Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reducing/shifting the focus of the section describing relationship with his brother

As an example of how the article may be improved, I suggest that the section describing his relationship with his brother be reduced because it goes into too much detail and is disproportionate to the rest of the article. A lot of the detail that I suggest be removed would in my opinion be better off in C Hitchens's article (perhaps). I was thinking of something along the following lines (I haven't included the references):

Hitchens's elder brother Christopher is also a prominent journalist and author and his views on most issues are to the left of Peter's. Christopher, however, has been a strong defender of the intervention in Iraq.

Christopher, who is an anti-theist, has said that the real difference between the two is a "belief in the supernatural. I'm a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."

The brothers were estranged for several years, following a 2001 article in The Spectator in which Peter alleged his brother had said he "didn't care if the Red Army watered its horses at Hendon". However, after the birth of Peter's third child, the two brothers reconciled. Peter's review of Christopher's book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything led to public argument between them but not to any renewed estrangement. In June 2007, the brothers appeared on BBC TV's Question Time, where they clashed on a number of issues, including the intervention in Afghanistan.

In April 2008, the brothers debated the invasion of Iraq and the existence of God, respectively, before a large audience at the Fountain Street Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Peter Hitchens indicated that it would be the last time he would participate in such an event with his brother.

In my view, from the point of view of balance, the above would be more appropriate. I won't make the change though until I get some views from other editors.Jprw (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

PH's relationship with his brother is not disproportionate to the rest of the article in my humble opinion as he is mostly known in the USA because he is Christopher's brother. Christopher's article is already huge due to his own achivements. The fact that Peter is Christophers brother is not so prominent in Christophers article as it is in Peters is understandable, and information in this section should not be moved over. Mimi ^(yack) 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand how you can find "the early life section fine" and the section describing the relationship with C Hitchens "not disproportionate to the rest of the article". The fact that the early life section is too short and the C Hitchens section too long to me seem the two most obvious defects of the P Hitchens article (along with the lack of sourcing for the huge middle bit, of course). Re: the C Hitchens section, I think I need to reclarify what I think the problem is. There are too many overlong quotes from C Hitchens, and as this is an article about P Hitchens, it seems more correct to include quotes from his side. When reading the section, I get the feeling that I am suddenly reading the C Hitchens article. I suggest, specifically, that the quotes:

1. "belief in the supernatural. I'm a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."

Be amended to something like "a belief in God" – this does the job fine and anything else will be too long-winded and shifts too much focus onto C Hitchens;

2. "Christopher clarified this in an interview the following year: "There is no longer any official froideur", he says of their relationship. "But there's no official — what's the word? — chaleur, either.""

Be removed; "the brothers reconciled" is enough.

Instead of the above, perhaps a quote from P Hitchens (giving a fundamental indication of how his position differs from his brother's) from his review of the C Hitchens book mentioned in the article and/or the debate in Michigan would be more appropriate. Perhaps also mention that P Hitchens's next book will in part be a direct response to his brother's bestseller. This would help shift the focus back to P Hitchens and help solve the above problem. As it stands, the fact that the section only includes (overlong) quotes outlining the position of his brother seems to me to be a glaring defect.[Sorry I forgot to sign off for this earlier, I posted it about an hour before I made the entry below.Jprw (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)]

Have now done a substantial copy edit of the section and addressed the issue concerning C Hitchens's quotes and the lack of a position being given from P Hitchens. I now believe the section is more balanced and appropriate but would welcome comments from other editors. One thing I would add is that interested readers will be able to find the C Hitchens quotes in the references.Jprw (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, when visting the C Hitchens page to see how big the brother relationship section is, I noticed a {Cleanup-rewrite|date=October 2009} at the top of the article, and it occured to me that the P Hitchens article may qualify for this as well. But as I said earlier, that would be a lot of work. Would be interested to hear the views of other editors on this and if anyone would be interested in tackling part of the article (part of the core beliefs section, for example). Jprw (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I really do think it quite bullish of you, Jprw, to go ahead and edit the article as you want when you know your proposed edits are disagreed with. You do not seek consensus or further discussion, you just go ahead and do what you want. That is the sort of behaviour that starts edit wars. I will not start an edit war. This article is clearly in your hands irrespective of what anyone else thinks. Mimi ^(yack) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For my part, I feel that the section has been improved. We don't need all those quotes from CH.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"This article is clearly in your hands irrespective of what anyone else thinks". No, certainly not -- I am trying to encourage discussion and debate. Please state which changes you disagree with and why. It would be a good start if you specifically address the points and justifications I make above. It would also help if you answered my point "I can't understand how you can find "the early life section fine" and the section describing the relationship with C Hitchens "not disproportionate to the rest of the article" above. I'm here to have reasoned debate and not to start edit wars. If a consensus can be reached with other editors I'll be more than happy to undo my changes, though I am confident that the changes I have made have improved the C Hitchens section. The trouble is is that no other editors, have, alas, expressed an opinion until Peter Cohen's comment. Jprw (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jprw, of course I would have answered your comment if indeed it was a question but as you'd gone ahead and changed the article I saw no point. Changing the article in the face of disagreement is hardly 'encouraging discussion and debate', as I said. I have stated my position and it was ignored. I see no reason to flog a dead horse, particularly after it has clearly bolted. And in watching the colt canter away I fear style over substance and logic. But as I said, I will not argue, even though I do not share your confidence that the changes you made improved the article. You of course have confidence - they were your changes. Mimi ^(yack) 20:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mimi -- please undo my significant change to the CH section -- I will not reinstate it. We can then on this page go through the CH section in its former incarnation piece by piece and analyse and debate each point properly. Can't say fairer than that. Please also understand that my only motivation is to improve the article which as I see it has a number of serious defects -- the CH section being only one of them. Jprw (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On...

There really is no reason to have "On" before each of the sub-sections on Hitchens' world views followed by Title Case for the issue itself. He hasn't written seminal theoretical works entitled "On Morality and Religion" et al, so there's no need to try to ascribe that sort of attribute to his views. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think that the article has been allowed to stagnate for so long that people have just grown to accept all the glaring defects it contains. Another thing I recently noticed is that not one of Hitchens's main publications is referenced once anywhere in the article -- which seems astonishing. His column, on the other hand, is quoted ad nauseam, even though it would seem to be not as an authoritative a source of referencing as his books. Jprw (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change?

I would suggest that Peter Hitchen's scepticism regarding the possibility of man-made climate change ("this unscientific and questionable stuff now has far more influence over our lives than religion. It badly needs to be debunked...") is probably now notable enough to warrant a mention in this article. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The new broom

Jprw - thanks for your offer, as you can see I've been busy elsewhere and can spend little time here now. So please can I tell you quickly my opinion in the hope you take it on board with all the changes you are making. Paraphrasing with the Hitchens bros is not always the best thing as quotes convey more than mere facts as you would write them. (Even with mere facts we are being constrained with how Peter Hitchens would like his Wiki article to read) For example: the chalour and froider quote should be reinstated. You couldn't write it better or more concisely and convey what that short quote conveys. In presenting the relationship between the bros you have to consider both or rename the section 'What Peter says about Christopher'. I see no reason why Christopher should not be quoted when he is featured in a section in this article if indeed balance is required.

As for the balance between Peter's column and his books it's fine. Peter Hitchens is a journalist working for the Mail on Sunday. He writes a column and reports from abroad. In his entire career in addition to his working for newspapers he has I think had 3 books published; The Abolition of Britain, the Abolition of Liberty and Broken Compass. None of these books have, to my knowledge, ever been best sellers. Have they ever even approached the list? Have they had to be republished through demand or have they had a chapter added say and been republished as if a new book by the author? Peter's books are not a significant part of his income. Ask him. Christophers latest book, however, has been in the best seller list for over 12 weeks was it? And that was in America - biggest market in the world I think. I read he's made a million from his latest and it also generated a country wide tour, debates and broadcasting invitations. Do you think the debate in Grand Rapids was due to Peter Hitchens's work or Christopher's? In other words, what significance does Peter Hitchens books actually have? Not just to you personally, but objectively. His book 'Monday Morning Blues' was a reproduction of his coloumns for the Express so that is part of his journalism. And considering his punditry (I shouldn't really call it journalism) I think it worth keeping in mind the vehicle; the Mail on Sunday, and it's tone, agenda, and circulation. PH's reputation cannot be separated from the vehicle.

