for two reasons. First of all, we have never met, let alone spoken with each other and so am intrigued as to how such a baseless representation of my view could ever have been formed. Secondly, my estimation of John Bercow really couldn't be better. In my view, Speaker Bercow has immeasurably improved the House of Commons. Moreover, as Speaker of the House, John Bercow represents one of the most positive influences upon politics in the country at large that I have wtinessed during my seven years as a Member of Parliament.

Unfortunately, the view of the Speaker ascribed to me by you is either the product of geuinely mistaken identity on your part, or else it is a deliberate and knowing lie.

Whatever the genesis of this, clearly both a retraction and as apology are now due at the earlier opportunity.

Start the Week

"Letts bemoaned the editing of his Wikipedia entry by his son Claud on BBC Radio 4's programme Start the Week on Monday 2nd November 2009 as evidence of Wikipedia's fallibility."

This edit was made while the radio programme was still in progress. It's good that the previous ridiculous and unreferenced statements about his son Claud's talents and sexual preferences have been removed. The problem is that the replacement sentence is uncyclopedic, inconsequential, and doesn't even match what I think he said. I believe he said his son Claud looked up this article and found inaccurate statements about himself (Claud), not that his son edited the article/added inaccuracies. I'll replace this with something a bit more sensible. Centrepull (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he did say his son had edited the entry and added information about his crush on Cheryl Cole. You can still hear the show on BBC Radio Four's website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr --84.203.3.237 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Personal section of this article has been messed up again. Given that Quentin Letts frequently publically criticises WKP for inaccuracy, I feel that something is going on here, and the situation bears watching. Will revert to a sensible state. --Centrepull (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's re-added the fact that Letts once read some vandalism on his Wikipedia article which he feared could "come back and bite" his son in the future. Re-adding it to the article by quoting him having repeated it in a reliable source is certainly funny, but isn't really appropriate. We shouldn't get overexcitedly self-referential whenever someone mentions Wikipedia in passing; we wouldn't bother quoting Letts if he was making some equally trivial observation about how he once saw some graffiti on a wall. "Journalist misunderstands Wikipedia" isn't news. I'll cut the paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Daily Mail's chief pervert"

I would like to see a reference to, and explanation of, the habit of HIGNFY of referring to Letts as "The Daily Mail's chief pervert". Nat (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic reference, so unlikely to be added. However, I suspect HIGNFY are commenting on Lett's creepy, sexist, hypocritical and prurient attitudes. Rather a vile personality. The evidence, from his own quotes and writings, is pretty extensive. Centrepull (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here we are again, yet more personal attacks unreferenced that do not belong in this area, I personally find Letts has a astonishing insight into contemporary Britain as well as being a brilliant wordsmith and do not recognise any of the descriptions you mentioned as having any relation to the facts about the man, just more knee-jerk ideologically blinkered opinion. If the above comments are in public domain literature then reference them and work them into the entry while ensuring you balance the piece with a mind to neutrality ie: balance with positive comments about the man and his work of which there are many otherwise it's just more whining.Twobells (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Twobells - aren't you just doing exactly what you are criticising others of? Pexise (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Start the Week quote

