Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 1 June 2015 (move brit english to top of headers. add COI editnotice; and section on COI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Peter Hitchens was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 11, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Clockback (talk · contribs) / Hitchens, Peter This user has contributed to the article.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 British columnist and author, noted for his traditionalist conservative stance." with "Peter Jonathan Hitchens (born 28 October 1951) is an award-winning 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)

Spelling of middle name

Is his middle name "Jonathan" (top of article) or "Johnathan" )picture caption)?

"Johnathan" was only given here on WP, so I have corrected it. Philip Cross (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any such name as "Johnathan"? I thought it was a mis-spelling. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I edit this entry

The great glowing warning above seems to suggest that there is some sort of secret about the fact that I edit this entry. On the contrary, I have many times publicly acknowledged that I do so, to ensure factual accuracy, and I see to it that my sign-in 'clockback' is identified as mine, so it is easy to see what I have done and where I have been. I did not, however, create the entry in the first place, or write it as a whole. I have left in it a number of descriptions of my positions, etc, written by other people which I might express better, because I think I should limit my intervention to ensuring that the entry is factually correct. It would be wrong for anyone to assume that this was a self-description. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeable experiences

I have now twice removed a claim in the entry that I said in my Mail on Sunday blog that the Grand Rapids debate with my brother was a disagreeable experience. The entry, containing this inaccurate claim, seems to suggest that I had decided - as a result of it being 'disagreeable'- that I would not debate with my brother again. This is demonstrably not so. I said before and during the debate itself( at the very beginning, in my introductory remarks, and also at a press conference held a few hours before, both recorded) that I would not again take part in a public debate with my brother. This was a decision I took before the debate took place, in fact during my journey to Grand Rapids. Whoever reinstated this the first time should check the reference they themselves provide. The entry they produce contains no such statement. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted - however, if if I am not mistaken, you did say in your blog that you thought it was an unpleasant experience, which prompted the chosen wording, though I can see now that that wording does indeed create the inaccurate impression that this directly led to your decison not to debate C Hitchens again.Jprw (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled. Which words are these? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"It was quite unpleasant. I fought as hard as I could for what I think." see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557443/Hitchens-vs-Hitchens--Peace-lifelong-feud-brothers-laid-rest.html. I got the reference wrong - it was your column and not your blog. Anyway, 'disagreeable' seems a fair enough synonym for 'unpleasant', so my original entry in your article seems justified. Jprw (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just made a new entry that takes into account the above. Jprw (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressed as I am by this person's fierce, relentless determination to work this into the article, I should point out that what I described as 'unpleasant' was not the act of debating with my brother, but the experience of defending my faith in front of a largely hostile audience. This is a statement of the obvious, really, and would have been the case whoever my opponent was, or even if I hadn't had one. Does this interpretation really belong in a section devoted to my relations with my brother? Also, this wasn't my column, which generally takes the form of five or more items about topical matters, but a separate article. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"This is a statement of the obvious, really, and would have been the case whoever my opponent was, or even if I hadn't had one." I'm not quite sure what this means. Anyway, I'll undo it as it doesn't seem that important. Jprw (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What it means is that discussing highly personal matters in front of a largely hostile audience is unpleasant, and that as soon as you see the circumstance described, you realise that it would be. I mean, it would hardly be pleasant, would it? The name and nature of my opponent are not the point. It would have been the case had I been speaking alone, and without an opponent. Thus, it's a statement of the obvious. As is this reiteration.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible terminology

As a subscriber to the force of natural selection, I find that the usage of "Darwinism" as a descriptive term to be horrific. No one, outside of the Creationist community, uses this aberration. Searching for the term "Darwinism" returns no result on this wiki, and a search for "Darwinist" only returns references to Social Darwinism. One should not refer to those who believe in the existence of Natural Selection as Darwinists, much as how those who do believe in the concept of relativity are not Einsteinists. At least put quotation marks about the term each time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.15.13 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (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 " 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)

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 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

Rape and Reason

Just to note that I have substantially altered an entry in the 'Controversy' section about my recent article on compensation for rape. It was inaccurate in one small respect, left out many important facts and quoted only a very small part of my main argument. Peter Hitchens, logged in as 'Clockback' Clockback (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on Immigration