Perhaps a section on how Peter Hitchens is viewed by his colleagues should be included? But then you will face the brick wall of Peter's preference. Good luck. But I do think the chalor froider quote should be left in.

Incidentally is a section on Hitchensblog not relevant? The world has gone digital and an online presence has significance. Would you mention Iain Dale's blog only in passing? It's a significant part of his output. Hitchensblog publishes Peter Hitchens work and opinions that are seperate to the dead tree press material. He has influence over the blog that he doesn't have over the newspaper. 'New Canadian's comment in the 'Core beliefs' section above (#7) should be noted. However, how can an editor source relevant detail, such as Peter Hitchens trolling against a contributor and encouraging his contributors to get rid of someone he doesn't like from the blog, even to the point of hurting a child, and citing the prejudiced moderation that New Canadian describes without quoting from personal blogs? It's a toughy. Over to you Jprw :-) Mimi ^(yack) 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:The new broom

Extended content

Hi Mimi, Thank you for putting your point of view across. I will try to respond to each point that you make (your points are in quotes ""). "Paraphrasing with the Hitchens bros is not always the best thing as quotes convey more than mere facts as you would write them. For example: the chalour and froider quote should be reinstated. You couldn’t write it better or more concisely and convey what that short quote conveys". I would suggest that the "chalour and froider" quote could easily be condensed in a number of ways ("tepid reconciliation", perhaps) and that anyway to describe this stage in their relationship a phrase such as "the brothers reconciled" would be fine too. I have another problem with the "chalour and froider" quote – it is slightly pompous and pretentious, the sort of thing you can imagine CH saying after one too many brandies. If I were going to choose one CH quote, I would use the far more incisive "it is regrettable to hear a member of the Hitchens family sounding like Harold Pinter on a bad day" from their QT appearance. No, you miss my point, there is more conveyed in their choice of words than just the words. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a reader and in paraphrasing you are removing the point of interest in the relationship between the Hitchens bros. And you can't dismiss a Hitchens quote because it's pompous and prententious. "In presenting the relationship between the bros you have to consider both or rename the section 'What Peter says about Christopher'. I see no reason why Christopher should not be quoted when he is featured in a section in this article if indeed balance is required". It seems to me that quotes from PH should take preference in the CH/PH section – it is after all his article (and I pointed this out above as being a glaring defect in how the section stood written before I made my recent significant change – when reading the section, it suddenly felt as though you had stumbled into the CH article – PH's position not being given at all). CH's basic position should certainly be outlined (more to the left, atheist, for Iraq war, etc.) and interested readers can then go to his Wiki article, refer to the references given if they want to find out more, etc (all the quotes you refer to are there). Perhaps include one additional CH quote (the Pinter one – perhaps). I think we need some thoughts on this from other editors – we have had one opinion from Peter Cohen (who agrees with me) but we could clearly do with more. The section is to do with the relationship between the two, as I said earlier, not what PH thinks of CH. "Even with mere facts we are being constrained with how Peter Hitchens would like his Wiki article to read" I originally thought that he was policing his own article and I found this to be distasteful and not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia, however I no longer think that it is actually the case. He has stated that he is only interested in ensuring accuracy and from the evidence that I have seen I believe this to be true. However, if you have any specific examples of how his interfering in the article is creating neutrality problems please list them. It is much better to give concrete examples that we can deal with specifically than make vague assertions. Bonkers and the presentation of the fact that PH made an application for the K&C seat and that application failed. Personally I have no probs with either but he does police the site somewhat. "As for the balance between Peter's column and his books it's fine" I really have to disagree with you here. I think it is a serious imbalance/defect that his MoS column is quoted ad nauseum and his books are not quoted at all -- not even once. I was hoping to do something about this over Xmas when I will have more time. It is a big job though and it is a shame that not more editors want to pitch in. The books are mentioned and have their own pages. (I will update refs to link Broken Compass) Those pages could be expanded, this is not a fan site. "He has I think had 3 books published; The Abolition of Britain, the Abolition of Liberty and Broken Compass. None of these books have, to my knowledge, ever been best sellers" This seems to be a non sequitur. Are you saying that his books should not be quoted because they have not sold well? And do you not agree that his books would, ideally, be a better and more authoritative source of referencing than his weekly newspaper column? I'm addressing your point of balance. This is a journalist who has also written some books, the emphasis should therefore be on his main business and the reason for his reputation which is his journalism. "Christopher's latest book, however, has been in the best seller list for over 12 weeks was it? And that was in America - biggest market in the world I think. I read he's made a million from his latest and it also generated a country wide tour, debates and broadcasting invitations". I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here. What has CH’s success got to do with the PH article? "Do you think the debate in Grand Rapids was due to Peter Hitchens's work or Christopher's? In other words, what significance does Peter Hitchens books actually have?" CH’s success and prominence seem to be clouding the issue. PH may not be as successful or as high profile in the UK as CH is in the US, but he is a considerable media personality in his own right, and recently has become a pretty prominent and vocal media critic re: the war in Afghanistan. His books may not be bestsellers but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them insignificant. And again, what does their relative success have to do with the PH article? It is a separate discussion, and in the context of the present debate a non sequitur. "His book 'Monday Morning Blues' was a reproduction of his coloumns for the Express so that is part of his journalism. And considering his punditry (I shouldn't really call it journalism) I think it worth keeping in mind the vehicle; the Mail on Sunday, and it's tone, agenda, and circulation. PH's reputation cannot be separated from the vehicle". I think that there are problems with the language you use here – it quite dismissive and disparaging in tone and calls into question your neutrality. Not at all (and I could say that you seem to be quite a fan of his and that may well call your nuetrality into question). PH IS a pundit, a columnist who writes comment not news journalism. I think comment and news journalism are governed by different laws of content. The newspaper he is employed by makes a difference - it's market share and personality matters. CH was simply a convenient comparison but if you prefer then both Boris Johnson and Micheal Gove are politicians that also write columns in newspapers. In addressing the point of balance you have to make a judgement as to the weighting and that is what I was discussing and why. In the Michael Gove article the main weighting is rightly on his political career yet he is a professional columnist to this day. We are writing an encyclopeadia entry, not a book. "Perhaps a section on how Peter Hitchens is viewed by his colleagues should be included? But then you will face the brick wall of Peter's preference". Well, I'd invite you to go ahead and create another section (I was thinking of adding a section on his broadcast media career, but decided instead to add a sub section in 'Career in Journalism' -- which seems justified, especially since his increased recent appearances). If PH affects its neutrality it can easily be dealt with by other editors. No thanks. Any argument with PH takes lots of typing and my arm is hurting. And there doesn't seem to be any other editors! "Incidentally is a section on Hitchensblog not relevant? The world has gone digital and an online presence has significance. Would you mention Iain Dale's blog only in passing? It's a significant part of his output". I don't see why not – perhaps another sub section in the Career in Journalism section? "New Canadian's comment in the 'Core beliefs' section above (#7) should be noted. However, how can an editor source relevant detail, such as Peter Hitchens trolling against a contributor and encouraging his contributors to get rid of someone he doesn't like from the blog, even to the point of hurting a child, and citing the prejudiced moderation that New Canadian describes without quoting from personal blogs?" I don’t think that how PH's blog is administered is relevant here. As I said above, if PH creates neutrality issues in his Wikipedia article there is a system in place for dealing with it. It's kind of like the rule of law – a great leveller. I don't know what you mean by "encouraging his contributors to get rid of someone he doesn't like from the blog, even to the point of hurting a child" but again it doesn't seem to be relevant to these pages. It is relevant in that PH has influence over what gets published and what doesn't. Therefore New Canadian has a point in that PH advocating freedom of speech etc. and his blog not reflecting that is flagrant hypocrisy. PH trolling against his own contributors and trying to garner support to get rid of someone whose comments he doesn't like is bullying. The fact that he villifies politicians for their behaviour and judgement must be measured against his own behaviour and judgement. It could easily be argued that he's all for freedom as long as it's on his terms. But the problem as I see it is the source of ordinary peoples experiences on the blog. I'm really not convinced it's WP:V so I don't see how such a section can be included. Anyway, I hope that our discussion helps to improve and expand the PH article. It would also be much more desirable to have greater input from other editors. Best, Jprw (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Hi, Jprw. Can't write a lot so responses in italics in text above. Regards, Mimi (yack) 11:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Mimi -- If trying to correct your overt hostility towards Hitchens (and restore something resembling neutraility) makes me a "fan", then so be it. But I call it trying to be an editor working according to Wikipedia guidelines. I find it very difficult to reason with you because you seem to constantly resort to using non sequiturs and be utterly steadfast in adopting a prejudiced, almost hysterical, attitute towards the subject. And the more we debate, the more overt your antipathy becomes. I also think you misrepresent him quite badly -- the K&C point he has dealt with repeatedly; from my visits to the PH blog there always seems to be plenty of dissent around; referring to him as a "pundit" is both derogatory and unfair, etc. I also think that you are seriously barking up the wrong tree re: the CH/PH section and also that further discussion re: this particular point will probably be futile.Jprw (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Jprw - I don't have "overt hostility" towards Peter Hitchens and in fact have been accused of exactly the reverse on Wiki before now. I've answered his call for help on Wiki and I too try to be an editor working according to Wikipedia guidelines. You haven't responded to my points and instead call me "difficult to reason with", "utterly steadfast", "prejudiced" and "almost hysterical". I have an opinion on the proposed changes, I've stated it, it hasn't changed and it doesn't agree with yours. As your objection now seems to be personal and is no longer discussing the content of the article, which this discussion page is for, I will go over to your talk page in the hope of resolving this. But as for the relationship bewteen the brothers section I really think you are missing my point. The interest lies in how they disagree not that they disagree. They are many things but their choice of words is a very big part of who and what they are. I'd like the chaler/froider quote to stay but that's just my opinion. I think we should gain consensus from other editors on this and the significant changes you are intending to make over Xmas. Regards, Mimi (yack) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Mimi -- I'm sorry for using the words "hostility" and "hysterical" -- the result of making a post in haste and at the end of a busy day (always a bad idea). I have no idea what your past history is with PH but from what I gather from our recent exchanges (and trying to be objective as possible) there are grounds for questioning your neutrality. Anyway I'd like to give details re: this particular point on your talk page – can you please let me know if this is possible (it looks as though it is in a state of disrepair). Re: the PH/CH section, I concede that the "chaleur/froideur" quote could be inserted at the end of the second paragraph, thus: ...a claim denied by Christopher. After the birth of Peter's third child, the two brothers reconciled, although Christopher said ["chaleur/froideur" quote]. As for the "significant changes you are intending to make over Xmas" – all I’m intending to do is sit down with The Abolition of Britain and The Broken Compass and use the books to provide sources for the badly non-sourced Core Beliefs section -- it's just a referencing issue. I too of course would more than welcome the involvement of more editors on this page. Regards, Jprw (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Jprw - I reject your questioning my neutrality and question your own in being so defensive. Incidentally my past history with Clockback has been that we have sometimes disagreed but always worked well together and usually in accordance. Thank you for your apology. Let us concentrate on content. I will start a dedicated section to that end. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 10:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Mimi -- I note that in the last 24 hours your user page has ceased to exist -- I will therefore post reasons for my concerns re: your neutrality in detail on my own talk page. My concerns centre around a number of comments you have made on this discussion page about the subject, and your general approach to editing The Broken Compass page. Should get this done this weekend.Jprw (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with elder brother, Christopher