This article was once (apparently) vandalised to include details of Letts' young son having a crush on a pop star. The vandalism was removed, but at some future point, Letts mentioned having seen this vandalism, in a radio interview. The article now quotes the vandalism, and Letts' distaste for it, since - in User:Davdevalle's view (explained at some length on his talk page) - the quote can be attributed to a source, and is of relevance to the article's subject. To me, it's textbook WP:SUBJECT: "a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career", and Letts' opinions of this vandalism do not seem to have attracted attention from any secondary sources. What do other editors think? --McGeddon (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Letts, as a cultural and political commentator, has a spectrum of views and opinions on many things. The original vandalism (I think Letts says this on the programme) may even have done by his own son himself. Be that as it may. The remarks are about digital archiving are in a conversation about the necessity of artificial forgetting. I suggest Letts remarks are as culturally relevant as his remarks about Germaine Greer which are also in the article. Though obviously lots of his other opinions are not in the article being more temporary and less contentious I suppose. The source and quotes supplied are verbatim from the radio programme as spoken by Letts, with Andrew Marr chipping in. Letts in raising the matter presented a concrete example of the digital'event' himself, it is pertinent to the subject of digital preservation. All of Letts articles from the last three years are on the Daily Mail site. The example of the use of Wikipedia and his son is secondary to this matter of digital preservation. The content of the quote is not problematic or insulting and I doubt even embarrassing to the son. There is the potential for an implicit form of censorship here. It is good that McGeddon has raised the matter. I suggest there is no vandalism or textbook WP:SUBJECT: as Letts is not solely mentioning his entry in an offhand way. Letts is using the example to express an opinion upon the the topic of digital archiving. This is a good topic to have an opinion about. To edit this out is to be almost bullied into artificial forgetting by implication for fear of interpretation and a rationale of editorial correctness. The whole topic of artificial forgetting and archiving should be expanded but the Letts entry is not the place to do this although the example and quote do link to the entry on digital preservation. --User:Davdevalle (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's doesn't matter whether something is "a good topic to have an opinion about" - we go by what reliable sources have deemed worthy of note, and from the available sources, Letts' anecdote about Wikipedia is "not a very important event in his overall career". I'm sure Letts has delivered opinions on all sorts of important topics, but if they were given in passing and no reliable source cared about reporting them, they aren't important enough to put in a biography. (And yes, it looks like the Greer quote is on the same level - if Letts made some ludicrous attack on her in an article, and she didn't respond, and the rest of the published world ignored him, then it's not worth bringing this up in a biography article.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Letts as a commentator and his whole career is about his opinions. Are you suggesting that there should be no entry at all on him except the biography? I thought you had added to the Greer comment? Are you changing your mind on this whole part of the entry now? Does the entry on Plato include his philosophical views? This is not the internet (in distinction to Oxford or American) dictionary of national biography, it is an encyclopedia. I find your rationale for editing, or is it policing, this entry is more and more about what you want to say is acceptable rather than a consistent rationale for why you are against this contribution to this entry. Your opinion about which of his opinions are to be entered I agree with. You cannot list them all. Yet you have changed from he is a 'bewildered journo' mentioning Wikipedia in passing to that he now has an opinion on digital archiving.

I emphasise that this is a topic of interest, it does connect to the appropriate entry. Encyclopedia's build knowledge in this way, eg see a botanical encyclopedia, some entries are just sources and events others major themes. The topic of digital archiving has occured in an audio archive as well as a book. There is no entry for artificial forgetting or for the book Delete or for the author Viktor Mayer-Schonberger- should this event be in those entries? Well maybe but there are none. So the event is inside a source. No doubt it may be developed with other examples later of the strangeness of these new forms of archiving and how they impact on knowledge. In terms of events in Letts career it may be that what is unimportant now is important later. That is exactly what Letts was talking about for his son sometimes called Nachträglichkeit http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachtr%C3%A4glichkeit translated as deferred action.

I do not wish to develop Letts entry to work out which topics are appropriate. Let that evolve with other editors. That is the dynamic nature of Wikipedia and its strength. Entries take time to evolve. I do believe this event warrants inclusion as I said earlier an encyclopedia is also a source as well as something that documents. It is important that the citations and the texts are true and these can be gathered to form an entry on an individual personality or a topic. This has been common practice in all kinds of encyclopedias and it is what editors of them do. Who decides what is a reliable 'source' from which comments are to be cited? When does an event become more important than intended. That is at the heart of the whole conversation Letts and STW were having. It is best to illlustrate the topic with a specific example. Until this has developed into a real topic then it lives in these instances. The contribution is not about what Letts said but what Letts was talking about. His utterance meant something other than what he intended but the implicature was present in the context and as such speaks for itself! Why this authoritarian approach to what makes a useful entry? You are encouraging artificial forgetting without explicitly telling us why you want this. You accuse me of irrelevant contribution and use Wikipedia policy to mask your intervention. What exactly do you want to happen in this entry and why? Thanks again for you pursueing this and no offence meant to you personallyUser:Davdevalle (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs of the proposed addition would help. I don't see any notability for including this, seems very minor. Was the Wikipedia story and his mentioning of it covered in any reliable sources? Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the diff - it's in the article right now, I didn't want to get into an edit war over it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer "Who decides what is a reliable 'source' from which comments are to be cited?", Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources, which defines its terms and explains how articles "should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources", and that primary sources should be used with care.