I scanned this article looking for something about Peter Hitchens view on immigration but unless I am mistaken, and apoligies if I am, there is no acknowledgement of the subject and certainly no explicatory information regarding it. Indeed, as I understand it Hitchens has been suspiciosly quiet about the issue of immigration; on his blog, in his books, and in his weekly newspaper column. JDerek.C (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He is vociferously against it. Philip Cross (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference in the article (currently numbered 13) dealing with my criticisms of the BNP links to a blog article in which (while also attacking the BNP) I state my position on immigration in some detail. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

On motor cars

It says in the article (under "Core beliefs"): "He has said that he wishes the motor car had never been invented because of the damage it has done to society." If that is relevant, then perhaps it is also relevant to say whether he owns and uses one. Does anybody know? (Obvious candidate: Yourself, mr "Clockback".) I have found that quite often, the more vehemently people claim to be against motor cars, the more likely they are to have and use one. In my opinion, this says quite a lot about their consistency and integrity. Given the vehemence of mr Hitchens alleged opinion, it wouldn't surprise me if his were a two-car (at least) household... -- CRConrad (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

He does own and use one. He has mentioned on his blog (so Googlable) that he holds driving licences permitting him to drive in the UK, America and Russia I think. But check his blog archives which contain references to his driving experiences in a car in this country. Mimi 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you asked, and now here is the answer. Alas, the car has been invented, and our society has since been designed around it. I do have a car, just the one, though I'd rather not and hope the day will come when I'll be able to do without it completely. I am sometimes obliged to drive, as are many other people, not by any desire to do so, but by the lack of proper public transport, and also by the equally significant lack of services for carrying heavy luggage efficiently. Similarly, I'm frequently obliged to fly, though I dislike this means of transport almost as much as cars, and would much rather go by ship and train. But I fly because there simply isn't time to go the pleasant way, and because, absurdly, flying is often hugely cheaper than train and ship. When I lived and worked in the USA I would try to travel to assignments by plane, and return by train, and have used more of the US rail network than most Americans even know exists.

My general view is that one should use cars (this includes taxis) only where there is no reasonably practicable alternative, and I think I can say that I stick to that. I would expect to drive no more than once or twice a month. I know how to reach most major airports by public transport (when I lived in Moscow I think I was the only correspondent who ever travelled to Sheremetyevo-2 by Metro and bus, which I almost always did once I found out how it could be done, and how much reading I could do on the way ) and I use this method wherever it is possible and safe. I recently used the suburban railways to travel around Bombay, finding them faster, more convenient and more interesting than sitting in traffic jams.

I did not obtain a driving licence for a car until 1982, when I was 30, and then reluctantly. It was increasingly difficult to live and work in Britain without one, , and a licence is more or less essential in the USA. I drove rarely in Moscow, especially after being rammed by a lorry on the ring road, and used the Metro, trams and trolleybuses for most journeys in that city. I drove more in the US, where I passed the test after undergoing a compulsory cours on alcohol abuse, required of all non-US citizens, and held a Maryland licence. Mainly I drove when on on assignment out of the Washington area. In Washington DC itself , where I lived, there is an excellent Metro, and the suburbs, though designed to frustrate through traffic, were navigable by bicycle or on foot with a bit of effort.

I have had a full motor-cycle licence from the age of 18, but long ago managed to injure myself quite seriously, fortunately without doing major harm to anyone else, and have given that up.

It is quite reasonable to ask this question, and I hope you feel it's been properly answered.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. (Never expected to get it answered at such length, though. :-) -- CRConrad (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens (Clockback ?), you are still a bit of an hypocrite for criticising motor vehicles and people that use them even though you use them. You make the excuse "I am sometimes obliged to drive" well no you are not "Obliged to drive" you can get public transport like the rest of us.