Jprw - I agree with you that this section needs work. There are some changes I would like to make, such as 'prominent' etc. ("Hitchens's elder brother is the prominent American based writer and polemicist Christopher Hitchens") in that context it seems unnecessary but is probably a left over from past editions. So I will post a past edition here as a template/idea to work from which contains the chaler/froider quote:

.........................

"Hitchens' older brother, Christopher Hitchens, is also a prominent journalist, author and critic. Christopher is an atheist whose views are to the left of Peter's. Christopher is a strong defender of the intervention in Iraq — he supports it asserting that it is an inherently moral endeavor. Peter has described it as a 'left-wing war' motivated by liberal idealism, and Christopher views it as a radical enterprise, not a conservative imperialist one. Christopher has said that "The real difference between Peter and myself is the belief in the supernatural. I'm a materialist and he attributes his presence here to a divine plan. I can't stand anyone who believes in God, who invokes the divinity or who is a person of faith."

The brothers were estranged for several years, following a 2001 article in The Spectator in which Peter alleged his brother had said he "didn't care if the Red Army watered its horses at Hendon", which Christopher said was used "in the reactionary press in the US" to imply that he was a "communist sympathiser". However, after the birth of Peter's third child, Christopher expressed a willingness to reconcile and to meet his new nephew. Shortly thereafter the brothers gave several interviews together in which they said their personal disagreements had been resolved, the most notable being their meeting at the Hay Festival in 2005. Christopher clarified this in an interview in 2006 ' "There is no longer any official froideur", he says of their relationship. "But there's no official — what's the word? — chaleur, either." ' Peter's recent review of Christopher's book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything led to public argument between the brothers but not to any renewed estrangement. On 21 June, 2007, both Hitchens brothers appeared on BBC TV's Question Time, where they clashed over the intervention in Afghanistan (and other issues), with Christopher remarking that he was "ashamed to hear a member of the Hitchens family sounding like Harold Pinter on a bad day". "

..........................

I think the first line much better written in this version, it contains the quote I'd like in context and I submit this version as a starting point. A balance of views can be included (PH + CH) in a logical and meaningful way. I have removed unwise editing such as 'recently'. And the Grand Rapids debate needs to be included. Something should also be included about Ch's book 'God is not great' prompting PH's new book which I understand is at the publishers, the ref for that would be on Hitchensblog as I remember it mentioned. Would you like to do this editing, Jprw? I'd be pleased if you would and hope that's helpful. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 11:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mimi -- not sure if you're still out there but I generally disagree with taking the CH section back in this direction -- too much flowery language/ basically more badly written. Including the chaleur quote may be a nice compromise to our discussion on this, as suggested above. I certainly agree that PH's forthcoming book could be mentioned here if it is a riposte to the CH book but until it comes out we won't know that for sure. Jprw (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jprw - hi, sorry I didn't say anything but I've ceased editing. Please apply to PH for info about his new book, he da man! Kind regards, miamomimi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.219.143 (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Bloated

Is it just me, or is this article quite bloated? I mean, is it really necessary for his "core beliefs" section to include everything including transportation and what he perceives evolution to be? Perhaps the article should be slimmed down a bit? Tiller54 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Kensington and Chelsea accusation

