Talk:Rod Liddle

Reputation

Rod Liddle seems like a guy writing for the sake of writing, attention and money. He seeks to spread controversy and creates bias pieces of propaganda. Considering his 'colourful background' and the nature of his works, I have little time for Rod Liddle.

'Biased', not 'bias'. Nobody who contributes to talk pages seems to know this. Notreallydavid 10:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is quite normal for journalists to write for attention and money. The nature of the subjects tackled in his material, he is bound to create controversy. Controversy can be a very healthy thing, encouraging debate and public interest. SolarBreeze 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"It was also alleged that Liddle refused to ignore the statement earlier in the year in which the MCB spoke about the Holocaust Memorial." Doesn't the author mean 'refused to acknowledge'? Notreallydavid 10:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial statements

"Geordies were like "monkeys and morons", despite being raised in Guisborough, in the North East of England "

Yes, but Guisborough is about 50 miles south of Newcastle, and used to be part of Yorkshire - it's now part of Redcar and Cleveland. People who live in the area would not consider themselves Geordies.

I don’t think that Liddle was too concerned about pre-marital sex, he was more concerned with people who supposedly want to reduce the spread of STDs by telling youngsters not to use condoms. This is potentially dangerous and I can understand why he smells the scent of bullshit in the air.--Miller 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

His bunny boiler ex-wife has written another Daily Mail article about how sad she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.199.104.83 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

COI

Worth noting his article in this week's Spectator : "My profile on the Wikipedia site, which is lauded for its democracy and commitment to facts, appears to have been written in committee by the Muslim Council of Britain, a former BBC colleague who once, unfortunately for the corporation, edited the Today programme, and a handful of militant atheists.

At first I was shocked by the Wikipedia stuff and set about editing it so some of the more egregious errors — mostly from the BBC person — might be expunged. But within a day or two the BBC person and the jihadis and the atheists had been hard at work and the profile was even more skewed and partisan and inaccurate than before. So I gave up meddling with my own profile and, having learned a lesson, started meddling with the profiles of people I hated as much as the BBC person hated me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.113.143 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with what he says actually, this does indeed read like a press statement put out by the Muslim Council of Britain. It's all sourcable no doubt, but the problem is one of WP:UNDUE weight. A criticism sourced from a site called Islamophobia Watch, with no evidence of notability outside a certain esoteric circle really isn't deserving of a section in the article. If it were balanced by other opinion perhaps, but really Rod Liddle isn't an important enough subject and hasn't provoked much notable controversy. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 06:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Liddle also boasted in The Spectator (18 April): 'I went into the profile of the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and added the words "cheating, Portuguses c***" in every sentence and was delighted to see that my alterations remained in place for a week or so. From that, I moved on to Harriet Harman which unaccountably omitted to mention the crucial point: that she habitually performed unnatural sex acts upon geese.' I was not at all surprised to find in the 25 April edition, a reply to Liddle's article by User:Charles Matthews, in which he stated "a trawl through the history section of the site article on Cristiano Ronaldo reveals Rod's claims to have vandalised the page are false". Viewfinder (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Viagra

What about the story that he needed Viagra. Also is there any point in giving his own biased reason why he had to accept a caution for domestic abuse. This is a real look at him not some place for his mealy mouthed excuses.

The page seems to advertise his work

The wikipedia page seems to be an advert for his books or documentaries. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffyWhodonit (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Chuka Umunna

See Talk:Chuka_Umunna#Rod_Liddle_admits_to_talk_page_edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Philip Cross (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Political party

I have removed the 'Political views' section from the article because it seemed insubstantial and unnecessary. Two of the three sources for this passage also seemed to have been misused, their content did not clearly match the comments preceding the citation

About a month ago, in this edit, an anonymous user removed the reference in the infobox to Liddle's support for the Labour Party on the grounds that a "questionable source", Liddle himself, had been cited. I think we have to take it on trust that Liddle is a Labour Party supporter, despite the considerable evidence against this assertion, because anything else would be original research. Incidentally, Liddle repeated his assertion about Labour being his party in the Channel4/Martin Durkin programme on Nigel Farage a couple of months ago. Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This subject has become an issue again. An anonymous user suggested in an edit summary that Liddle's assertion was not credible because of the conservative publications he writes for. This is not a good enough reason. While his sympathies are almost always of the right, the publications Liddle writes for do not entirely consist of conservative contributors. Philip Cross (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Collapse of Liddle's first marriage

Another editor removed a few quotes from the passage on the collapse of Liddle's marriage to Rachel Royce. Trivial it might be, this series of events received plenty of coverage in the serious press at the time. As well as the UK broadsheets, a search still uncovers 2004 articles from reputable newspapers in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. It is therefore clearly notable. Liddle's insulting comments about Royce, and her response, appear in multiple sources and cannot be written off as "quotes that add nothing." If one is so minded, they are as revealing as any of Liddle's other comments which have found there way into this article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rod Liddle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310145750/http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Original source still online under a new url. The Wayback machine servers are very slow, so it seemed appropriate to substitute it, even though The Spectator has an access limit. Philip Cross (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

caution

When you accept a police caution in England and Wales you are admitting guilt. I'm not sure we should be placing equal weight to his formal admission of guilt, declared to the legal system, given under advice from his lawyer, as his later claims that he didn't do it. This sentence needs to be re-worded to highlight that the caution is a formal declaration of guilt: "He admitted the offence and accepted a police caution, but asserted later that he did so only because it was the quickest way for him to be released, and that he had not assaulted her". DanBCDanBC (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

Why has this page become a litany of the most controversial things this man has said? I don’t see how that fits with wiki’s mission. 2A02:C7F:2C28:5600:7C4E:93EA:8379:3415 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should simply be shorter. Ritenhouse (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying controversial things is the only thing he appears to be notable for. Maybe the article should just be deleted. Neutrality! 108.34.226.39 (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The article as it stands now is terrible and is mostly just a list of rundowns of various controversial things he has said. Even if he is mostly notable for controversial statements, they should be reported on in an encyclopediac manner, rather than just long quotes, and he-said-she-said from non-notable sources. Ashmoo (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Early career and sources

As others have pointed out on this talk page, this article seems to be very much a collection of very controversial quotes. Two I take issue with though are in a paragraph in Liddle's early career section.

The first of these is a quote from an article Liddle wrote in which he states he did not become a teacher because he "could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids". While a bizarre quote, it does have context completely removed from it in which the full meaning of the quote is clarified. The next one is a statement he made regarding CSAM decades later, having absolutely nothing to do with his early career in any way. Looking through the history, they seem to have both been added at the same time by the same editor.

Twice I have attempted to remove these off-topic sources only for my edits to be reverted. It's far from the only issue with this article, but it is, to me, the most glaring one. The current state of this article is, frankly, on the borderline of a NPOV dispute. 148.252.146.100 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there material regarding the 'context' of the 'shag the kids' quote that we could add? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Spectator opinion piece

I really don't see the use in including this, what I understand is a facetious statement from an opinion piece, as a genuine reason why he decided not to be a teacher. Liddle's decision not to be a teacher doesn't seem relevant at all to his wider biography, especially because to me, it only serves to give a particular impression of the subject. Putting aside the disgusting statement itself, has Liddle ever mentioned a genuine desire to be a teacher outside of that one piece? It doesn't seem common to me to include things an article subject didn't do in their biography when it wasn't something they actually pursued.

I'm clearly not alone in this view, given the discussions above and the back and forth over the piece's wording in the edit history. It's clearly too contentious. I removed it citing a recommendation from a year ago, but that was reverted because "it was one editor's opinion". ~2026-32356-57 (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't due as a face-value quote, but the subsequent lawsuit was, so readded with appropriate weight.--Launchballer 15:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@2026-42752-93 Please discuss here. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

In Liddle's article about becoming a teacher, he states he is very much younger musing about a career - ie likely a school student himself. That and the obvious context of humour makes the way this has been presented look like clear politicised dissimulation, far far below Wikipedia's usually high standards. ~2026-43077-33 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The Spectator piece itself is WP:UNDUE. I have replaced it with a passage that is due.--Launchballer 02:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It is highly relevant and says a lot about him ~2026-42301-06 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I have put a version of the material about his attitudes to children back under the print journalism sections. Liddle was either sincere in these writings or thought that it was funny to pretend that he was sincere. Either is loathsome, and estabilishes the measure of the man. — The Anome (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I note that numerous anonymous accounts have been recently created that seem to have been created solely to argue on one particular side of this particular issue. Interesting. — The Anome (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still undecided on whether this should be included or not, but the title ought to be amended if it is kept. The "abuse" mentioned is that of a journalist and somebody who wrote a column attacking Liddle. Previous paragraphs are titled 'comments', that seems more appropriate/NPOV as Liddle's article seems to focus on the tabloid reaction to a specific case. Halbared (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

"Abuse" is the right word. It is well established that sex with children is abuse. The generation of material containing images of sex with children entails abuse. Liddle being either comfortable with that, or at best found it funny to pretend that he did, is both notable and disgusting. Given all the loathesome things he wrote and did, there's really not much to salvage his reputation from. Better that he be left as an awful example fpr posterity. — The Anome (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that everything under "Later print journalism" is now a controversy. I understand that's what Liddle is known for but we might want to preface the section with an overview, or wrap it up in a controversies section (assuming we keep everything). Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

