Talk:Nick Griffin - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slatersteven (talk | contribs) at 12:43, 22 June 2009 (→cooking the story). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:43, 22 June 2009 by Slatersteven (talk | contribs) (→cooking the story)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Nick Griffin is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nick Griffin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Fascism

Archives

Current stance

Please note that Nick has stated openly on the news that the holocaust did happen and that there was "no doubt" of that. His original comments may well have been taken out of context somewhat anyway. Also, it is not islamophobia to suggest that there is a connection between sections of the community and hard drugs. There is evidence of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.81.249 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The marticle makes it clear that he claims to have changed his stance. As to the drugs issue. Mr Griffin said that "You can't possibly separate the hard drugs trade from the question of Islam and particularly Pakistani immigration". We had drugs issues in the country long before Islamic migration. this is an attmempt to link an ethnic group specificaly and directly with the drugs trade.]

I have added a {{fact}} tag to the quote This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon because I was unable to find a source for it. However, I did find this same quote here on The Kvetcher, a site highly unlikely to be sympathetic to anti-semitism, and which claims that ...antisemitism isn’t the BNP’s focus, so it would seem the quote is legitimate. We just need a source for it. --Unconventional (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Jewish Chronicle considers them to be vehement supporters of Israel, who have a reord, especially in Gaza, which the BNP evidently envy. Perhaps the Board of Deputies should consider this and its implications.--Streona (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm about to show my ignorance. The Jewish Chronicle considers whom to be vehement supporters of Israel? A record...the BNP evidently envy why? The Board of Deputies of what organization should consider this and its implications for what? Is the relevance to the putative Griffin quote needing sourcing, or the reliability of The Kvetcher, or are you just making a general comment? Sorry to be so dense. --Unconventional (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some points for Unconventional: That's the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the main representative body of Jews in Britain. Kvetcher is not reliable; it's a blog site. Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The source for the quote is ambiguous. The same quote appears in the BNP article and is sourced to here. However, this shows the wording to actually be "The BNP has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-Semitism which has held this party back for two decades." It is not directly attributed to Griffin, but to the 'BNP news team'. So we are now in a situation where there is no evidence for Griffin having said anything of the sort. Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it's too unreliable to keep 144.32.126.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Convictions

{{editsemiprotected}} Can someone add info about his criminal convictions to this as it's locked? -- Anonymous guy

You'll need to be much more specific about what you want adding. You'll also need to cite source(s) to verify it. Cheers, Martin 16:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I understand that he regards himself Christian but what denomination does he belong to? Anglican? Catholic? etc. Please add to article. Apex156 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some cursory googling yielded , which states that International Third Positing was a "fanatically Catholic fascist group", which might suggest he's Catholic. However, I wouldn't consider an anti-BNP site to be the best source of information on the matter, not to mention that a lot of knee-jerk lefty types use "Catholic" and "Christian" interchangeably, e.g. referring to Fred Phelps as a "priest". Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even if ITP was a "fanatically Catholic fascist group",, it does not suggest Griffin was a Catholic. Griffin is not a religious figure nor is he known for his religion, so is any of this really important.Emeraude (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In a recent Sky News interview with Adam Boulton he talked about religion at length, he is also the founder of the Christian Council of Britain. Based on that I would say it is an important issue and should be covered by the article to a greater extent than it is at present. Apex156 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Music

Nick Griffin's musical efforts should be mentioned. http://www.greatwhiterecords.com/reviews_westwind.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8071467.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/oct/20/popandrock.race 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Folk Community does he belong to?

According to the BNP constitution he is a member of one of the following folk communities. Do we know which one? i) The Anglo-Saxon Folk Community; ii) The Celtic Scottish Folk Community; iii) The Scots-Northern Irish Folk Community; iv) The Celtic Welsh Folk Community; v) The Celtic Irish Folk Community; vi) The Celtic Cornish Folk Community; vii) The Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Folk Community; viii) The Celtic-Norse Folk Community; ix) The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community; x) The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community; xi) Members of these ethnic groups who reside either within or outside Europe but ethnically derive from them93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Folk Communities"! How quaint! It sounds positively Wagnerian! Will we have out "Folk Community" on our passports? And what about Jews? And members of the non-white Folk communities? As for Griffin himself, well an Irish-American (and they care about these things) claims that Griffin is an Irish name. Indeed Arthur Griffin was a famous nationalist politician. So perhaps Nick's in category v). Meanwhile, Collins New Gem Dictionary describes Griffin as a "fabulous monster with eagle's head and wings and lion's body". As I say, positively Wagnerian! Ausseagull (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to today's Independent on Sunday, he appears to be an Englishman who is diluting a "Celtic Welsh Folk Community". He lives in a Welsh village but has an English lifestyle and has not learned Welsh. Ausseagull (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be relevant to the above question. Nor am I sure that either your polint or the question are all that relevantSlatersteven (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in mid Wales for 3 years,I can assure Ausseagull that there is no significant difference between English and Welsh lifestyles. It would, perhaps, be useful to know if hs children speak Welsh (see discussion below). Emeraude (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I dare say you're right. But that was not the opinion of the Welshman writing in The Independent. Ausseagull (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