I hope other editors can help here. I have become increasingly concerned about the following passage from the account of my political opinions. It concerns my application for the Tory nomination in the Kensington and Chelsea Parliamentary seat in 1999 and runs: "Some critics suggest that his failure to secure the nomination explains much of his antipathy towards the Conservative Party, a claim Hitchens rejects on the basis of his having had no serious expectation of being chosen; he maintains that he put himself forward only to criticise Portillo and his plan to 'modernise' the Party." The reference given does not identify any of these alleged critics. Why are they then cited? Surely such assertions must be supported with referenced facts? My own rebuttal of this claim is complete. I never seriously expected to be nominated, and did not wish to be nominated. I wished merely to make trouble for Mr Portillo and incidentally to publicise my first book, then recently published. So I did not, as alleged, 'fail', since I had no hope of success. How could I have done, a newspaper columnist who had recently joined the party, and had never fought a seat, against a former Cabinet Minister? I should add that i was also a former political correspondent who had reported many Parliamentary elections and was fully aware of the procedures, customs and balance of forces. Nobody in my trade could have thought for a moment that I would be nominated. What's more I made no effort to campaign among K&C Tories for support, and never subsequently made any attempt to find a seat. What's more I remained a member of the Tory Party for several years afterwards, unlikely behaviour for one in a state of antipathy supposedly caused by personal disappointment. I think the the section "some critics"... to "Conservative Party" is unsubstantiated and should be removed, unless someone can find evidence of notable persons having publicly expressed this opinion. In which case my rebuttal could presumably go too. But I have set my face against removing anything from this entry, so I have to ask disinterested others if they will intervene. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted that half-paragraph per WP:BLP. I inserted a who?-tag in August that remained until earlier this month when it was removed in an edit that failed to identify anyone who made the allegation. That was time enough people to reliably source the claim and they have failed to do so.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Mr Cohen. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki rules refer to allegations that are unsourced or poorly sourced. Hitchens admits that " I submitted a formal application for nomination" and that application failed. That is a fact and whilst of course malicious falsehoods should not be published in biographies of either the living of dead, this is not a malicious falsehood, merely a fact Hitchens would rather put his own spin on. But I won't change the edit in sensitivity to 'Clockback'. I see no need to, even though I believe Jprw probably could find sources on QT through Youtube and the controversy Hitchens has created could be mentioned as his blog is a MSM blog and Hitchens own. I agree to let it stand as is. Mimi ^(yack) 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I received something of a jolt reading this discussion, since it suddenly occurred to me that I am the original author of the disputed sentence. When phrasing it - some years ago now - I was aware only of the fact that there were critics (i.e. that they existed), and I knew this for the simple reason that Mr. Hitchens was prone on occasion to mentioning them. In doing so he would invariably reject their analysis of the reasons underpinning his attitude to the Conservative Party, and furthermore criticise them for making this analysis in the first place. This position has not changed in the time since the disputed sentence originally appeared on this Wikipedia article. On the contrary, Mr. Hitchens seems to be referring to these critics more and more frequently. There are any number of examples online. One of the oldest I can find dates from 27th March 2007, when Mr. Hitchens stated - in a blog entry entitled 'Is this War?' - the following:

"I'm also accused of still resenting my failure to be selected as Tory candidate for Kensington and Chelsea in 1999. Obviously. Except that I don't resent it. Can I ever begin to explain how horrified and amazed I would have been had I been selected? I have often explained this, and the circumstantial evidence runs strongly in my favour too, but the slur is brought up against me again and again, even so." (The entire article may be read at http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/is_this_war.html )

If you put the search phrase Kensington Chelsea site:hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk into google you will find a whole host of other examples. (The 'site:...' qualification restricts the search to Mr. Hitchens' own blog.) Let us examine the disputed sentence again:

Some critics suggest that his failure to secure the nomination explains much of his antipathy towards the Conservative Party, a claim Hitchens rejects on the basis of his having had no serious expectation of being chosen; he maintains that he put himself forward only to criticise Portillo and his plan to 'modernise' the Party.

Using the search-references and links I have provided above, one can see that: (1) there are people who make a given assertion; (2) that Mr. Hitchens rejects this assertion; and (3) that the assertion has been made by multiple parties on multiple occasions, and that Mr. Hitchens has provided his usual response to the assertion on many of those occasions.

From the first two the above three points, it is clear that the disputed sentence amounts - in its own right - to a simple and indisputable statement of fact. The ramification of my third point is that the presence of the sentence in this article is justified, as it refers to an often occurring and ongoing dispute between Mr. Hitchens and certain of his readers.

The only outstanding issue is whether or not we can refer to these people as 'critics'. In my opinion we can, as some of them are clearly motivated by a general distaste for Mr. Hitchens' work, as, indeed, Mr. Hitchens has himself stated or implied frequently when countering the claims made against him. To those who would say that the word 'critic' bestows an unwarranted degree of prominence upon these persons, I would point out that their significance may equally be derived from their numbers. In any case, since when does one need to be 'notable' in order to be a 'critic'? (And, come to that, how would we decide who is or is not 'notable'? How would a persons 'notability' conceivably be measured?)

On the basis of the arguments outlined here, I have reinstated the sentence. If anyone wishes to change the text, please provide detailed arguments justifying the alteration. I make this request because Mr. Cohen's intervention above was wholly inadequate. Many thanks, Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For the general pool of knowledge, I should add that the sentence under discussion first appeared on this Wikipedia article on 1st April 2006, at 18:39 UTC. The version of the article timestamped 18:24, April 1, 2006 shows the article exactly as it appeared prior to the sentence being added. The section running "Some critics... Conservative Party" has been sitting, without a murmur of protest, on this article for almost four years. Mr. Hitchens states that of late he has become "increasingly concerned" about it. Why? Val Hayes, New Canadian (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's unsourced, pejorative, and in violation of WP:BLP. It doesn't belong. Jprw (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain, precisely, how it is a violation of WP:BLP. And please avoid vacuous points in these discussions, e.g 'It doesn't belong'. Val Hayes New Canadian (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It has to be sourced -- and in any case this is speculative mischief making at best. And if you would read where this has been covered above as well as the basic tenets of WP:BLP you will see indeed that this doesn't belong. Stop time wasting. Jprw (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Canadian (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr. Jprw: The reference has now been sourced. Unfortunately, you chose to undo the edit without even bothering to re-verify this fact. The reference is to an article penned by Mr. Hitchens himself over three years ago. From the remarks you make above, it is perfectly obvious that you have not examined my arguments as presented in my lenghtly contribution of earlier. Your allegation of "speculative mischief making" is, demonstrably, a falsehood - and I choose that word deliberately in order to remain polite. It is also obvious that you have not actually read the 'Criticism' secion of WP:BLP. You need to present detailed arguments in these discussions Mr. Jprw, and emotions and/or guesses do not qualify as such. Now if you have a logical argument to make, please make it. (And you may actually find that I am amenable to it.) But if you don't, then please leave this discussion to those who do. From the lack of effort you are making in your contributions to this discussion, it is hard to avoid the impression that you are pressing the "undo" button purely for its own sake. Val Hayes, New Canadian (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you make basic errors repeatedly I do not need to "present detailed arguments". And I did (of course) "re-verify" that you did not source the reference at all. Or is this some kind of a practical joke? Anyway, should you decide to revert it yet again, may I suggest that you have a close read of the text in the box which appears at the top of the page before you press "save": "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard.". Is that clear enough for you? Jprw (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Val, please read WP:BLP before making any judgment on whether my removal of an unreferenced allegation was appropriate. I had inserted a who? tag and no one was able to include any source identifying these people. You are still unable to identify them. Unless you can provide evidence of a WP:Reliable source seriously making such an allegation, all you are doing is repeating rumour. And such rumour should not be repeated in Wikipedia. If Hitchens has seen the need to deny the allegation on more than once, that just shows that it troubles him. It doesn't show that it has any substance or is encyclopaedic. During the Thatcher/Major government, there were a number of stickers produced accusing a senior Tory of being a paedophile. Would it be appropriate to report in that individual's Wikipedia article that such an accusation existed. Would it be appropriate if there were evidence of his expressing irritation at the accusation? The answer is no and the same goes for the less serious but still potentially damaging accusation against Hitchens.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And just so that we're absolutely clear, the reference which New Canadian thought would be appropriate, i.e., "I'm also accused of still resenting my failure to be selected as Tory candidate for Kensington and Chelsea in 1999. Obviously. Except that I don't resent it. Can I ever begin to explain how horrified and amazed I would have been had I been selected? I have often explained this, and the circumstantial evidence runs strongly in my favour too, but the slur is brought up against me again and again, even so."

is an accusation, by persons unnamed, that the subject himself has repeatedly repudiated as a "slur" and as being false. So how could we possibly include it? Hopefully that will be the end of it and we won't waste any more time on this. Jprw (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter's new book

I've created a page about Peter Hitchen's new book, The Rage Against God: Why Faith is the Foundation of Civilisation. If anyone has a copy of this book (and sufficient interest in it, of course), please feel free to build up this page. Neural (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that somebody has slapped a speedy deletion tag on it. I wanted to build up the page with a lot more detailed information, but I might not get the chance now. I need to log out, now. If anyone can help with this page, it would be much appreciated. Neural (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Peter Hitchens here (logged in under my recognised sign-on, 'Clockback') . I think something has gone slightly wrong with the opening section, but I can't work out how to edit it, and would in any case prefer it if someone else did so.