My only motive here is to raise concern over cherry-picking a trivial quote that casts a living person (Letts' son) in a negative light, merely because we're excited that he mentioned Wikipedia, or because we enjoy (to quote your talk page) the "intrinsic irony" of Letts committing some forgotten Wikipedia vandalism to permanent record in the Radio 4 archive. --McGeddon (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said the quote illustrates a position on digital information, archiving, preservation and articifial forgetting, the quote/source shows Letts position on this and uses himself as a source for his position. The intrinsic irony is not about vandalism or even about Wikipedia but how by being wary of digital preservation, archiving what had ben forgotten is remembered! So now it is a matter of articial forgetting. Wikipedia is simply referred to and simply the means by which the conversation was propelled. BTW I do not think it casts his son in a negative light. The actual information is light-hearted. I suggest it isn't cherry picked but that Letts opinion and example provide a useful example for all of the questions about these issues. I have contextualised it more than the original. I am willing to do more to illustrate this so that it appears less trivial and would value your views. I don't want to start a whole page on artificial forgetting as that, to me, would be to massage the Wikipedia process even though there are many useful examples User:Davdevalle (talk) 18:45, December 2010 (UTC)

Reopening the RFC

Reopening the RFC, since it didn't get a response beyond a tentative "seems very minor" last month. I believe that this paragraph - Letts mentioning on a radio show that he once read his Wikipedia article, and didn't like the vandalism he saw there - is not sufficient reason to quote that vandalism, and seems like textbook WP:SUBJECT ("a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career"). --McGeddon (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC comment: A BBC recording is a reliable source in that it reliably verifies what Lett said, so no problem there. But, is it notable?. I say no. Not because it is a mundane or small event in the context of his life, but because (as far as I know) it did not receive any press/book/other coverage. And dedicating a few sentences to information that is not cited in any other sources creates Undue Weight and POV in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and that's pretty much the point that WP:SUBJECT makes; we judge the mundanity of someone saying "I read my own Wikipedia article" based on the secondary sources that cover it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cut the paragraph from the article, for now, over BLP concerns that by quoting this weak primary source of Letts saying "my son vandalised my Wikipedia article to say that he fancied a pop star", we are reproducing a questionable claim about a third party (per WP:SELFPUB). If a consensus develops for its inclusion, or if anybody uncovers a secondary source that reported on the issue, I'll add it back in. --McGeddon (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this analysis. You have not read the matter carefully enough. You think it is just about textbook 'wikipedia'. And cite this as precendent. This is an incorrect judgement. It is not. Nor is it about vandalism. It is not quoting vandalism. Your arguments against this have varied from the outset. Why are you pursuing this authoritarian editorial mode? It is not a 'Weak' primary source. It is a primary source. The points about POV and WP subject are just wrong. --Davdevalle (talk) 17:20, February 24th 2011 (UTC) Davdevalle (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with cutting the paragraph, I don't see what makes this notable. Dayewalker (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you only read the RFC then this editorial approach seems obvious. It is not about 'Wikipedia', vandalism, POV etc. but about editorialising artificial forgetting. In terms of what is notable as noted previously it is just as notable as the other opinions of Letts in the article. The idea this is a questionable claim is incredible. You can hear Letts say this from his own mouth! A questionable claim! So a couple of cursory glances on an weakly argued RFC by editors is an editorial policy! As I have argued Wikipedia is a tertiary, secondary and can even be a primary source. This is the best place for an example of artificial forgetting as it is a source until Wikipedia opens a page on that topic--Davdevalle (talk) 16:00, February 27th 2011 (UTC)

The problem is WP:SUBJECT. I'll quote the relevant paragraph in full, in case you've not read it: "When a notable person, especially a writer or media personality, mentions Wikipedia, there may be a temptation to add any such mention to their Wikipedia article. However, to avoid self reference, this needs to be balanced with its importance in their overall body of work. For example, a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career. A rare exception to this is, for example, the article on John Seigenthaler, because the media attention surrounding his Wikipedia entry is now a notable event in his public life."