I think Peter Hitchens's hypocrisy should be added to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.226.92 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on; that's quite unreasonable of you. Also, rather illitterate: He actually said he does use public transport as much as he can. Have you ever worked as a newpaper correspondent in Washington DC, Mr Anonymouse? If you have, then you can claim that it's possible to do that wholly without a car -- if not, then it would behoove you to STFU. -- CRConrad (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary. Ignorant, spiteful responses hiding behind anonymity. What interest do such people have in an encyclopaedia, I wonder? One sometimes despairs of the ability of some individuals to take part in rational discussion, and wonders if there is any point in candour . I make it quite plain in the above response that I walk, bicycle and use public transport wherever possible, and in circumstances where most people would not do so. Anyone who seeks to do this in real life, especially in the USA but also in large parts of modern Britain, will find that certain types of journey simply cannot be accomplished without a motor car - either in the form of a taxi or of a self-driven private car. As I specified, these are sometimes journeys where the traveller has a large load of luggage. I would certainly be hypocritical if I attacked people for doing this, and then did it myself. But I don't . I say I wish the car had never been invented, not least because its invention has created a landscape in which this ugly, unpleasant and wasteful device has become essential and unavoidable for far too many people. This is even more so in the Third World. I favour the redesigning of our country ( and others) so as to minimise car use, by making it less necessary. But I recognise that there will always be some journeys, especially those very late at night or in remote areas, where a car is more or less essential. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If everyone left home in the morning with a strong piece of elastic attached to the back of their trousers, they'd be able to release it and simply spring home at night, with no discernable damage to the environment. Now, that's enough of these spiteful responses to Mr Hitchens. He's a good man doing his best. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Second Life

In a TV discussion programme today (The Big Questions), Hitchens noted: "the wickest thing I do on the Internet is to edit my own Misplaced Pages entry!" Probably not something we can work into this page, but it made me smile. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Literary Style"

I've removed this section until consensus restores it. It's emotive. No offence meant to the author but "Both decry moral failures they are powerless to alter - and yet it is those very failures that legitimate their prophetic identities" could be easily describing the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, not that I think they are divinely inspired in their editorial. Peter Hitchens, in my very humble opinion (and this is written entirely without prejudice) is an excellent foreign correspondant. I think there are very few who could best him yet this comment on his literary style seems only to focus on his weekly column which is easily parodied, as is the Mail itself and every mainstream newspaper. The Mail has a certain style which should not be described in biblical terms. I'm sorry but I think this section as it is should be taken out. Nothing is mentioned of PH's descriptive prose in his articles from abroad and the seamless weaving of political history with current observation to make a highly readable article that is accesible to everyone. That's a skill, especially keeping to a tight word count. I haven't changed the section because you could write an essay on his literary style and contrast it with his brothers, which would be more pertinent. I think that unnecessary here and to be told to compare work in a Wiki entry is out of place. If it isn't the job of a political columnist to tell us all what's wrong with society then what should he be writing? So are all political commentators writing a Jeremiad every week? Seems so. If you insist upon it couldn't that be said in one line without the homework? I'll leave it up to you to decide. Mimi 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say Miamomimi, and added the standard response to the editor's contribution on his webpage, but criticism of PH's style and 'end of Britain' obsession surely need adding to the article. Philip Cross (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The danger is straying into POV. The full body of PH's work would need to be considered and any changes over time noted. Or indeed any lack of change of style and content noted. As social comment PH primarily writes defending the married family but his published work before 1983 might be difficult to source. I've not seen any. It could be argued, therefore, he writes defending himself. But his observations about the end of Britain should be put in a wider historical context and that would require cited research. So I would agree with you, Mr Cross, if a balanced approach is taken and POV can be avoided. Incidentally, PH has been shortlisted for the Orwell Prize for political writing Mimi 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'll happily concede that what a person writes on a talk page may differ to what they may write on an article mainspace, it hardly bodes well Philip Cross when you refer to an "'end of Britain' obsession". --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

'Old Labour'

I contend Hitchens only has time for the social conservatives of Old Labour rather than Old Labour as distinct from New Labour. A frankly paranoic response to all shades of 'the Left' is more usually present. Philip Cross (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But Hitchens has spoken very highly of Labours 'old, monarchist, patriotic, socially conservative right wing'. He has even expressed a degree of sympathy with Labour's extreme left wing - on the subject the European Union (which obviously has constatutional implications). Anyhow, why not simply ask him, he has his own account dosn't he? RicoRichmond (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Devolution

Unfortunate location under foreign policy. Presumably Mr Hitchens did not mean to imply Scotland and Wales are, or were, legitimately colonies of London, which his opponents (well me at least) could previously assume by its location in this section. If "attempts" is less accurate of his opinion than "plans", the referendum in the North East failed afterall, and "plans" clandestinely remain, a blog entry on the subject would be illuminating. As it was the wording was a flaw in the article. I hope his opinions are still "accurately set out". Philip Cross (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put it in foreign policy as I didn't write the original entry, only edited it to make it accurate where it wasn't. But since the pedantic Mr Cross is so concerned , it's quite clear that I connect devolution and the EU, and any student of British history will know that enemies of Britain have repeatedly sought to weaken Britain by detaching Scotland from England or by encouraging Irish hostility to England. The EU's seduction of Scotland and Ireland are entirely in tune with this old, old theme. Irish separation from Britain became much sharper after Ireland joined the Eurozone and de-linked its currency from Sterling, and the EU has been active in promoting the 'peace process' whose ultimate end is the detachment of the whole island of Ireland from the United Kingdom.