what you mean he is some one who has come to anotehr land and not learned the language and is diluting the the folk heratige of the native inhabitants, for shame. I relalise that what I have just wrote breaks soem of Wikipedias policies, but I have don e so to inllastrate the problom with both the Indepedant article, and the general demenour to much of the anti-BNP debate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MEP

Please fix link: "He was elected as a member of the European Parliament for North West England in the ]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.224.131 (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

left eye

{{editsemiprotected}} I read on another website that Griffin had one eye. I came to wikipedia to check which it was missing but the entry only confirmed the fact, not which eye. The source given for the fact, the Telegraph newspaper, states it's the left eye. I suggest updating the entry to save people having to visit a second site to get the extra information. Cheers.

Done. Jolly Ω Janner 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes which seem to show Griffin's ultimate aims

In April 2000, Griffin addressed the American Friends of the BNP - a fundraising group. Mr Griffin said: “The BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined to sell them. And that means basically to use saleable words — freedom, security, identity, democracy.

“Perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ve got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, then perhaps one day the British people might change their mind and say ‘yes, every last one must go’. Perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you’re going to get absolutely nowhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, we talk about identity.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6481475.ece

I'm definitely not neutral when it comes to Griffin, so would anyone like to comment? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

"...if I was in power I personally would immediately enforce anti-miscegenation laws with a mandatory death penalty for the non-white partner if a mixed-race relationship continued after the passing of the law (mixed couples would be given a short time in which to separate), after having repealed the Race Relations Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawing membership from the European Union and the Council of Europe. Primarily, I would do this to prevent genocide.--AgglutinativeSerfdom (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) " Is a quote from the BNP talk page and I think says it all. The contributor admits to voting & supporting the BNP. This is it in a nutshell. --Streona (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is now on my radar, I'll be doing what I can to remove any elements of bias. As objectionable as Mr Griffin's views may be to some (including myself), he is particularly notable and his entry deserves to be well-written. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is user AgglutinativeSerfdom Mr Griffin if not then his views are not relevant.]

Er. I wasn't really asking for comments on Griffin, so much as asking whether perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. My opinion is that it should, because it serves as proof that his strategy is racist, and his tactics are a softly-softly approach and I think that should be mentioned. I have a very non-neutral view on Griffin, though, so I'm interested as to whether it is reasonable to put the quote on the page in such a context. Much as I'd like the page to call Griffin a neo-Nazi racist scumbag, that's only if it can be shown to be true to the standard required on Misplaced Pages. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

An encyclopaedia does not exist to 'prove' anything. It exists to present informative and unbiased information on a notable topic. Information should be presented in exactly this manner, and balanced so that the reader can form his/her own opinions on the matter. I too share a similar view, but I will absolutely not allow that view to colour my edits on this article, and neither should you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been very clear. Let me try again: if we have evidence of Nick Griffin's aims, that should go in the article in order to provide information. What I was asking is whether the quotes I provided actually provide that evidence. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

If its noteworthy and adds to the article then certainly it would warrant inclusion, however including every scrap of detail you can find just to pursue a specific agenda is very dodgy territory. Your use of the word 'evidence' suggests you have such an agenda. The article concerned only provides a small excerpt of that speech - the same speech, word for word, is on YouTube under a BBC report, but strangely the speech is edited (clearly so). All I'm saying is, provide a balanced view so that people may form their own opinions. As far as I know, Nick Griffin's aim is to achieve a degree of political power for himself and his party. Using excerpts from an edited speech to speculate on what he would do in power is, in my view, not something for an encyclopaedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a good selection of sourced Griffin quotes at http://www.aryanunity.com/WNP/griffinfile1.html 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly a selection of quotes, but it is a selection, and the general tenor of that website, let alone its name, would seem to suggest that they have been selected for a polemical purpose, and without specific attribution. Here, verifiability policy requires much more stringent citations, such that proper context may be established by impartial observers. It is difficult to find quotes on such a subject as this that are not agenda-driven, and hence free of selectivity, but that does not mean we should dredge the web for anything and everything that supports an agenda. Neutrality is vitally important in such circumstances, yet, in my experience, extremely difficult to achieve. That goes with the territory here, but the guy, per WP:BLP, is entitled to be represented honestly and fairly. As for me, I leave my prejudices at the door when I edit here. Would that others would do the same. Rodhull andemu 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