How does this not apply to Letts saying "I read my Wikipedia article and saw that my son had written something silly on it"?

(If you think Wikipedia would benefit from an article on "artificial forgetting", then feel free to create it! You don't have to wait for someone else to set the page up for you.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't written anything like what you quote above. I have made it clear and argued rationally to your varied arguments against the inclusion of this contribution and opinion of Letts. The matter is about Letts discussing artificial forgetting, the deleting of archives and digital preservation. The example of his son's editorial on his Wikipedia page is by the by especially as that is no longer preserved! I think you are being understandably hypersensitive to the WP SUBJECT judgement but it does not apply in this case. Ironically to make this into a major editorial issue practices artificial forgetting. To generate a page on artificial forgetting may be valid but only if there are sufficient examples to warrant an independent topic. It may be that is appropriate but that does not render it the matter to not also be here.Davdevalle (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Artificial forgetting aside, can you show where this opinion is notable through reliable secondary sources? Dayewalker (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To cast aside the matter of artificial forgetting is to miss the point of the entry about Lett's opinion. Letts himself is the primary source and digitally archived. Secondary sources, and tertiary sources whilst often employed in encyclopedia's are not absolutely required in all entry's. An Encyclopdeia is a secondary source by definition, and a tertiary source - ie potted versions of secondary sources. Wikipedia is not limited to only being a tertiary souce encyclopedia. The matter of digital preservation and its editing is intrinsic to Wikipedia. The very difference there now exists in archiving renders the discussion of sources to be more careful than in printed works. The matter of different kinds of sources should be used to benefit the entry and not as a way to browbeat contributions because you disagree about an entry. This could be interpreted as a disingenous bureaucratic ploy to justify your POV rather than a genuine problem of the veracity of a contribution which is the purpose of using secondary sources. I have reported and not interpreted the opinion of Letts on artificial forgetting. SO the matter is not about POV or 'wikipdeia as has been inferred. It is important to not support artificial forgetting in the guise of editorial authoritarianism by being 'internally' over-sensitive to the opinion referencing 'wikipedia' in the topic of artificial forgetting. YOU think it not a notable opinion. I disagree with your POV and have detailed why it is an important opinion of Letts in the article history and cursorily in this RFC. Thanks for the questionDavdevalle (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject matter is a red herring, we shouldn't be deciding a statement's inclusion on the basis of how beard-strokingly ironic it would be not to include it, we should just go with basic sourcing policy. Letts has given his opinion on a subject, and either that statement is a notable aspect of his career (in which case it would be reported by a secondary source, as is the case with the "Gorbals Mick" jibe) or it's just a thing he said on a radio show once, along with every trivial opinion he's ever given in his newspaper columns, in which case we shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with McGeddon, he said it quite well. If it's notable, by definition of notability it would be mentioned in reliable secondary sources. Just saying "he said it, therefore it's notable" isn't sufficient. Dayewalker (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So basically whatever is said a lot of times and sourced put it in. What might be said once is not valauble by definition. So the subject matter is a red herring? But that was your whole argument to get it removed. I also object to the beard stroking crack. If you disagree with the analysis then do so. But You have changed your argument several times to dictate a policy of artificial forgetting and you use several tactics to pursue the exclusion of the comment. At least your first exclusion was honest, over sensitive to it being about Wikipedia. But that has now been acknowledged as not what the point is. The 'it is notable, secondary source argument' is used because you don't want it included. At least you could remain honest rather than hide in your erratic wall of rationalisations to justify your editorial stance. As I have mentioned previously if one-offs are to be excluded then why is the ladette quote in the main body and you have not excluded this as it is a trivial views in his column and should according to your criteria be ignored. Davdevalle (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

Quentin Letts now has an official website which is www.quentinletts.co.uk. This includes an up to date biography written by Quentin himself.

80.229.203.177 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)