The following passage seems a little incoherent, as well as containing a small but important error. I've inserted corrections and comments (marking them with asterisks **) at the beginning and end of my insertions, my comments and suggestions.

"Hitchens is noted for his controversial[2][3][4] views and commentary, and has been called a 'madman' by UK prime minister David Cameron[5], **The actual word used by Mr Cameron, at a meeting in Chadlington Parish Church, as recounted to me by Margaret Cook, who witnessed it, and reported by me in my Mail on Sunday column on 8th April 2007 was 'maniac. The BBC presenter in the clip cited here had got it wrong, but I thought it heavy-handed to correct her on air**

This continues"....and has stated that, in response to his questioning at a Party Conference: 'let's have the Peter Hitchens memorial question!'[6]. "

• • This sentence is incoherent. Perhaps it would be better expressed as: "Mr Cameron has repeatedly declined interview requests from Mr Hitchens and responded with reluctance to his raised hand at one of his few general election press conferences in May 2010 with the words :'Let's have the Peter Hitchens mwemorial question'. The actual question 'Are you politically closer to Nick Clegg or to Norman Tebbit', caused Mr Cameron some difficulty, and Mr Hitchens chided him for failing to answer it properly.

In a similar incident in 1997, the then Labour leader Tony Blair told Hitchens to 'sit down and stop being bad!' [7], in response to questioning about the contrast between huis education policy and the school he had chosen for his children.

In 2010, he synopsised (**wouldn't 'summed up' be better here?**)his views on conservatism, stating 'he (William Hague), like so many Tory politicians and journalists of the Nineties, decided to make his peace with the Blairite settlement, to accept the cultural revolution and the EU takeover and the rest'

In response to the comment immediately above, I suspect the contributor has me mixed up with my atheist brother, Christopher, described in his own entry . I am a Christian and a confirmed and communicant member of the Church of England.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that once a link to the 8 April, 2007 article is found (I'm looking on Nexis), that should replace the youtube reference, and "maniac" can be substituted for "madman." The reference to the "memorial question" as it stands seems decidedly out of place in the lead (and not particularly clever, but what ho), and if it should be included it ought to go in the "Conservative Party" section, with the context Peter Hitchens has provided (suitably referenced). The mention of Blair could probably be moved as well. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

After a quick search on Nexis, I see that the "maniac" sentence in question was (for future reference), "DAVID CAMERON, who as we know believes in courtesy in politics, has described me as a 'maniac' (in a church, as it happens) following my recent criticisms of him. How unimprovably witty and trenchant." Mail on Sunday. Sunday 8 April 2007. p. 29.

My thanks to Mr Harley. I have made an attempt to straighten out some of the mess made here by an over-enthusiastic person with a poor grasp of English. But as usual my efforts are aimed only at ensuring factual accuracy, and I am only too happy if others wish to transer information elsewhere. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Hitchens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cirt is an experienced reviewer and excellent Wikipedian, so I won't prejudge his review, but additional comments are welcomed, so here's mine.

The article has deep problems with sourcing and style - so much so that it would damage Wikipedia to pass it in its present form. A root-and-branch review is needed even to get it up to B standard.

The article's subject is a columnist and author, so there are many, many published sources by him, which are mainly expressions of his opinions. The article is drawn overwhelmingly from such sources. An encyclopedia article needs to be written overwhelmingly from third-party sources: otherwise all someone has to do to get a glowing WP article is persuade a publisher to publish their autobiography. The "Core beliefs" section is particularly overlong- if third-party coverage is so thin on the ground, why are Hitchens' opinions considered notable? He's not a scientist, so why are his opinions on scientific issues considered notable? Ref #41, which seems to use a Popper cite to back up a statement about Hitchens, seems to be Original Research and unacceptable.

The second paragraph of the lede is a favourable quote from someone in the same profession (and same city). Why is Lucas' opinion of paramount importance for understanding who Hitchens is? This is exactly not what the lede is for. The article should be a summary of factual information about the subject, and the lede should be a summary of that article. Although WP:PEACOCK doesn't apply to quotes, the effect is that peacock terms appear in the lede. The first paragraph of the lede, by the way, is excellent.

There are entire paragraphs without a reference, where the sourcing is not clear. This is unacceptable.

Third-party sources, and dozens of them, need to be found to justify a 6000-word article on this person. Otherwise, the article could be radically cut down to an excellent encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but much, much smaller. I think it could be very useful for people interested in Peter Hitchens, for whatever reason, to have a page on a wiki tracking his opinions on different topics, but Wikipedia is not that wiki. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC) tweaked MartinPoulter (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Something adding to the sense that this is an article in disrepair is that the Harvard links are broken. Click on "Hitchens 2009" in the footnotes and nothing happens. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's review of the article, and as a result am going to quick-fail this as it currently stands. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Atheist?

Someone seems to be editing this trying to claim he is christian...*sigh*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.165.44 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

but he is now! [1] --Proud coptic (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

MartinPoulter's suggestions: Initial work

I've made an initial stab at dealing with some of the problems the above user raises in his extremely helpful and constructive mini-assessment. These are:

• deleting the (misguided) Evolution section
• relocating the Lucas quote to what looks to be a more appropriate section
• fixing the harv refs

However, I have done nothing regarding MartinPoulter's main criticism re: the bloated nature of the article and a preponderance of references from the subject's own work. That will I suppose be a much bigger task that will take considerable time and involve quite a bit of discussion. Jprw (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Third party sources

The article failed the GA review, although it was a bit premature in my view and I would have preferred it if the admin who initially indicated that he would review the article had been allowed to have his say.

Anyway, one thing that is clear from the review is that there are too many references from the subject's work, and that a clutch of third-party sources are needed to redress this balance. Maybe once that is done steps can begin again to move towards GA status. Jprw (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I have kept removing the opening paragraph because it is unsourced with no references and full of OR/POV statements. It is not a 'fair opening summary', with no sources it has no place in the article, it is just opinions. This is not acceptable on an encyclopedic site. So I will not 'leave it' as demanded, I removed it with good reason. Christian1985 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite evident that the middle para in the lead, which you keep removing, is fully accurate and non-contentious. Rather than just removing it, I suggest that you look for sources for it and/or tweak it. I would suggest that that would be a much more sensible way of achieving progress. Jprw (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT 'accurate', that is just YOUR opinion, it is not a fact. Without sources it is simply OR/POV and not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I will remove it until proper sources are provided. I will also be seeking a third opinion on this matter to settle any disputes. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Christian1985 is right: the paragraph is synthesis and so is unacceptable here. Rothorpe (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also happy to support Christian's view that Hitchens cannot be accused of holding all those crass and half-baked beliefs without good corroborating sources. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It will be very straightforward to get sources, I'll try to get round to doing this at the weekend. A paragraph like this is also very useful in the lead as a way of trying to summarise the article (this is lacking at the moment). Jprw (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read two of Hitchens books, often read his column and heard his views on TV and radio. Apart from the paloeconservative bit, something which I don't think can be valid to put in the article, it's not a known term, I think the summary by Jprw is accurate. I notice that further down there's nothing really similar. The comments on Hitchens views are all very particular, not a general summary. So perhaps Jprw's summary could go somewhere further down the page. Ansotu (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But you are missing the point, It doesn't matter how 'accurate' you think the section is (I don't agree) without valid references it is simply SYNTH/OR and therefore unacceptable. Christian1985 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Staunch

I have now three times removed the word 'staunch' from the description of my position. If my position is staunch, it shouldn't need saying, likewise if it isn't. 'Staunch' is in any case not a word in normal currency. Its use makes a factual description into a partial statement and a cliche. Someone keeps putting it back. I cannot imagine why, but perhaps he or she could explain. I should have thought ( having already been outed as the evil editor of his own Wikipedia entry) that I was entitled to get rid of what looks to me like sycophancy from an entry about myself. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know 'staunch' is a legitimate word. The Oxford Learner's Dictionary says its an adjective and that it means: "strong and loyal in your opinions and attitude". And adds: "Synonym: faithful". Examples: "a staunch supporter of the monarchy, one of the president's staunchest allies, a staunch Catholic".

One thing that has always been notable about Mr. Hitchens is his very forceful stating (and holding) of his positions. His Mail column is only one example of this. Indeed he condemns in his Mail column online anyone who opposes the death penalty of being "squeamish" and weak in their holding of their position. They are only holding that opinion in a wishy-washy way because it makes then feel good he says. (The rel. column is available online.)

So I think saying: "This is a man who holds his positions staunchly - is staunch in his positions" is describing, to someone who looks Mr. Hitchens up in the encyclopedia, proper information about the man. 'Staunch' should stay in the article. Ansotu (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Further: Compare "Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951) is an award-winning[1] British columnist and author, noted for his traditionalist conservative stance." with "Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951) is an award-winning[1] British columnist and author, noted for his staunch traditionalist conservative stance."

The second may be a litttle clumsy - but it does give a significantly more correct picture of the subject. "staunch conservative stance" would be my preference, as it gives all the relevant info. (A conservative, small 'c', is by def. a traditionalist.) Ansotu (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much about Christopher?

Does anyone else think that a disproportionate amount of space in this article is dedicated to his relationship with his brother? It almost makes Peter seem like someone who is only notable for leeching fame off of Christopher. We don't need such a detailed breakdown of their political differences.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) After looking at Christopher Hitchen's page, I feel the need to mention that Chris' article has a smaller section on the relationship between the brothers, despite having a much larger article in total. That reinforces my belief that the weighting is a little off.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The section only seems to be a slightly more fleshed out version of the one on Christopher's article. I think the first paragraph could probably be cut down significantly though, maybe reduced to a sentence. Other than that I wouldn't say it was overly large. EvilRedEye (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to mention his relationship to Christopher Hitchens in the opening paragraph. Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Since Christopher Hitchens is more widely known internationally than his brother, it is reasonable that he should be mentioned in the introduction to this article. While it is true the 'Relationship with elder brother Christopher' section is referenced in the contents list, this option is not always visible. Philip Cross (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Philip Cross on this one - I think the relationship notable in the intro, especially since the debate between the Hitchens bros. at the Hauenstein Center. Mimi ^(yack) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be included, Christopher is more well known in some parts of the world and it's helpful to spell out the link between the two. EvilRedEye (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think there ought to be a little more about Peter Hitchen's wife and children (if any) since at present there is a vast quantity about his brother but basically nothing about his more immediate family and what is there is not even sourced. I think that the information about his relationship with his brother would be better in a "Personal Life" section like many articles have. Hawjam (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Hawjam

Appearances in the British broadcast media

A small point: "Hitchens speaks frequently on British radio and television... He is a regular panellist on Question Time and Any Questions? and has been a frequent guest on This Week with Andrew Neil, The Daily Politics and The Big Questions." He's been on TV more lately but has complained of not being on much. Anyway, I don't think it's correct to say he's on "frequently" and is "a frequent guest" etc. Ansotu (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He is a regular panelist on Question Time (appearing as frequently as other non-MP guests) and I think I've seen him around 6 times on "The Big Questions". Whilst he's not got his own show, I think it'd be wrong to deny his frequent appearances. 86.140.239.121 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a small change to the section that stated David Dimbleby put to Hitchens that the Mail is a bigoted comic strip. Dimbleby was in fact quoting John Bercow, who had originally made the comments. Nsign (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

English liberty/ Laws and liberties of England

Where did the author find the references to England and English in the quoted articles of Hitchens? At no point in the articles quoted does the author refer to 'England' or 'English' liberty. This is a subjective gloss put on Hitchens' writings by the author of the Wikipedia article or by a contributor and should be amended/removed in the interests of accuracy and veracity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.45.173 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't worry too much about it. Many of the pillars of British Liberty are specifically English in origin. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Core Beliefs

Peter Hitchens frequently asserts a (supposed) love of free speech but doesn't seem to understand how to apply this ideal in practice. Comments to his blog are apparintly screened by a team of 'moderators' who delete or heavily edit anything he might just find hostile or disagreeable. When a comment of mine was published (attached to my real name at his insistence), he attacked me at leangth. Strangely my response never appeared... JDerek.C (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If this person contacts me at the Mail on Sunday with copies of the contributions involved, I will see to it that they are published provided they fall within the rules of the blog, which is on the site of a major newspaper group and (like the newspapers) governed by the laws of England, not covered by the US First Amendment as we would all no doubt prefer. I also ( as I have made clear from the start) refuse contributions which contain bigoted expressions, even if they are lawful.

I do not and obviously cannot "insist" that contributors use their real names, though I state clearly that I prefer them to do so, and tend to mock and chide people who needlessly hide behind pseudonyms or silly names.

I am perfectly entitled to respond to contributors, in fact that is the point of the site. And I am perfectly entitled to attack their arguments, if I disagree with them. It seems a bit odd to allege that free speech is being impeached, and then to complain when it is used against you. Any visitor to the site can see that many comments highly critical of me and my ideas are published.

Some contributions simply get lost, including ones that I post myself. The technology is imperfect, and so are we, and so such things can happen. Others get needlessly snared by over-sensitive filters. Keep a copy and send it again, is my advice.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the above response clearly neglects to address the issue of outrageous comment-editing that is commonplace on the forum. Moderators have been known to publish comments only after certain opinions, seemingly proscribed, have been removed. It is this issue, even more than that of contributions being barred in their entirety, which raises concerns about the extent to which freedom of speech can really be practiced on the blog. New Canadian (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I should have responded immediately to the above. Mr "Canadian" alleges 'outrageous comment editing'. Perhaps he would care to provide checkable examples of this, together with evidence that the 'outrageous' episodes concerned were the result of any deliberate or consistent policy. All sites have to have some measure of control, not least because of legal obligations, or incoherent or malicious contributors. Peter Hitchens , logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed a concrete example to the Mail Online Community Team (who are responsible for the administration of the blog), with Mr. Hitchens copied, on Thursday 28th February 2008. Mr. Hitchens responded to my complaint approximately one hour later. If Mr. Hitchens has lost those emails I will happily forward copies to him. I have not posted a comment on Mr. Hitchens' blog for well over a year and therefore cannot comment on the current position. But there is no doubt that the practice to which I allude, i.e. readers' comments being edited prior to being published, was commonplace on the forum over a given period of time. At least. Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just come across this - and can confirm, as a reader and user of Mr. Hitchins' Mail Online column for several years that the criticisms and descriptions of what Mr. Hitchens does are correct. If he were to get the same treatment here as he dishes out to HIS users, or rather The Mail's users, he would not be commenting here at all. As he would long ago have been rudely banned. Ansotu (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Further: I note there is a "[edit] Liberty, security and crime" section in the article, and wonder if there shouldn't be something in the article about PH's attitudes to free speech. It's fundamental in so many of his comments and writings but, as people note above, absent to contributors to his Mail Online blog. Ansotu (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them." http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/03/there-is-always-something-all-the-kings-men.html#comments Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday column 11.3.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.196.147 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

I think this article should have a criticism section like other biographies on Wikipedia, many notable people have criticised Peter Hitchens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.83.186 (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis

He is well known for his anti cannabis views and has even written a book on the subject so I find it bizarre that when I mention this in the article which till now has not mentioned it this gets reverted. Is there an explanation for this? I have re-inserted with a ref. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring while ignoring this discussion is unhelpful and if it continues I will be forced to report the issue at WP:ANI Please join in the discussion before edit warring again. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the above is addressed to me. I would advise inserting any fresh, salient information (preferably from third-party sources) regarding his views on drugs in the "Liberty, security, crime, and drugs" section of the article, and not the lead, which should provide a very general overview of his life, career and views. I think that this should be fairly self-explanatory. Regards, Jprw (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish on his mother's side

I have removed this reference, which has recently appeared. Firstly, generally, because I object to racial or ethnic ( as opposed to cultural and national) classifications under all circumstances and am particularly worried by the sort of people who are anxious to discover and proclaim the Jewish ancestry of others; The reason for this concern temporarily escapes me. Secondly, in particular, because it can only be of interest to racial determinists, whom I do not regard as respectable researchers or encyclopaedists, and who shouldn't expect this sort of help here . Anyone who wishes to restore it should explain what purpose the reference has, and why he or she wants it there. Finally, as the sole living source of the information on which the reference is based, I should say that it isn't accurate. My mother was not herself wholly Jewish through the female line, her maternal grandmother (not to mention her father) having been English. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Structure of the lead