Garret Fitzgerald, when Irish Taoiseach in the 1980s, was quite clear in his belief that the EU provided a new context in which Ireland might reach a new settelement with Britain. Maps of Europe published by the European 'Parliament' show Ireland divided into its original pre-1921 provinces, including a nine-county Ulster, superimposed over the actual international border. The EU's ultimate intention is to dissolve all member states into regions, emptying their national governments and parliaments of any real authority. Until recently, before it had become a public scandal, the same map (I have a copy of the older version) did not show England at all, just a series of regions where England used to be. It has since been amended to show the word 'England' but the omission is, I think, more significant, than the later embarrassed addition.

Scottish independence would be unthinkable outside the EU. But an SNP Scotland could be a vassal of Brussels. As mentioned in passing in the entry ( but apparently unnoticed by Mr Cross)I believe the EU seeks to dismantle federal or otherwise united countries, replacing their links to national capitals with links to Brussels. An example in practice: When the EU still stopped at the Polish-German border, the traveller from the East was met with signs saying "Welcome to the EU" in big letters, "Welcome to Brandenburg" in biggish letters and (much further down the road and in very tiny letters) "Welcome to the Federal Republic of Germany". This is intentional, and demonstrative. No passport controls now take place on EU borders, except those of Britain and Ireland. You can travel without documents from Brest Litovsk to Calais. The EU intends to transform its member countries into Balkanised provinces, and become itself the legal state in which its inhabitants live and to which they owe allegiance. Hence this crucial detail in the Lisbon Treaty( which is not of course a constitution)

So there is a very good reason for it being in the foreign policy section. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I might add that despite the defeat of the North-East regional government plan in a referendum, the English 'regions' still continue to exist in a shadowy form, often planning 'startegy' and influencing planning ( in fact there wes a recent case of a couple being accsued of 'racism' by one such, for making reasonable comments on a traveller encampment). They are not dead, but sleeping. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If the nation-state was such a success in accommodating 'pre-political loyalty' ((c) R Scruton) the Scots, Basques, etc would not be queuing up to free themselves of the states they find themselves embedded in. 1Z (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Express

I notice that an anonymous user has reinstated the reference to the 'Daily Express' in the introductory section. I discussed this with Mr Cross (who also wanted to put it there) many months ago, and thought I had rather made the case that I have not worked for this newspaper for more than eight years, that I resigned from it precisely because I no longer wished to be associated with it or its owner, that my career on it is certainly not hidden here, and is adequately described in the main body of the entry. So I have removed it again.

When I joined the Daily Express it was a broadsheet newspaper with a daily sale of 2.3 million and resident foreign correspondents in New York, Washington, Paris, Bonn and Rome. Its main cartoonists were Giles and Sir Osbert Lancaster and it had a large staff of respected specialist reporters and feature writers, including the incomparable Chapman Pincher. It frequently broke major news stories. While it had certainly declined in circulation and status when I left it 24 years later, it was still in that tradition. I had myself reopened its Moscow bureau, and then its Washington bureau - as a result of enlightened editorial decisions. Its proprietors up till that time had been mainstream businessmen in mainstream industries.But the newspaper as it now is, and its ownership, seem to me to be almost entirely different from the one I worked for. I really don't see why my connection with the paper , which I severed nearly a decade ago when it was a wholly different publication, belongs in the first paragraph. It does not help that the author of this change does not even bother to identify himself. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And Again

It has happened again. I have removed it again. I shall continue to remove such insertions unless and until the nameless person making them can identify himself or herself and justify the action. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I'd add that every lazy researcher in the world copies the first few words of Misplaced Pages entries, so that the designation there finds its way into biographies at book festivals, programme notes for broadcasts, publishers' notes on books etc. Many people are unaware that the Daily Express was not always as it is now. That's why I will carry on taking it out. I assume it's why the anonymous nuisance continues to put it back in, as long as he or she does not trouble to supply any other motive or explanation. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC) User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Rape and Poverty

I have removed a claim that my suggestion of a new offence of second degree rape would have anything to do with the 'inebriation' of the victim. The suggested charge (which was not my own idea and has long been current as a possible way out of the problem of failed prosecutions) would deal with cases of what is more commonly called 'date rape' where both parties are known to each other and the action is a breach of trust in an existing relationship rather than a violent stranger assault. My comments on 'inebriation' have nothing to do with criminal prosecution, where the state of the victim plainly has no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the assailant, but are related to state compensation paid to rape victims, in some cases in the absence of a conviction, and whether this compensation should be affected if the victim was intoxicated at the time. This comment was widely and in my view deliberately misrepresented by some ultra-feminists at the time that I made it. A reading of the actual article by an unprejudiced mind will quickly establish the truth.

I have also removed a bizarre phrase in which I was said to have argued that people who suffered from moral poverty are being 'punished'. I suppose there is an obscure sense in which this might be argued, but it is a misleading summary of my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for failing to sign the above. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Moral Poverty

I have now supplied a fuller quotation from the articlein which i discussed relative and moral poverty, which I think gives a clearer and more balanced impression of the point I sought to make. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and removed, because it wasn't necessary - the part there makes the point perfectly adequately. Also, the "controversies" section is, as almost always in WP articles, lazy editing. It should be integrated with the rest of the article. Rd232 10:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind myself, thought the whole thing a silly attempt to misrepresent my views. But I prefer not to remove attacks on me, which might be viewed as censorship. Instead I try to ensure that they're accurate. . Have similarly edited the section on homosexuality, which contained several severe inaccuracies. Am interested by the sudden arrival here of Rd232, coincidentally with our being engaged in a disagreement on the Bob Ainsworth page. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens' blog

There are some suggestions that some issues about Hitchens' blog may be mentioned in the article. Concrete suggestions on that can be discussed, but WP:OR or WP:UNDUE may be an insurmountable problem - unless reliable sources report these issues, they can't really be included. Rd232 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mention of issues regarding 'Hitchensblog' in the main article would be difficult as only anecdotal evidence. As you say, Rd232, they can't really be included. Incidentally there is an issue of vandalism/edit war on this page with regard to comment about Hitchensblog on this talk page (removed due to WP:FORUM). I will report and ask for help. Mimi 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how the downtime on the blog could be notable enough for inclusion the article. Removing chatter due to WP:FORUM seems quite reasonable. --Duncan (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, it wasn't downtime that was suggested for inclusion in the main article but selective presentation of public opinion in an earlier comment. Vandalism here is clouding the issue. I'm doing my best to remove the chatter. Regards, Mimi 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean alleged selective presentation of public opinion? Now if you had a source for that which met the WP:RS criteria then it could be included. Otherwise, no. At the moment as far as I can see it's just an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor making allegations, to be brutally honest. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 18:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley, thanks for your response. There was nothing that would meet WP:RS in the relevant comments. Mimi 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Early life section

I've removed two details from the early life section, which clearly don't belong there. This has however made what's left look a little threadbare. Perhaps what is left should be included in other parts of the article. Any ideas for this?Jprw (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Reactionary"

Seems to me that "Reactionary" is a perfectly apt word to describe Hitchens in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the WP definition, reactionary means "unthinkingly opposed to change" but is that a fair representation of Hitchens? Whatever the case may be, the word carries with it a hint of ad hominem and could be construed as a thinly veiled personal attack. So hopefully we can agree that it is a problem word that should not belong in the opening general description of the WP article on Hitchens, but would perhaps be better off elsewhere in the article (in a section listing opponents' gripes with him, for example). My own view is that resorting to words like "reactionary" is a superficial and specious attempt to categorise Hitchens.Jprw (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As this is WP:BLP you really need a self description or a very solid ref. 1Z (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that policy means that he would be perfectly entitled to object to terms such as "nitwits" and "rantings" and ask for them to be scrubbed from this talk page. Perhaps we should do so anyway without his asking. I was going to say that he has this page on his watchlist and could have raised objections himself, but as he hasn't edited this month, so he may not have seen it.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

OhNoPeedyPeebles's contribution above is basically just a nasty personal attack—does anyone know where can we find WP policy for removing entries like this from discussion boards?Jprw (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a watch list is, and don't have one, but I certainly do keep an eye on this entry, as I think is well-known. I'm grateful for the concern of those who defend me against name-calling here, but I think the main task of fair-minded editors is to ensure that the entry itself is accurate. Lots of people don't like me, or what I think, which is only to be expected - and if they want to say so on the discussion page, then I don't really feel inclined to make much of a fuss about it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

At the top right of your screen, when you are logged in as Clockback, there ought to be a link labelled "My Watchlist", and this should show any new recent edits to pages you are watching. You have the option to "watch" or "unwatch" every page. I deleted a foolish statement from this article once, and it has been on my watchlist since then.