PoD> "As far as I know, Nick Griffin's aim is to achieve a degree of political power for himself and his party." The quote above appears to indicate otherwise, and to suggest that is merely a means to an end. Isn't it of interest to know what he plans to do if he ever achieves power? It seems a little facile to sum up a politician's aims as 'wanting power' because they all want that. The difference between them is in what they'd do if they had it. Rodhullandemu> As I've said, I'm inviting comment because I'm not convinced I'm capable of being neutral on this subject, but I am trying to be. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

It boils down to the purpose here of citing Griffin's words. Leaving aside that all politicians seek power and/or influence of some sort, to cite words to indicate some alleged "hidden agenda" is original research or synthesis. I agree that it is difficult to remain neutral in an article such as this, simply because of its underlying subject matter; however, leaving one's prejudices at the door is a vital quality of any encyclopedist, and I would ask you to consider your motives in seeking to introduce this material, and even if you are beyond reproach on that score, also to consider how such words can appropriately be used to provide a neutral and informative commentary on the subject of this article- and those last words should, of course, be applicable to any article on Misplaced Pages. That's the acid test here. Rodhull andemu 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

no source

I can't find a reliable source for this, so I'll put it here as its quite an interesting quote, if true. Someone can reinsert it if they find a wp:reliable source.

Griffin went on record in 2005 stating "This party has finally cast off the leg iron of anti-Semitism and not a moment too soon."

Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See Current Stance section above. I totally failed to find a source that attributed it to Griffin personally. Emeraude (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Loss of eye

the only political element to this is that A:It may have been due to survialist manouvers (at this tiem un sourced). A supcision that may not be true. But stoped his political carrer for a year (a line such as "the loss of his eye disrupted his political carrer for a short while" can be placed in the right place.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of breaking the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. You are asking questions and inserting citation requests that are completely unnecessary in a fully-referenced paragraph and you are also introducing poor formatting. You are also moving a paragraph which follows the chronology of the article, completely outside that chronology, into a section reserved solely for the man's personal life.

I am reverting your edits for the last time since they are quite clearly incorrect and inappropriate - if you continually revert edits without fully explaining yourself first here, I will be forced to request admin assistance.Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You too were in danger of breaching Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule .

The section you have placed it in is titled political career; the eye injury is not part of (but did affect it for a brief period) his political career. As such it does not belong in that section. Also you removed a sourced statement (a source you provided) that stated that the round that injured his eye was a shotgun round. As it was sourced why was it removed?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The eye injury seems central to Griffin's removal from political life at that time, and is bolstered by the 'survivalist manoeuvres' quote. It therefore is most certainly a part of his political career, if you like I can also add quotes that demonstrate his use of his false eye to generate humour in his political speeches. I could also add a line from a source that states Griffin found it amusing to wear a leather jacket and eyepatch while working for Irvine. One source says 'bullet' - from Nick Griffin's own account - and the other says 'shotgun cartridge' (or similar). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true that his injury (may have, thus there is an element of specualtion here) put his political career on hold, but did not stop it or change his views, thus its effect was of only limited significance to him as a politician( and seems to have had far greater efFect on his business career). Except that 'survivalist manoeuvres' may mean many things, some of which may not be direclty political (there are non-political survivalists). So that quote may not (and it is supersition to say it does) relate to political activity. Nor does his use of the glass eye have relavance to his mpolitical career, it has more relevance to his personality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not know how the injury affected his views, and thus its significance to him as a politician. This is getting repetitive now, so I'll refrain from further comment on the matter. You know my opinion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us do, thats my ppoint. It is speculation to say how it affected his political career with out sources to say how it affected it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As we now have two sources sating it was a shotgun round I think that should now be re-instated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we n ow actualy put the story as Nick Gri9ffin said it happened and not how a source that has had doubts raised about its accuracy says it happened, and thus move it to the right areaSlatersteven (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Jewish source as I doubt it would ever be judged reliable (the website carries a disclaimer about tampering), but the shotgun cartridge is referenced correctly now so I'm happy with how it appears. I still don't think its an entirely personal matter, and I think it should remain where it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Times profile

This article would appear to raise questions on the authenticity of The Times profile referenced several times in this article (although I would hardly consider the BNP website an entirely trustworthy source). I think there are two options - the first, to simply remove anything sourced from that article, the second, to somehow use this link to refute those points. What do people think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the first course would be to see if any of the claims are referacned elsewere, and that those are not referanced from the time article. It should be pointed out that the times is generaly regarded as a reliable source, but it can make mistakes. Aslo it may yet turn out that the press complaint commision may yet find in favour of either party. So I would susgest leraving it mas is for now, but try to find new sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the reliability of the BNP website statement is spot on. However, many of the details given by The Times are not contested by the BNP (or even contestable) so I have removed the "verify source" tag from them. It should be easy enough to verify the other points from other sources, but, to be honest, most are pretty trivial (e.g. his kids speak Welsh) and could simply be deleted from the article if no alternative source is found. I'd suggest allowing 24 hours for this to happen, and I'll get onto it asap. Emeraude (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, I think however the source should be removed, or its reliability questioned (as it now is) until the PCC has reported. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've replaced references from other sources on 4 or 5 of the issues. Details of his house I've deleted as not being of any importance. That leaves:

"Following his graduation, Griffin was unemployed for about a year" which I would suggest is not crucial and, in fact, not particularly unusual. Could go, but if another ref is available and people want it to stay....