That's because controversy was Liddle's stock-in-trade. He wrote to outrage and disgust some and to encourage others by saying the unsayable. That is to say, to use the modern terms, shitposting and rage-baiting. The content makes all this clear. In summary: U+1F92E. — The Anome (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My issue was with the categories in the article not making sense. I have reformatted it now - expanding the early print journalism to his full print journalism career, and creating a section around controversies. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Until recently I had not really heard of him, but it seems he was a satirical writer of some worth. His tributes mention it. here. Halbared (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've included that he defended his works as being satire to be NPOV. Readers can make up their own mind.

"While critics accused him of being racist and misogynist, he defended his work as provoking debate or being satirical" Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism removed

The edit by user Bassowl at 08:33 was a bad-faith insertion of defamatory, unsourced text ('was a racist British journalist') directly into the lead of a biography. Furthermore, the editor intentionally masked this disruption by using a deceptive edit summary claiming it was a '(Fixed typo)'. Reverting this was a clear removal of disruptive vandalism under WP:VANDAL, which is explicitly exempt from edit-warring restrictions. My rollback was entirely necessary to protect the integrity of the article. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Liddle was clearly a racist person - maybe facts don't belong in Wikipedia? Bassowl (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a difference between facts and opinions. Labeling him as such is an opinion. Opinions are likely to be reverted. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Would it be fact to call him a pedophile? I mean, after all he did say he couldn't resist wanting to shag school kids, no? tarhataz (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Liddle was a racist and a sexist. He also made questionable comments about wishing to engage in sexual activity with schoolgirls.

Examples of his racist and sexist ideation exist within the article. Expunging the statement stating that he was both racist and sexist does not make it any less a fact. ~2026-43316-51 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggest BBC coverage of death of Nelson Mandela be dropped

Particularly as an ex BBC news editor, he is entitled to have an opinion on the appropriateness of the amount of coverage the BBC gives to an event. People always have opinions on this e.g. for royal events. It does not, per se, indicate an extreme view regarding the man or his passing. I suggest that this can be dropped. Jontel (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added the "famous nice black man" comment he made which puts the nature of his criticism into a bit more context.Rocksymusic (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If the material isn't being portrayed as controversies, then stop deleting it on specious grounds

An editor identifies a problem (and deletes sourced material), another editor solves the problem, and then the first editor recreates the problem and then repeats the deletion. See the problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Fully sourced content I might add, and in contravention of WP:CSECTION. I've reverted with an edit summary directing them here.--Launchballer 20:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't delete sourced material. I deleted text that wasn't sourced as a controversy, or wasn't sourced as an example of the section. (Allegations of racism, for example.) The article looked a lot like a list of things that RL said that offended someone, both in that section and in the lead.

I agree we shouldn't have a Controversies section, but if it is instead a Writings section, it needs to be NPOV. Liddle's writing was popular and often praised, as well as criticised. Including only a list of examples that someone took offence to is not a neutral article. // Hippo43 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION doesn't specifically forbid a section on controversial takes. Liddle was described in most of his obitz as a controversial author - would it not make sense to have a section to reflect this?

I do think the way it's written may be better if it was written as a single section rather than a blow by blow of his takes people didn't like. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. However, it currently contains pieces that are not sourced as controversial, and are clearly satirical. The child sexual abuse section, for example, contains a Spectator article that was the subject of a tweet eight years later by Ash Sarkar, which is mentioned only in passing in stories about a dispute between Sarkar and Julie Burchill. The Guardian article about child pornography laws is not sourced as controversial at all. We should not be including writing that has not caused genuine controversy, supported by reliable sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The sleeping with students one seemed to stick as a controversy as it's even mentioned in Zoe Williams obituary about him. I'm surprised the child pornography one isn't mentioned (although maybe it's because it was written when he was a guardian writer). I think the main thing that needs to be included is at least some mention of him being viewed as controversial with some references to why - I don't think every issue needs to be mentioned. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. But if we added stuff that has been mentioned since his death as though it were actually controversial at the time, we would need to add a load of the examples of his positive, respected, funny etc work that has been praised since he died. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest thinking about ways of editing this section that don't involve repeating the large-scale deletions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what scale you mean, but inappropriate content should be removed. What do you suggest doing? // Hippo43 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mwan by "inappropriate"? Centainly this material makes Liddle look bad, as other satirists seem to be able to write material that does not involve apprarent confessions to pedophilia. It is either a vile lapse of taste or an actual confession - either is bad. It's certainly not "clearly satirical". — The Anome (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)