I've done a bit of work trying to improve the lead -- it looks to be better structured now, but could also no doubt do with some further tweaks. Jprw (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Moral Racism/ That stupid quotation

I have posted an extract from my rebuttal to Jonathan Ree's comically hostile review of my book. I have also, once again, pointed out that the silly story of my having apologised for lateness to a lecture (I never attended any lectures) by saying I had been busy starting the revolution, is baseless. I know Greg Dyke enjoys telling it over and over agan, but it isn't so. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, it was added by an unregistered user, and is obviously POV-orientated. A case could perhaps be made for it to be added to the Public Image section later on, but in any case it should not be in the lead. Jprw (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've amended the last sentence of the article, as the book has now been published Billrush (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the silly story which attributes to me words I never said and never would have said - the 'source' for it being an inaccurate and *unsourced* BBC website story by someone who plainly knew little about me. It adds nothing to this account, has no source, and isn't true. If anyone really wants to put it back, perhaps they can explain why. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

multiculti

"Removed ref to 'cultural Marxism' a concept I no longer believe to be valid."

I haven't seen any refutation of William Lind or www.traditionalright.com on any of Peter Hitchens' articles. Would be interested to know if any such debate or refutation exists. Why was it valid before? Why is it not valid now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma UKIP (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How many books has Peter Hitchens written?

The article states, "He has published five books, including The Abolition of Britain, A Brief History of Crime, The Broken Compass and The Rage Against God."

Peter Hitchens has a habit of writing a new preface to one of his old books and republishing it with a new title and cover. For example, 'A Brief History of Crime' has been republished with a new cover, two chapters removed and a new introduction under the title 'The Abolition of Liberty'. If we regard this as effectively one book, then he has published four books and The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs will be his fifth. However, if we regard them separately then Hitchens has actually published six books, as 'The Broken Compass' has also been repackaged as 'The Cameron Delusion'. This will make 'The War We Never Fought' his seventh book.

If I have missed something then please correct me, but as I see it now we have an incorrect number of books whatever method we use. Michael Heseltin (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cameron Delusion / Broken Compass; Abolition of Liberty / Brief History of crime should be regarded as one book. The book that is missing from your calculations is Monday Morning Blues. Add them all up together and The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs is in fact his sixth. Jprw (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hitchens has published a new e-book called "Short Breaks in Mordor", the details for which can be found either on his blog or where it is sold on Amazon. Perhaps someone would like to add it to the list of books he has written. Edit: I notice after posting this it has been added to his publications section. I missed this because I skipped to his bibliography to check, rather than being thorough. In any case, perhaps it could still be added to his bibliography?CP190 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Proof that "British Malta" as a term is a Wikipedia-only neologism

1. [2]
2. [3]
-- 212.50.167.15 (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture

A few weeks ago I went to great lengths to validate a new picture of me, via wikimedia commons. I obtained the personal permission of the photographer to post the picture here. I posted it here. Then some officious person removed it without explanation or any attempt to communicate his reasons to me. Now I have lost all the notes through which I validated it, and have no idea how to reinstate it or what to do. Is there anyone there who can help me? If so, I can e-mail them the picture, and provide them with exact details as to its origin, date and place it was taken etc, and send them a copy of the photographer's e-mail giving me permission to use it. Peter Hitchens signed in as ClockbackClockback (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the one you added here- SidneySussex.jpg? I don't know about images, but according to this, it was deleted by Wiki commons user Didym- their Wikimedia profile is here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SidneySussex.jpg , its full title, which clearly shows that I had put it through the proper wikimedia process. The user involved, if you visit his page, says he has left wikipedia. he offers no explanation. He also *deleted* the file, for no reason I can see, forcing me to go back through the wikimedia procedure, which I apparently got wrong though nobody has told me how and I have no way of knowing how , as I followed every step to the letter. What I am looking for is someone who can help me get this legitimate picture legitimately restored, proof against trh such nuisance bureaucrats, who seem to remove things for their own satisfaction. Clockback (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

The subject of this article has been directly editing the article; please stop doing that per the WP:COI guideline. I have tagged the article; the tag can be removed by an independent editor who has reviewed the article for NPOV and sourcing. If you do that review and remove the tag, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, do please try not to be so silly. See the note above from many years ago 'Of course I edit this entry'(April 2008, I think it dates from) . I have done it quite openly under my own name, and have limited myself to correcting factual errors made by others, which I am in a position to put right. On this occasion, I have been trying to insert a photograph of myself. The photographer has given me his written position. I had taken it through the entire wikimedia commons procedure following all the required stpes. And an officious perosn then removed it without explaining why, and needlessly *deleted* it so that I have to trudge through the whole weary procedure again. I am seeking HELP from wikipedia editors in reinstating t, and get nno help, just these futile heavy-handed bureaucratic bureaucratic interventions. Petr Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages. The COI tag on the article is inappropriate and I will remove it forthwith; as I see no evidence here from anyone of a currently unresolved problem. Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Warm wishes.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I was about halfway through reviewing this and fixed several issues. The article needs to be actually reviewed for NPOV and sourcing before the tag comes off. Elvey COI is not a breezy la la thing - we need to manage COI to preserve the integrity of WP as a reliable source of information. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The most recent edit by Clockback which changed the text of the article (rather than changing the picture and adding misplaced pleas for his preferred picture to be restored) was this one from almost a year ago. Plenty of editors have had time to deal with any NPOV issues since then. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I got half way through and found unsourced content that i fixed here. I haven't finished going over it. But Maproom if you have reviewed the whole article and find it NPOV and all sourced, please take the tag off. This is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've checked through to the end, adding a couple of references. But I've never done this before, I'll leave it to you (or someone) to take the tag off. One remaining doubt: do we really need to list the ISBNs of all his books, when they can easily be found in the articles on those books? Maproom (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The brother section is way off topic

That section about Hitchens and his brother is off-topic and irrelevant. Beyond that it goes into far too much detail. This is a biographical article about Peter Hitchens, not about his relationship with his brother, his cat or anyone else. This problematic section was discussed back in 2009 but remains problematic. The Dissident Aggressor 23:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The section seems about right to me. Following the discussion in 2009, it was shortened slightly; it is now even shorter than it was at the end of 2009. It is relevant because his brother (unlike his cat) was another notable journalist. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We generally don't have sections about relationships in biographies for every notable person that is related to or works with other notable people. The Dissident Aggressor 19:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are the first three examples I thought of:

• Christopher Hitchens: nine sentences mentioning his brother, mostly grouped into a section.
• Ed Miliband: eight sentences mentioning his brother, scattered through the article.
• Dave Miliband: eight sentences mentioning his brother, scattered through the article.

This article has twelve sentences mentioning his brother. Ok, so maybe the section should be trimmed. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done The Dissident Aggressor 00:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo

Can't we get a better image than this? The camera angle makes him look a bit too like Aloysius Parker. The curtains behind makes it worse because it looks like he has even has strings. Also it needs cropping.--Aspro (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I look like Aloysius Parker from any angle, anyway. The effort involved in getting pictures past the pointlessly officious, nitpicking bureaucrats who monitor the site could not possibly be justified by such minor concerns.Most photographs of me are copyrighted by professional photographers and could not be used without charge. It's a perfectly good picture and far better than the one it replaced, which was here for a decade without a syllable of protest from Aspro or anyone else, even though it also had multiple copyright problems. Getting this picture uploaded, and many thanks to the photographer, Nigel Luckhurst, and to the heroic efforts of Mr Philbrick, has involved many long and difficult hours. I strongly urge leaving it as it is. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Think it was my Grandfather that fist pointed out, that when I found things difficult it was because I was going about it the wrong way. Uploading photos to WP is easy when you go about it the right way. If Clockback resides in London I could even pop over on my bus-pass and take a few dozen shots on my camera, which he can select from (thinking here: a backdrop of his Remington typewriter to one side and heavenly loaded book shelves behind) (from a public relations point of view that would come across as a portrait of a serious critic). I don't have to go through the OTRS business because all I have to do is upload them on a compatible CC licence. The photo can be cropped and uploaded on the same evening. No long and difficult hours involved – no copyright issues either – no heroics - no frustration.--Aspro (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Mr Aspro is once again mistaken. My experience (and thanks to my chosen trade I have had my picture taken many times under many conditions by many very skilled and experienced photographers, most of whom agree with what I say here) has been that any *posed* picture of me will be terrible. This is a problem faced by unphotogenic people, such as I am, and we could spend hours here discussing the explanation for it. I might just say that, on the one occasion when I met the late Princess Diana (who was both photogenic and telegenic), I did not recognise her even though she was six feet away, I knew she was there and I was looking for her. She did not look at all like her pictures. But unlike me, she looked much *better* in pictures than she did in reality. There are various tricks to lessen the problem, but that is all they do. The virtue of the chosen picture is that I was not aware that it was being taken, and it is therefore a far better likeness than any conscious portrait. That's why I chose it. And it is all very well chatting merrily about 'uploading on a compatible CC licence', but to most normal human beings such an action is as obscure, worrying and unknown as nuclear physics in a foreign language. What is a CC licence? How do I know if it is compatible? How do I upload? What, indeed is uploading? I've no idea of the answers to any of these questions, and nor have most people. Nor do I know where to find out (though I wasted some time in trying very hard to do so).They've never heard of it and they don't know how or where to do it. There are two kinds of technologically knowledgeable people. the sort who understand that most of the world hasn't a clue what they are talking about, and the other sort. By the way, I don't live in London and abandoned my last typewriter in late 1980s, when I first began to use computers. Very useful they are too, but learning to use them is not the same as learning to understand them. Indeed, I have now learned at least eight separate and different systems. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Maproom for cropping the image properly. Shame we did have one from a very skilled and experienced portrait photographer who is not content with just taking a quick paparazzi like snap.--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, Took many months to calm down about Clockback's comment about unphotogenic people. No one is 'unphotogenic' not even him. Was just saying: it would be nice to have a portraiture shot to complement (not his article) but the article about him (and didn't ask him for his view on this talk page but the subject of the article butted in never-the-less). Just because a photographer is highly paid by some newspapers to take some happy-snaps of this subject doesn’t mean any such photographer is highly skilled at placing a subject at s/he's ease and doing what portrait painters know how to do. My point was that the original image could be construed as ridiculing the subject as a puppet figure -and yet the subject himslef took um-bridge. Should the subject doubt my views, then he may thank me later for taking my advice that his face has so much (add one's most favorite French phrase here), that he could just walk into (say) Ugly Models modelling agency and he would get signed up straight away ( also one attribute that good photographic model needs is self confidence – and he has that in overpowering abundance). Its a win-win for him. When sitting at home twiddling his thumbs the phone will ring with the offer of yet another photo assignment... I.E. More Money and an another assignment, shot by a truly skilled photographer rather than a newspaper paid happy snapper who just wants to get in-and-out as soon as possible and blames any short comings of photogennacy of the subject upon the subject. Hereby, rescind my above offer to pop over to him and take some studies of this article's subject, as the above personality conflict is sure to continue. So why should I bother? Ὁ βίος βραχύς.--Aspro (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Hitchens. 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/20110616101832/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=34562 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=34562
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140710041617/http://www.theyorker.co.uk/politics/york/14107-the-yorker-meets-peter-hitchens to http://theyorker.co.uk/politics/york/14107-the-yorker-meets-peter-hitchens

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Hitchens. 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/20080829204608/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2640860.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2640860.ece

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, see Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. I am removing all DM refs, if you disagree you will need to get the policy changed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

·3rd party refs

@Edrussia567: we need a third party source for your addition, using his blog as a ref isn't acceptable as a new addition. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The issue is notability, proven by third-party refs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

LGBT section

This section lacks 3rd party refs, they are all either Hitchens articles or youtube discussions featuring him. This means notability is unproven, we need to prove by citing 3rd party sources or delete the section. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the section till this can be referenced by somebody other than Hitchens himself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the sections in this article seem to rely on citations to Hitchens' own work, with no proof of notability. Seems unusual to remove the LGBT section but not others, imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It caught my attention cos it was the section I was reading. Nothing remotely unusual. I agree re other sections being subject to removal, I'm also happy to see a properly sourced LGBT section. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. Wasn't meaning anything personal when I said it seemed unusual btw, I was just noting that the other sections were in a similar state. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware this is a very big edit and people here are free to revert if they think I'm being too bold, but I've just removed quite a lot of information from this article which lacks notability: either articles by Hitchens, interviews of him with no real 3rd party refs. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty pathetic stuff. So now primary sources and admissions made by the actual author of the content are deemed to have 'no proof of notability'? This disqualifies the information that some editors have spent their valuable time finding, reading, copying, pasting, double-checking, previewing, triple-checking and submitting to the site for the purpose of rounding up any relevant, additional information on the page' subject, because of 'lack of third-party sources', when primary sources are far more trustworthy - this is not a matter of opinion, but of common sense. I strongly suggest that the edit is reversed or at the very least, partially reversed. --Abc422 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not just now, it has always been like this. Editors need to familiarise themselves with our policies and guidelines if they want their efforts here to remain. We abide by these policies and guidelines and not your definition of common sense. The edit cannot be reversed unless additional 3rd parties refs are added. I suggest you look for these as your strategy of attacking users for following our policies and guidelines won't achieve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, you seem to have completely misinterpreted what I wrote. Nothing I said denigrated anybody nor violated Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is not only a blight on the website to delete large amounts of primary-sourced information that contributes to more relevant content on Wikipedia, it is also blatantly wrong to delete such information without the knowledge of users who have contributed to the website, only to find that the admissions have been deleted without a notification and no informative response to a talk page post inquiring about the deletion. If you are going to prioritize third-party sources over primary sources- fine, but to then ensure primary sources alone are deleted in a free and open encyclopedia, goes against the website's very values. In fact, to falsely accuse me of 'attacking' user Bangalamania, when I am clearly criticizing the deletion, not the user, is defamatory. Perhaps you need to re-read Wikipedia's Code of Conduct and learn to treat fellow users with respect, rather then baseless accusations. Again, I reiterate that the deletion must be reversed - either partially or completely. --Abc422 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I clearly didn't misinterpret what you said. You are a new user who appears not to understand how we work. All users can track articles they have edited through their watchlist. Please desist from making unpleasant attacks on experienced users. If you want to chnge our WP:RS or other policies seek discussion there. This isn't the place. You are going to be reported for accusing others of defamation. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abc422: Sorry if I'm re-igniting anything here, but I am genuinely sorry that you feel upset that there has been content deleted from this page because of lack of third-party references. The issue is not trustworthiness, and I don't doubt that a lot of people have spent a lot of time finding these. Unfortunately, we cannot include very jot and tittle on Wikipedia articles, and there needs to be some metric by which we establish an individual's notability. That is what Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are for.

I do not suggest that all additions sources purely primary sources be deleted, and I do agree that a degree of common sense should come into play. In fact, I did keep a few primary sources on this article in my edits. My issue was that there were vast swathes of this article which were just primary sources, which raises additional issues due to the nature of the source (The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online are not considered reliable sources and are generally avoided in BLPs, even those of Mail journalists). If there is anything in particular you'd like to see added for whatever reason, please bring it up here or on my talk page. I am very much willing to partially reverse some of my edits if there is a good reason to do so

And just for the record, I don't feel attacked at all. I understand that deleting a vast amount of information from an article is a very drastic thing to do, and that's why I brought the issue up on the talk page. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The Spectator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has been discussed by the subject, with particular reference to the edit wars etc in which he has participated regarding article content.62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep but what does this have to do with this page? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well for starters it will need to have a "mentioned in mainstream media" banner put on this here talk page (as per Talk:Nick Cohen and Talk:Ice Bucket Challenge.95.148.22.180 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - ah, just checked and another user has already sorted this! 95.148.22.180 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to include the article as a ref we should close the thread now the banner is in place. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.