"...Griffin worked as a security man for David Irving." This is so unlikely that it can go. Other sources say that Griffin met Irving once before their scheduled university debate.

11) The article claims that Nick was a security man for David Irving's meetings. He was for one meeting and that was it. - I know its a blog, but it is an anti-BNP blog that is also attacking the Times profile. It lends a little credence to the matter, but not much. I just thought it worth pointing out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS, not matter what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Griffin claimed to have fallen out with Tyndall over the latter's hatred of Jews, and his policy on Muslims." This could be accurate in the sense that it is the sort of thing that Griffin would claim - that's not to say it's true. However, I can find no other reference for this statement as it stands.

"They have four children, all of whom are fluent in Welsh." This is believable if they have been educated at schools in mid-Wales. There are plenty of sources for there being 4 children, but there's no other source that I can find that they speak Welsh. Again, it's trivial and can safely go.

On the wider issue, let's remember that the Press Complaints Commission is not a court of law and has no legal standing. The issue is therefore not sub judice and normal practice would be to accept the newspaper's story until the PCC has adjudicated. So, for example, you could say "The Times says that........ , though this is disputed by Griffin." This is especially true given that the issues Griffin is complaining of are not those used here. However, given the availability of alternative sources for all the substantive issues, it is OK to delete these Times refs (though we may look stupid if the PCC eventually adjudicates against Griffin!!). Emeraude (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I'm happy for you to remove the above material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy they are for example "The Times even lies about how Mr Griffin lost his one eye, trying to insinuate that it resulted from a shooting accident while on “paramilitary manoeuvres.”" this 'fact is in the article (and is used as a justification for his eye injury being a political not personal matter. So this should also be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Trials

Why is there so much information (amount of time jury took to decide details of arrest ect) for one trial and not for the other?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

in addition most of the links seem to be far from working.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the first trial happened in 1998, and online sources are lacking on information. Print sources don't offer much either, presumably because Griffin was at that time not a particularly notable figure in politics. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So those links that no longer work (and the information they source) should be removedSlatersteven (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Which links? I prefer to replace deadlinks if possible with entries from Archive.org Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Ware & Back 2002, p. 55

^ Seale et al. 2004, p. 268

^ Atkins 2004, p. 112

All seem to go no where.They appear to be boo sources, but par to be links.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

They work perfectly, guide the reader to the appropriate book, which is highlighted in blue, which can then be clicked to take the user to the book page at Google Books. The reader is then free to read whatever material is available to preview at Google Books. Parrot of Doom (talk)

Except that when I click on them they just take me to the bottom of the Nick griffin page, not google booksSlatersteven (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Opps ju7st seen that the books are at the bottom of the pageSlatersteven (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Atkins 2004, p. 112 seems to make no mention of the trial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes a very great mention of the trial. Read page 112 of the book, column 1. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am it makes a referance to Zundel, one passing referance to britain but mainly seems to be about Germany (mainly the NPD) I can find no referance to the trial, maybe I have a different page 112.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)#

cooking the story

The cook report was aired a year before the rune trial. None of the sources seem to link to tow stories (though they are mentioned together). The trial was about the Rune article not the earlier comments about Baron Carlile of Berriew (who had reproted the rune article). Whilst tehre fore it could be argued that the one influenced (and may have led to) the other. This is specualtion, for which some very goos souorces would have to state specificaly, which is against the policies of Misplaced Pages.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rune was reported by Carlile, and Griffin was later filmed by The Cook Report giving the quote in the article. The two are directly linked.

Frankly I'm getting sick and tired of your continual reversions to this article. You are being deliberately obtuse, you have added nothing of note or relevance to its content, you do not understand how to use or read citations or sources. There is no speculation involved here - the two are directly linked, and as such belong together.

By the way I do not appreciate the heading you have created here - I have no interest in 'cooking the story', and I would ask you to refrain from suggesting that I have some kind of underhand agenda. I do not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Acualy the cook report was aired the year before http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X8QQwU00Jk. Do your source say they are linked, if not (and I sugest you provide a quote) if not then it is specualtion, not fact. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: