Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photograph

The old photograph was removed by Wikipedia over concerns about copyright infringement. I think we'll be ok with the new one. Valentine Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Shame about the piccy tho Val - with the background growing out of his neck he looks like he has gills as if he's some strange reptile. Not so much neanderthal man as proof positive of evolution. Miamomimi

His brother has some cracking pics available. Adopt your best brooding pose Peter and get in front of someone's camera - someone who knows the basics! Miamomimi 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pity that PH is only lurking these days. Philip Cross 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe PH has something lucrative up his sleeve that's demanding his attention like.. broadcasting Miamomimi 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Or talking about drugs [1] Miamomimi 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Starkey's Last Word

I noticed PH on Starkey's Last Word recently. I found it a tad unfair to have three liberals ganging up against one moral puritan, however much I disagree with Hitchens. I think David Starkey and chums were on shakier ground with the drugs issue than on prostitution, but they were able to shout Peter down and keep him in his corner. It would have been good to have someone like Melanie Philips to back up Peter's arguments, and make things more even. I would love to see a country free of heroin, crack cocaine, and even mind-numbing cannabis... I'm with the Right-wingers on this one. I think more could be done to smash the drugs trade, rather than simply legalizing and handing out drugs...

Btw... yes, the social revolution of the sixties and the "end" of repression was supposed to sweep aside a lot of problems. But it failed. Afterall, "free love" and polyamory hardly became the norm or a template for all relationships, did it? The social norm is still monogamy and a certain amount of repression. A vast number of people may use p.ornography, but it is still shrouded in shame and guilt. The British are hardly the most sexually liberated people on earth. So, in response, it never really caught on. The moral and social norms are still slowly shifting, often back and forth like a pendulum. Hopefully, the long-term shift is in the direction of more liberalism. I can already hear Peter's teeth grinding... "Bloody liberals"...-Neural 16:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it is possible to view this particular episode on the internet? I know there are some other videos but I don't see "Starkey's Last Word".

David Starkey is not a liberal, except on a handful of issues like gay rights. Philip Cross 17:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Neural - I think there is a lot of confusion over the American movement such as "summer of love" etc and the British. Whilst there may have been some cultural crossover I firmly believe that the British movement for women was a resounding success, not a failure. For example, women can now get credit which allows them a mortgage with which to buy a house and be independant of a man. This was not possible in the 60's. Even a rental agreement usually had to have a man as guarantor. So women who were not rich had little choice but to go from father to husband as little more than property. With a husband a woman could not fail to be aware that she was effectively sleeping with the landlord! The dynamic of any relationship must have been affected by this to some degree, sometimes a great degree. Also through the 70's and into the 80's (and even later) it was galling for a woman to sit next to a man doing the same job and be paid less money for it, simply because of her gender. And, the pill was hailed as a blessing to those wives who not only had husbands who demanded unprotected sex because they didn't like wearing protection ('Nah, it's like having a bath with your wellies on') but wives who may enjoy their sex lives as such and wanted that freedom for themselves. Sadly they were not aware of the drugs they were putting into their bodies every day and neither were the doctors until pill after pill was withdrawn and replaced. I think the problem generally has been knowing when to stop. In some circumstances abortion is necessary but taking children out of school after the results of sex ed classes for their 2nd abortion at the age of 14 is obscene. Of course monogomy in a happy marriage is favourite and the best circumstances for children but some circumstances dictate that it is better for all concerned to part and Peter Hitchens' holier than thou crusade to return society to that depicted in the film The Magdelene Sisters isn't the answer to the pendulum going too far the other way. Miamomimi (tilde won't work, sorry)

Hope for the future

I’ve just listened to PH discussing the first children’s commissioner on the Today prog and I considered the words of the Commissioner – that children need to be listened to and their needs actioned. I have worked with children and remember being at school. If you collected a sample of 15 yr old boys across the class spectrum from all over the country and asked if they would rather read PH’s reading list or play video games I guess the majority would choose the games. Actually I doubt all of them could read, which may limit the games they could play. (I understand it's illiteracy that’s the main problem shown by the prison population Peter, the marital status of your parents is incidental) I think PH and JH are correct in their assertion that caring for children is an adult responsibility and to abdicate that responsibility in the name of equality is wrong. This government seems to have fashionable agendas such as it now being legal to sodomise a 16 year old boy but illegal to send him to the corner shop to buy cigarettes [2]. NuLab has shown it cannot ensure the basics of protection and care and continues to persecute the innocent; removing children from homes on PC reasons and ignoring those in real danger. It is a useless parent substitute. It wastes money on poster campaigns when conviction rates are next to useless. An old saying sums them up: all mouth and no trousers. But this State homogenisation of children, wanting now to keep them in schools till aged 18, seems sinister to me. PH warns us with his experiences of a communist regime and I remember that Hitler loved children and was very proud of his little soldiers. After much thought (and questioning of those involved) I think PH has a point when he denounces HM Opposition who have no plans to recind the actions of this government and says that “the EU parliament operates as a supreme soviet” So who the hell is running this asylum?? Michael Gove said that someone should slap a preservation order on PH but who will slap one on the UK? Will it be David Cameron, whom PH says wants office more than he wants power – a career politician? Will he turn the clock back in education to a better time? I doubt it. I will be interested to see PH’s prog on DC

I hope this prog gives us a balanced insight into the Conservative hope for the future.

Miamomimi 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Position on Iraq

I understand that Peter is against the US led Iraq intervention but I recall his disagreement was because they were going grant Iraq sovereignty. Speaking on the BBC's Question Time before the invasion he said he preferred that they annex Iraq like it was under the British Empire.

Can anyone else confirm this?

--Z o l t a r 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Former Trotskyist" Category

This has to be a joke surely?? Michaeltyne 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way? Hitchens was a member of the SWP [sic] from 1969-75, by his own admission. Checking through some of the people in the category will show its validity. Philip Cross 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I was never a member of the 'SWP'. The organisation I belonged to, the International Socialists, certainly had its faults and problems, but was never unhinged enough to imagine that group of about 3,000 people, mainly composed of students, was a political party. That development came after I left. I am amazed that anyone could be unaware of my past membrship of the IS, given the way that I can hardly appear on the BBC, or be interviewed by the Guardian, without this ancient fact being referred to. It's not that I object, so much as that many other people who were also revolutionaries in their youth, escape this treatment - in my view because it says a lot more about them then it does about me. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 10:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed so improbable, and there are no references for me to follow to verify it. I've checked a few other sites, and I now believe it. Wonders never cease! Michaeltyne 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's why it probably gets mentioned a lot - because it seems so improbable to many people. It really is a total case of changing one's mind, as it were. Magic Pickle 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Private Eye

Peter gets quite a mention in the latest Private Eye, about how he pursued a blogger to his home and banged on the door while the guy was in his underpants. Would this be appropriate to add to the article? I was thinking of adding Peter's Private Eye nickname Peter "Bonkers" Hitchens to the article as not everyone gets a nickname in Private Eye and it adds Peter to illustrious company. Magic Pickle 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Pickle, This account is largely inaccurate and even where true is misleading. I pursued nobody. The person involved was not 'a blogger' but an individual who had for some months been impersonating me on various internet sites for some time, writing in my name a series of coarse and foul-mouthed rants. Were I a major celebrity, nobody would have been confused by this. The fake would have been obvious. If my name were a common one, then it wouldn't matter if someone else used it, even if - as in this case - he took care to use the exact same spelling that I use. But as a minor celebrity, who is strongly disliked by many people who never read what I actually write, because they already know they don't like it, I found myself receiving messages from people who genuinely believed that this impersonator was me.

They asked why I swore so much and seemed to be drunk all the time. Imagine if your neighbours, the parents and teachers at your child's school, the local vicar, shopkeepers, all started to receive obscene and foul-mouthed letters purporting to come from you. In the end you might manage to persuade them all that they were fakes, but the bad smell would always linger. That is as near as I can get to explaining how this feels. I therefore requested the main site on which this individal posted his material to ask him to desist. After initially sympathising, the person in charge of this site decided not to help, and many contributors to that site exulted in my discomfiture. I hope none of these people ever has his name stolen by someone else. But if they did have this experience, they would know how very nasty it is. 'Private Eye' knows how important names are. That is why all its articles are unsigned, or signed only by pseudonyms.

I then took steps to track down the author. I used no underhand methods. I had found the location of the person's house, but not its actual number. I bicycled there in my lunch-hour (funny the way Private Eye contrives to suggest that there is something odd in my arriving by bicycle. Surely this is a virtous means of transport, in Mr Hislop's universe?) to discover the house number. I was then able - through the electoral register - to discover who the person was. I did not hammer on his door or seek to speak to him or engage in any outburst. My later contacts with him were by e-mail. He has since accepted that his conduct was wrong and apologised for the distress it caused me. I have accepted this. I would like to know how anyone else would have dealt with the same problem, and how I could have handled it in a more civilised or restrained manner.

As for the name 'Bonkers', this nasty epithet was given to me in the early 1980s not by Private Eye but by fellow-members of the then Labour and Industrial Correspondents' Group, the labour reporters' version of the Parliamentary lobby, now I think defunct. It was a punishment for not following the gang. I opposed the decision by that group to affiliate to a very left-wing body (I was a Labour Party member at the time) called the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom. I also refused to toe the generally hard left, fellow-travelling line followed by the several leading members of that group. And I sought contacts among groups they despised, particularly the 'right-wing' executive of the then Engineering Union. I have always thought it no coincidence that this deliberate mockery of dissent, classifying it as a personal failing and a pathology, came from people who were apologists for the Soviet regime and its agents of influence in the British Labour movement. At that time the USSR was famous for its tactic of classifying dissidents as mentally ill, and subjecting them to terrible mistreatment as a result.

As for Private Eye, which is supposed to be an anti-establishment magazine (or was when I began reading it in 1965, when most newsagents wouldn't stock it and headmasters confiscated it on sight) , I merely wonder why it should have the animus against me that motivated the recent article. I am not exactly an establishment figure, I have no authority over others, and I attack the powerful, not the weak. I suspect that Private Eye has become part of a fashionable establishment itself, which is one of the reasons why it is so much duller than it used to be, and also why it doesn't like me.

Petr Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 13:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, does Private Eye actually contrive to suggest that there was something odd about your mode of transport? It is described thusly: "Having managed to acquire the home address of "Peter Hitchens", Peter Hitchens cycled there". Sounds to me like a straightforward description rather than an implied "isn't he odd?" I'd also suggest you needn't wonder where the "animus" comes from as I don't think they have any towards you. The article's existence can be attributed to the fact that it appears in a section of the magazine which reports scurrilous, unusual and amusing events amongst the UK press, which you have to admit this does qualify as. Nothing to do with harbouring any animosity towards you, if as you believe they indeed do. In fact you're one of the few journalists I can think of who never really seems to come in for any stick from the Eye, as opposed to the likes of Heffer and Littlejohn.

I only started reading the Eye about a year ago after picking up a leftover copy on a train and have always found it to be amusing and informative - The investigation into the NHS IT cock-up in the same issue is terrific. I'm curious as to why you say its alot duller than it used to be? Regards Nsign 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Nsign( you see, you don't want us to know your real name. I entirely sympathise, but do you see, in that case, how unpleasant it might be if someone knew your real name and stole it?). You know little of the techniques of this sort of gossip item. The trick is done by innuendo, not by direct accusation. For instance, if you turn to the original you will find that by the use of inverted commas doubt is cast on the way in which I found the address. Nobody checked. Had they done so, I could have told them about the entirely legitimate means I used. As for the bike, what does it matter how I got there? Had I gone in a taxi or by car, would it have been mentioned? No. The bike was mentioned because Private Eye thinks cycling is undignified and silly and hopes its readers will too. As for Private Eye's animus against me, do you imagine it gives me pleasure to be called 'Bonkers'in a large-circulation magazine aimed mainly at people in my trade, and read by my children's schoolfellows and teachers? And do you think the anonymous author of this account intends it to give me pleasure? The 'Street of Shame' section is generally about people making fools of themselves, or about hypocrisy. The only bits which are 'amusing' ie the imagined scene of me hammering on the door, and the tale of the impersonator wearing underpants, are untrue. But nobody checked with me. Perhaps you can explain to me what is foolish, irrational, ridiculous or unhinged about my behaviour in this instance? Or hypocritical? As I seek to explain above, I was responding in a measured and reasonable way to a nasty, creepy piece of persecution.

Since, as you say, you only started reading the magazine a year ago, it is not surprising that you are unaware of any animus it may hold towards me. It has been going on much longer than that. The same goes for your 'curiosity' about my assertion that it's duller than it used to be. Private Eye is a child of the 1960s cultural revolution, and throve on the stuffiness and hypocrisy of the Macmillan era. That establishment, dying even then, is long gone. The teenage readers of Private Eye in those times, and the schoolboys and students who used to watch its TV equivalent, 'That was the Week that was', are now more or less in charge of Britain. So it has to find other things to attack. I'm 'rightwing' so I'll do. Better still, I used to be a Trotskyist more than 30 years ago and I'm 'rightwing' now. How very much more interesting than all the senior Labour politicians and BBC journalists who were Marxist revolutionaries 30 years ago, and remain left-wing now, and have power and influence. The weary, cliched humour of Radio 4's News Quiz, and its TV version 'Have I got News for You', are all still stuck in the categories of the 1960s left, just like the Eye. It really used to be funnier, and sharper.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter: You’re right about names: I don’t like to post under my real name, unless someone asks for it who I think is trustworthy, then I’ll happily supply it. I occasionally post on your blog as “Steve B”.

I can indeed explain what is foolish, irrational, ridiculous, unhinged or hypocritical about your behaviour: Absolutely nothing. But I don’t think the Eye actually suggested that there was. They quite frequently bang on about the dire state of public transport and lament the use of gaz-guzzling cars, and I fail to see why you think they think cycling is silly. You’re interpreting the fact that they mentioned cycling as a direct pop at you, which I think is wrong – certainly when I read the article I never considered the fact that you used a bike to be odd in any way and I don’t think the implication was intended. But if as you say they’ve had something against you for longer than that then I accept you may well be right – Not having been a long-time reader I can’t comment. Credit where its due though, the Eye devotes a vast amount of space laying into both senior Labour politicians and the BBC. It’s my impression that their favourite (and easiest) target is New Labour, rather than anyone from the right. If the Eye is indeed less funny and sharp than it was, then that’s a shame, considering how much raw material they have to work with these days. Regards. Nsign 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Animus" is to misunderstand the nature of Private Eye. It needs to fill its pages, and truth is not really an issue. I too used to read every issue (for a while, in the early 80s - page filling was a visible problem even then) and be outraged at the endemic corruption of our world, however as the number of apologies for inaccuracies mounted up, and as I saw their hatchet work on situations and people I knew a little of, its perceinved value as a scandal sheet dropped. It was never really that funny, and was endlessly repetitious. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 11 March 2007 (GMT).

Right, well to get back to the article - what should we add to it about all this? Something or nothing? Magic Pickle 12:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't seem very important so I'll vote no. It is intersting that Peter himself feels it is worthy of comment though. If it can be verified, the history of the 'bonkers' nickname might be worth adding though. In the spirit of using real names - Mark Dixon - Mnd999 10:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would really add anything informative to the entry, so best to leave it out. Nsign 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a "myths and misapprehensions" section? Or just Trivia 1Z 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the impersonator's site: [[3]], which is rather offensive...

The impersonator six months or so ranting on the Guido Fawkes blog, here's a typical example (see the comments) [4] something that the real Peter Hitchens objected to last September. [5]

The starting of the fake Peter Hitcens blog appears to have led to the real Hitchens confronting him - see here.[6]

The fake has now renamed his blog "The Hitch". Nssdfdsfds 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to join this one so late, but I've only just come across this discussion while researching an entirely different story. I wrote the piece for Private Eye back in March, and would like to reassure Peter about at least some of his paranoid delusions. The "use of inverted commas" around the way you found the address isn't "innuendo", it's a QUOTE - from the statment you gave to Iain Dale's blog about the incident. I believe that's a fairly standard use for inverted commas. I'd have been happy to point this out if you'd, er, checked with me.

And I put in that you cycled there because... well, because you cycled there. "Undignified and silly"? "Foolish, irrational, ridiculous or unhinged"? What on earth are you on about? This sort of paranoia does make you sound a bit, well, bonkers.

As for the supposed "inaccuracies", that you hammered on the door of a man wearing his underpants, they came from his account of the incident. There were just the two of you present at the time. Since you, by your own account, were on the opposite side of the door, he would seem to be the more reliable source as to what he was wearing at the time. Unless you have amazing underpant-detecting x-ray sight of which we are unaware?

You're right about one thing though. I didn't intend the story to give you pleasure. It's not really my primary concern - I tend to think of the other 208,944 readers first. Hopefully it made some of them laugh as much as it made me laugh.

Oh, and I don't think the incident is worth putting in the Wikipedia entry, either. Adam Macqueen 10:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Article source

This article has been cited in an online source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388471-details/Wikipedia+-+how+accurate+is+the+online+encyclopedia/article.do

Optionally Template:Onlinesource could be used to record it.

-- Stbalbach 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And Peter gives Wikipedia a careful thumbs up! - so thanks Peter! While I'm here, I might point out to those who like to state their real name after each entry - instead of writing "Mr X signed in as Example", why not simply change the name of your user id to Mr X - it then spares you the chore of having to write 'signed in as'. just a thought. Magic Pickle 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Toff at the Top

Hitchens has produced a documentary about David Cameron, which will be aired in Great Britain this Monday March 26th at 8pm BST, on Channel 4. You may read his announcement of the broadcast here:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/toff_at_the_top.html

If anyone out there has the technological know-how, please save a high-quality (preferably digital) recording of this documentary and make it available over google video or youtube (google video is by far the superior platform).

Or, at least, just make sure that you make a decent recording - if you don't know how to put it on the web just ask an expert to help you. I hope to see it available online as soon as possible after the initial airing. Cheers. V. Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I stopped rioting, got on my bike and learned how to use BitTorrent technology to capture a high-quality copy of the documentary myself. I have now formatted and uploaded the AVI to Google Video, once cleared for broadcast it will be available from google.com within 24 hours. Val Hayes signed in as 66.46.239.3 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice one Val - many thanks. Can whoever sees it first provide a link? Miamomimi 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(link removed) Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The video was removed by Google after 'someone' complained about copyright violation. I have moved the broadcast to a new location, where Mr. Someone's whining to the website administrator will not get him very far. You may now watch the documentary at (link removed) Thanks, Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Geese and Ganders

Who keeps removing unflattering (bur relevant and verifiable) material? If PH can call Cameron a Toff (etc etc etc), Sam Wollaston can call him Gollum. 1Z 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear. If I can dish it out, I ought to be able to take it. And 'Toff' is such a cruel and inaccurate description of Mr Cameron, too. Whereas 'Gollum' is positively flattering compared with a lot of things I get called. Fun to see the Tories joining in, though, after all these years of being insulted by the Left. By the way, what does the 'etc etc etc' refer to? Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the United States and I have no idea what this is about. Lord of the Rings? You might want to include a bit of context. My argument against inclusion is that political comments of this sort might seem dated and ephemeral down the road. As I admit I don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to ignore me. I didn't know what a "Toff" was until 30 seconds ago. Can I be Voldemort? Yakuman 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The original comment (which was not written by me) had a context: Wollaston was commenting on Hitchens use of invective. No-one has picked up on this, instead they just assume that invective cannot be used against PH, although he himself is free to engage in name-calling. Political comment of any sort is likely to be epheremeal; on that basis the whole article should be deleted since PH's entire career is as a political commentator. OTOH, PH made a documentary about the conservative party, an it seems entirely reasonable to note fact in the section dealing with his views on the conservative party. Indeed an editor who was not involved in the edit war has added references.1Z 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

English Parliament

What are Peter's views on the creation of an English parliament? It may be relevant to the section on his views on Scottish and Welsh devolution. 81.157.217.177 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He is dismissive of the idea, as you can read in some of his columns:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/mailonsunday.html?in_page_id=1791&in_article_id=413275&in_author_id=224

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=379635&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=224

218.45.193.1 09:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'Bonkers' Hitchens

"(Columbus's extermination of Native Americans) deserves to be celebrated with great vim and gusto."

"(Howard) Dean is a raving nut bag...a raving, sinister, demagogic nutbag...I and a few other people saw that he should be destroyed."

"The death toll (in Fallajah) is not nearly high enough... too many have escaped."

"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops... then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, 'Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.' No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well."

"I was telling you why I knew that Howard Dean was a psycho and a fraud, and you say 'That's O.K.' Fuck off. No, I mean it: fuck off. I'm telling you what I think are standards and you say, 'What standards? It's fine, he's against the Iraq War.' Fuck. Off. You're MoveOn.org. Any liar will do. He's anti-Bush. Fuck off...Save it sweetie, for someone who cares. It will not be me. You love it, you suck on it."

"It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true."

All these quotes apparently originate from Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens, that is. And poor Peter gets called 'Bonkers Hitchens'? Surely his brother would be far more deserving of the title? 217.38.66.40 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of recriminations - don't you all think the 'bonkers' business has been flogged to death? Peter has declared the history of the term and his brother is a contrarian/controversial columnist. He hasn't got where he is today by sugar-coating his views or keeping them to himself. If you don't like Christopher's views then why not write to him - apparently he's in the 'phone book, or add your comments to the Christopher Hitchens discussion page? As Wiki deals with factual information, the fact is that UK journalists sometimes refer to Peter Hitchens as 'Bonkers Hitchens'. It may not be overly pleasant for Peter, but it's a fact, that's been covered here. Let's move on.. 82.37.217.137 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I apologise, I didn't realise it had been "flogged to death" on here. I am aware that Wiki deals in factual infomation and I am not suggesting we censor the fact that Peter is nicknamed 'Bonkers Hitchens'. I was merely pointing out how ironic it is that Peter has this title bestowed upon him rather than his brother, who does actually seem to be somewhat crazy. I don't recall Peter complaining about there being too few casualties in Falluja or calling for the genocide of Native American Indians to be celebrated with "great vim and gusto". These statements, as well as some of his recent behaviour, do seem to suggest that Christopher Hitchens has indeed literally lost his mind, possibly through all the years of alcohol abuse, and I don't mean that as an insult, I'm being serious - his behaviour over recent years has been increasingly bizarre. All seems rather unfair on Peter, all he has done is express some conservative views that are perceived to be extreme. As for contacting Christopher, I think I'd rather not. In any case, I suppose its not so important so if the subject has indeed been flogged to death, then lets leave it there. 217.38.66.40 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

International Socialists (IS): Group or Movement?

Group is the usual term for organisations like the IS. "Movement" is inappropriate because we are not referring to a large organisation, perhaps only 2-3000 members, which despite its international pretensions, discounting similarly small affiliated organisations abroad, was restricted to the UK. To use "movement" also has connotations of a religious cult, a valid argument which is frequently made, but one which would count as POV here. Philip Cross 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The International moniker is in reference to outlook rather than an inflated sense of importance, the IS was explicit that it was a relatively loose group of anti-Stalinist marxists, and explicitly disavowed calling itself a Party or something more substantial. Indeed the decision to become the Socialist Workers Party in the 1970s was controversial within the group for exactly this reason, and saw something of an exodus, as it became clear that a harder more explicitly Leninist line would be followed. 155.136.80.160 10:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Toff at the Top Google Video

The video was removed by Google after someone complained about copyright violation. I have moved the broadcast to a new location, where whining to the website administrator will not get anyone very far. You may now watch the documentary at (link removed) Thanks, Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice one Val! Miamomimi 22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I regard copyright as a form of 'gatekeeping' and despair of the pettiness over small violations like this. So I agree with Miamomimi. Philip Cross 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed links to videos in the external links section that violate copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright is considered copyright infringement in itself in the US.EvilRedEye 12:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. Look: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.

And we're not in the US, well I'm not and neither is Val are you Val? Hmn, I'm on the fence watching the show.. Miamomimi 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia servers are located in the US, thus Wikipedia is affected by US copyright law. EvilRedEye 11:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

Forgive me if I'm blind but I can't find anything on PH's stance on global warming and I think it's definately worth mentioning. If I remember rightly he initially caused outrage from the audience on Question Time and then in a later prog seemed more relaxed and pretty much nailed the whole argument with style; GW is becomming a quasi-religion and even if it's true, the whole of the UK's contribution is like passing wind in a hurricane (as another journalist put it) so why stress when China is pouring out pollution? I can see the ref for QT on Nov 2006. Is this the 1st or 2nd prog involving this issue does anyone know? (my equipment isn't up to video streaming) As I can't link the QT ref can someone add a section to the main article? Miamomimi 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the solution to litter: I'll drop as much as I like , because my efforts are just pissing in the wind compared to what everyone else is doing. It's their problem, not mine. After all, ethics is about doing what you can get away with, not doing what is right.1Z 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That QT lin is the first of the broadcasts you mention. I'll get around to adding the second eventually. If you can watch the Cameron programme at the link given above, you should have no real problem with streaming. Val Hayes 66.46.239.3 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Val but on the broadcast I just got sound, then after 5 mins a blurred still pic, then after another 5 mins another blurred still pic etc. I'm making no further comment on the size of my equipment, or that it needs servicing, or that I want a laptop; I think computer terms are fraught with social danger. I will invest in a better computer when I can if you will sort out the info and link? Many thanks. Miamomimi 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you need to clarify which broadcast you are referring to? QT? Either way it sounds like your internet connection is slow or heavy. The best solution in that case is to download the entire broadcast onto your computer. This could take several hours on a slow connection, but once it is done you will at least enjoy smooth and uninterrupted playback with no internet access needed. My 'Toff at the Top' webpage allows you to do just this. In terms of the QT editions you refer to, I note that someone has removed the relevant download link from this wikipedia entry. I'll get around to this later - bit busy right now I'm afraid. Cheers, Val New Canadian 19:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to BBC streams of both broadcasts are there now. If you want the full-download links then here they are. Right-click and select "Save target as". Again, this is your best option if streaming is proving problematic.

(links removed)

Val Hayes 70.53.51.247 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Val - I hit my head at the weekend and still have blurred vision so will get round to it when I can but just wanted to pop by and say thanks. Miamomimi 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Still on the subject of QT - I missed the latest prog and tried to watch the broadcast from the BBC website only for it to repeatedly crash my PC (Val - I've accepted I need to just get another PC; the minimum platform according to the BBC is Win 2000/256 RAM, and many thanks for all your help). I thought I'd just mention that sections of the prog can be seen on (link removed). Miamomimi 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Download the whole thing onto your pc, just as above, using (link removed). Don't get your hopes up though... the brothers went out of their way to avoid engaging. Peter seemed overawed by the occasion. Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Val. Peter was in good company - I thought Boris stole the show; good sense and hilarious with it. Miamomimi 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

The external links section of this article is far, far too long. Wikipedia is not a link repository: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Also see, Wikipedia:External_links. Additionally, a lot of the article lacks citations, particularly the 'Core beliefs' section (and considering the content of this section, citations seem particularly essential here). EvilRedEye 12:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine - the links are used. This article is about a journalist whose work and opinions, if found online, could be otherwise difficult to source - he's not a rock star whose catalogue of work can be found on a K-Tel complilation, although I take your point. However, given the wealth of work generated by the subject I find the links thoughtful, sparing and useful. I think they should be left alone. Miamomimi 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. This is Wikipedia. External links sections should follow the appropriate guidelines. This is an encyclopaedia and not a fan site - if you wish to create a catalogue of Mr. Hitchens' work then you should do it elsewhere, on a different website. I suggest you actually read the links I provided above and edit the section accordingly, otherwise I will just do it myself. EvilRedEye 11:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No I got your point, hence my saying "although I take your point", however, I still think the external links are fine and not in keeping with a fan site but an encyclopedic entry on this subject. A fan site would catalogue and comment on ALL work and the links here do not. In my humble opinion they have been carefully and thoughtfully generated by editors with some knowledge of the subject and support and explain the content of the article. For example, I called for a mention of PH's stance on global warming, which is worthy of note, and a mention was made in the body of the article and further info can be gained from following the external links to the QT progs. For brevity I think this is fine. Miamomimi 11:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed that links to rich media are discouraged so the video and audio ones are inappropriate. I've now removed them. That pretty much solves the problem for me, the majority of the others are fine. EvilRedEye 11:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think this is a bit jobsworth? "links to rich media are discouraged" - not banned then and in this case useful and appropriate, I'm reverting you. After this I think we should gain other views and wait for consensus. Miamomimi 11:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is outright banned, except spam and copyright violation. However the link section, in the form you have reverted to, violates several guidelines. I disagree with you on how useful the links are - the material linked to should be about Hitchens, not by him - it should not be a big list to things he has worked on. I strongly suggest you actually read the guidelines I have pointed out to you, as nothing you have said to me has indicated that you have actually bothered. EvilRedEye 12:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just been told by someone I asked to read this discussion that I've been coming across as 'an incredibly patronising jerk'. Oopsie! I think he has a point, I've been coming on a bit strong with all the guidelines and stuff. So sorry about that, I'll try not to sound like some kind of policy robot in the future. I'll try and get my point across again. Thing is, this is possibly the longest external links section on Wikipedia. Have a look at [7]. Most of these articles have way less links than this one, and have still been marked for clean-up. Frankly I don't think anything can actually justify a section of this length. It really is huge. Thing is most of these links are to articles PH has written or recordings of debates he has been involved in. These are interesting, but they aren't really what you would call information sources proper and thus I don't think they belong in an external link section. Miamomimi, you mention the reference to global warming in the article and a corresponding QT episode - I'd be better to put that in the reference section rather than the external link one - if the reason a lot of those links are there is because the material in the article draws on them then they should be used as references and put in the appropriate section. Ultimately links should be kept to an absolute minimum and that simply isn't happening here - the links may be interesting but very few of them are essential. EvilRedEye 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been no further comment so I'm doing a Request For Comment. EvilRedEye 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to site infringing copyright

Recently an IP user has been restoring links to a site infringing copyright. Please note I have been recommended by an administrator to request to have this article semi-protected if this continues to occur. EvilRedEye 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you had the decency and courage to be honest about your true motivation, others would be prepared to engage with you. There are any number of registered user accounts standing ready to fight this fight should the need arise. 221.186.137.16 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? My motivation is quite clear. Those links fall under the policy set out in Wikipedia:Copyright. I don't appreciate accusations of 'politically-motivated' vandalism, especially since I've never even discussed politics on any part of Wikipedia. If the links keep being restored the article is just going to end up with increasing levels of protection which will do no-body any good. Just respect Wikipedia policy on the matter. EvilRedEye 11:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you study the Copyright-policy carefully, you will see that there is sufficient doubt on the link-to issue to keep the matter open. Furthermore, if you make a very careful study of the websites concerned (which you clearly have not) you will see that your grounds for removing them from wikipedia are even more tenuous. 221.186.137.16 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what part of: 'if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work' is ambiguous. The policy is clear. It's also clear that the videos on the website are not there with the permission of the copyright holders. EvilRedEye 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: External link section

Dispute on length of external links section, see above for previous comments. EvilRedEye 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I agree that the exlink section is far too long. I'd cut it down to the regular features links only, unless there's something really applicable to the article in the later articles/interviews/etc.--SarekOfVulcan 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the link section is too long. The problem is not with mentioning these items if they are notable, but rather with gathering all the references as external links rather than inline references to an appropriate discussion about the item in context within the body of the article. Everything but the 'Misc' items should be introduced and defined where relevant within his biography, and cited as a reference, if the material is an important part of his career. If any of the material listed is not an important part of his career, it should not be in the article. Wikipedia should not be a repository of CV's. As for the 'Misc' items, if the sermon was part of his career, it should be mentioned as such in the article and cited as a reference, and the lawsuit should be discussed in context in his biography, with a reference link. VisitorTalk 08:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Too long. Wikipedia is not a link farm . Venado 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference

I have removed a reference, in the section discussing my view on political correctness, because I believe it to be absurd and misplaced. The contributor involved suggested that my use of the word 'whore' in a recent article in some way contradicted my objections to the use of the n-word. I cannot see the parallel. I believe this contributor to be the same person who wrote me an e-mail on this subject (and the only one to do so) , to which I replied roughly as follows.

The word 'whore' is not obscene or taboo, though it is undoubtedly strong and pejorative. So, it seems to me, is 'prostitute'. I cannot imagine that anyone would wish to be called either of these things. The word 'whore' appears in the Authorised Version of the Bible as well as in Shakespeare and several other literary contexts. It is not a racial epithet, referring to a form of behaviour which is generally chosen - and certainly chosen in the case to which I was referring, that of the supposed call-girl 'Belle de Jour', portrayed in a TV programme by Billie Piper.

While I have always been quote open about my editing of this entry, and my reasons for doing so, I seldom if ever actually delete anything, preferring to qualify or debate in the text and let others resolve the conflict. In this case, I thought the addition was so absurd that it was best simply to delete it, and to explain my action here. I am fairly sure its author knows how to reach me.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted your edit. I've restored it to your version though, the reference might back up the claim that you use the word 'whore' but it doesn't back up the claim that this has been criticised. Looks like original research to me. EvilRedEye 18:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First I want to make it clear that I was (indeed) the contributor involved. I despise cowardly anonymous contributions, save under extreme circumstances, and regret the simple oversight that was my failure to log on to Wikipedia prior to adding the reference.

It's disheartening to think that out of all the correspondents who email Peter Hitchens every week, I was the only one who raised this issue. Perhaps it is not surprising considering that a great many (if not most) of his readers hail from an era when 'whore' (and, for that matter, the 'n-word') would have enjoyed common everyday usage.

It's just my experience that when you come across someone using the word 'whore' in public, the most prudent course of action is to cross the street. To provide a direct quote from Mr. Hitchens' article:

'Whores are referred to as "sex workers", as if the act were as morally neutral as working in a sandwich bar.'

He certainly gains points for dryness of wit, but what is wrong with the following?

'Prostitutes are referred to as "sex workers", as if the act were as morally neutral as working in a sandwich bar.'

Does that not make the point just as adequately?

It is furthermore very telling that in a column referring to a spate of murders in the UK last year, Mr. Hitchens studiously (and rightly) avoided the word, and used the correct term to describe the victims. (I imagine the murderer in this case threw out the word 'whore' with quite cheerful regularity.) It's impossible to avoid the impression that Mr. Hitchens shares an instinctive disapproval of the noun, and if it's occurance in the great works of English literature provides justification for it's continued gratuitous use, then the rationale for Mr. Hitchens' justified opposition to the n-word also collapses.

This small matter, however, is not so vital that it must be addressed on the main wikipedia article in perpetuity. I have re-added the reference for the last time. What other contributors chose to do with it from this point forward is entirely up to them. That the reference was included in the article on a temporary basis will have been sufficient for me to have made my point.

Thank you, Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Don't be silly. As I have repeatedly made clear, and as I am not at all embarrassed to declare, I keep an eye on this entry to ensure I am not misrepresented in it. Like any journalist, I have written a great number of articles from which my position could be divined, as well as taking part in various radio and TV broadcasts and in public debates. But it would be wearisome beyond belief and probably impossible to reference dozens of them to establish what is in any case not disputed. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this text from a previous revision of the article, it was placed under the footnotes tag. For a start, if you want to comment on the article, do it on the talk page, not the article itself. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before. The reason it's important to provide references in footnotes is because Wikipedia is potentially unreliable, it usually can't be cited in academic work for example. If a Wikipedia article is properly cited then the original sources can be used for that kind of purpose. The fact that you check the article isn't particularly relevant, information added to the article could sit there for a while before you get round to checking it. EvilRedEye 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Mr Red Eye,(or may I just call you "Evil"?) do please slide off your immensely high horse for a moment. You seem to have a severe case of Wikipedia Grandeur. This 'encyclopaedia' is not an impartial, factual reference source but a battlefield in which both users and living subjects need to be highly vigilant. It is particularly hopeless on contentious subjects, as all its wiser readers well know, and this is not because matter is inadequately sourced but because energetic, indefatigable propagandists take care to guard and patrol the sites they wish to influence. There's an obvious conclusion from that, if you happen to be the subject of a Wikipedia entry. I didn't create this entry, but as long as it exists I have a strong interest in ensuring that it does not misrepresent or defame me, and I am on public record as saying that I intend to act accordingly. I happen to think that I'm rather scrupulous in doing so, but it's not for me to judge. Trying to maintain the pretence that a 'neutral point of view' can exist about a living person is particularly absurd, as I have argued on this page in the past. And please don't think that I am unaware of the different purposes of the discussion page and the entry itself. My choice of location was absolutely deliberate. I placed the comment where I did because I have no idea how to remove the pompous little label demanding references to establish that my opinions are as described, references that any reasonable person must recgnise cannot and will not be provided. By the way, you don't answer the substantial point about the absurdity of trying to reference such a description. Even if anyone were so dedicated to archiving my sayings and writings that they could provide them, the thing would be so peppered with references that you wouldn't be able to read it. Who has the time and energy to trawl several hundred newspaper and magazine articles, dozens of broadcasts, the records ( should they exist) of numerous debates and speaking engagements and two lengthy books? Don't worry. I check it often enough to ensure that nothing untrue remains on display for very long. So, please replace the comment where it was, or I will. Or remove the daft label, if you know how. All it achieves at the moment is to cast needless doubt on an entry which is pretty darned accurate by Wikipedia standards.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 12:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Genuine apologies if I appeared to be patronising, it wasn't my intention. With regards to the 'absurdity' of referencing the article, whilst trying to reference the whole article would be a bit of a task, it is certainly possible (although it might require something of a rewrite) and it's a step that would need to be taken in order to bring the article to something like featured article status. To be honest, I doubt the tag will actually encourage people to add references to the article, but it does highlight a flaw with the article that at some theoretical point in the future will need to be fixed. I should point out that I only originally bothered to respond to your post because you placed it on the article, I'm not too fussed about the issue to be honest. With regards to what you said about replacing the comment on the article, please don't, it's vandalism and could eventually result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia, which won't be particularly helpful if you want to ensure the article doesn't contain potentially libellous information. EvilRedEye 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Eye, or perhaps you'd prefer 'Red'? I know you only responded because I placed it on the article. That's why I placed it there, to elicit a response from the self-appointed person who had stuck on the label in the first place. People seldom intend to sound patronising. Even so, some seem to manage to do so. It isn't, however, the issue and I don't care how you sound. I care what you do. The issue is that you appropriate powers to yourself (backed by implied threats of excommunication if I dare to protest effectively against you) which you seem to me to have no particular right to wield, and no good arguments to support. It would indeed be interesting if I were barred from intervening on a site which was devoted to describing me, even if that site contained defamatory material about me. I cannot imagine that would suit Wikipedia any better than it suited me, so let us see if we can find some other way of dealing with this before I replace my (entirely justified) mockery of this silly label and you then grandiosely exercise your deputy marshal's function and delete it again. Perhaps you can tell me where I obtain the power you seem to possess to insert - and remove - such labels, since the removal of the label is my aim. Do I have to think up a silly name to hide behind? Pass an exam? Or what? If you are so keen to see these references in place, I suggest you provide them yourself. If you're not prepared to do so, and I shouldn't think you are, who else do you think is going to ? I'm certainly not prepared to. And, since you won't, and I won't, and nobody else will either, what purpose does the label actually serve? It is even more useless than a label saying saying 'may contain nuts' on a bag of nuts, only worse than that, because it casts needless doubt on an entry which is - thanks to me - pretty accurate and comprehensive. An entry of this kind, about a controversial person, strongly disliked by large numbers of people, is never going to attain 'featured article ' status, and oughtn't to either. It will always be a battlefield. If you're 'not too fussed about it', then be so kind as to remove it. I am fussed about it and I object to it.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Time for a Mini-tutorial :-) No special privileges needed at all, Peter. When you edit the "Core Beliefs" section, you will see the following lines right at the top of the edit window:

==Core beliefs==
{{Nofootnotes|section}}

Hitchens' political views are not easily classified according to conventional

It is the second line which is responsible for placing the disputed footnotes-tag on the article. Remove this line, and the tag disappears:

==Core beliefs==

Hitchens' political views are not easily classified according to conventional

Val Hayes signed in as New Canadian 17:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what 'powers' you consider that I've appropriated for myself. As for my 'implied threat', my comment related only to placing comments on the article and not objecting to the presence of a clean-up tag, which you have every right to do. The talk page is perfectly adequate for discussing an article, and if you have any other kind of concern or query you can use the Help located in the left-hand menu. If you continue to post comments on articles, which it is clear you are doing in bad-faith, people will complain, you'll be reported to administrators and you'll end up getting blocked. It's just what happens. EvilRedEye 17:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was worth popping by just for the entertainment value, including Adam Macqueen bothering to "reassure Peter about at least some of his paranoid delusions" (here, and yes the inverted commas were because it's a quote, not because I'm indulging in "innuendo"). Hilarious! Can I suggest someone archiving the talk page a bit though? Perhaps up to 'External Links'? Just a thought. Miamomimi 12:42, 15 October 2007 (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)

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)

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 ^(yack) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(yack) 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 [8] Mimi ^(yack) 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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)

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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^(yack) 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 ^(yack) 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(yack) 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, Wikipedia 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)

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 ^(yack) 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 Wikipedia 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 [1] 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 ^(yack) 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 ^(yack) 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 Wikipedia 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)