I'm afraid that while you may not want to make a fuss about editors engaging in name-calling, Misplaced Pages does not want to have a reputation as a place where anyone can post counter-productive rants against the subjects of articles. I'm assuming the pertinent policy would be WP:PA. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OhNoPeedyPeebles's "contribution to the discussion" has now been removedJprw (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that! --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 19:20, 22 September 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Possible 'appearances in the media section'/persistent problems with the early life section

I think the article could do with a section describing his very active life in the TV media. It may go some way to improving the article which seems a bit on the stuffy side. I also still think the early life section is problematic, and should deal with biographical details from the 60s and 70s. Mention of his marriage and the fact that he has three childern seems to me to be irrelevant in such a section.Jprw (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"seems a bit on the stuffy side"? This is an entry on Peter Hitchens. I don't think the early life section problematic at all. His marriage and children are far far from irrelevant as the subjects work is mostly concerened with defending the married family. The fact that he is married (once) and has children is therefore wholly relevant. He was born in 1951 and was at boarding school in the 1960's, college then Uni into the early 70's. He has declared his political affiliations. Can we be clear about what unstuffy things you think we should know? Mimi 17:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is the huge, lumbering and largely unsourced "core beliefs" section that in my view lends the article a stuffy air. And what do you mean by "This is an entry on Peter Hitchens"? Do I detect a hint of personal antipathy towards the subject? Whatever the case, surely you can agree that the article in general needs improving along conventional Misplaced Pages lines (expansion for balance, sourcing, etc.) – but it is going to be a big job. Re: the early life section, I now actually feel as though it should be scrapped altogether. It is too short, weak, and contains irrelevant or repetitive information (the number of children he has has nothing to do with his early life, where he was born is already in the opening line, etc.) This is what the early life section gives us so far:

"Early life"

Peter Hitchens was born in 1951 in Malta, where his father was stationed with the Royal Navy. He was educated at The Leys School, the Oxford College of Further Education and the University of York. He married Eve Ross, daughter of leftwing journalist David Ross in 1983; they have three children.

My suggestions:

1. Lose the first sentence because it is repetitive 2. Move the second sentence to the introduction 3. Move the third sentence to a new "personal life" section 4. Delete the early life section

When you say "His marriage and children are far far from irrelevant" I agree of course. My point is that such information does not belong in an "early life" section. Another solution would be to expand the early life section with sourced references to his activities in the 60s and 70s (his storming of an Enoch Powell meeting and getting arrested might be one – comparatively non-stuffy – incident to include). But again that would be a lot of work. I suppose the point that I really want to make is that there is great potential for the Peter Hitchens article to be considerably improved. Jprw (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you assume antipathy? Assume good faith. The subject is not a rock star is all. Personally I find the early life section fine. If you want to expand it then I have no objection, but if you split the early life information up I think it does the article no service. It is personal info in one place, which is relevant and useful. I suggest inviting other views and achieving consensus. Mimi 11:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jprw, you seem bent on changing this article as you would wish it and I give you a most kindly caution that this article has been bigger but reduced because it was deemed too big (and not by me, just saying) Mimi 11:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not bent on changing the article as I would wish it -- just trying to improve it along conventional Misplaced Pages lines. My overall feeling is that it has been allowed to stagnate for too long. I too would welcome comment from other editors. Jprw (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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 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 13:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:The new broom

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 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

1. ^ Katz, Ian (2005-05-31). "When Christopher met Peter". The Guardian.
2. Katz, Ian (2006-10-28). "War of Words". The Guardian.
3. James Macintyre, The Hitchens brothers: Anatomy of a row, The Independent, 11 June, 2007, accessed 11 June 2007

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)

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)

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! --Proud coptic (talk) 16:10, 29 December 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 views and commentary, and has been called a 'madman' by UK prime minister David Cameron, **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!'. "

• • 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!' , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Criticism

I think this article should have a criticism section like other biographies on Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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

1.
2.
-- 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/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. 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)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors