Talk:Peter Hitchens

message: just a friendly question, is this section notable? 
"Rhodes Must Fall movement
Upon reporting on the third day of Rhodes Must Fall protests at Oxford University in June 2020,[89] footage of Hitchens strolling through the streets of the university, followed by protesters who opposed his presence, emerged.[90] One video, edited and set to "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees, went viral and was watched nearly one million times.[91] Speaking to Mike Graham on talkRADIO, Hitchens described the protests as "the Establishment on parade".[89]"
So... we have evidence that Peter Hitchens walked down the street near oxford university and music was playing at the time... is that notable? 
"protesters opposed his presence" - if there was an explanation of why, then this might be notable...
He then (without explanation) said that "the establishment was on parade". Perhaps if that was explained it would be notable? Gd123lbp (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the section isn't noteworthy then by all means remove it. The reason I included it was really to include Hitchens' views on the Rhodes Must Fall/Black Lives Matter movement, although I agree that as it stands it doesn't really do that justice. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhodes Must Fall movement section 

message: Hi there. I had made a few edits to the section about COVID-19, which have since been reverted. Several of Hitchens' comments about COVID have been characterised as COVID-19 misinformation in several reliable sources. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to not characterise this as such. This can be mentioned in addition to his criticism of the UK's policies. For sources see here, here, here, here here and here for a summary. His questioning of the efficacy of face masks, lockdowns and death statistics are especially dubious and contradict scientific sources and Wikipedia articles directly relevant to COVID-19. Note that critiquing the UK's policies is not misinformation, but questioning the scientific basis of COVID-19 mitigation measures, or its virulence, is. Other public figures that have promoted misinformation such as Elon Musk, John Magufuli and Toby Young have this mentioned clearly in their wiki articles. I would argue that Hitchens should not be an exception. Welcome any thoughts. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is completely unbalanced and clearly written by someone who thinks anyone who opposes lockdowns is guilty of 'not following the science' or 'misinformation'. Imperial College's modelling which has led UK Government policy has been debunked by prominent scientists on many different occasions so to reference a single paper where it was supported is in itself deliberate misinformation. It is also misinformation to reference a 'fullfact' article which declares Hitchens' opinions as 'anti science'. Hitchens himself has advocated since March 2020 that the UK Government should have followed its own pandemic guidance from 2019. There are views on both sides of this debate and Wikipedia is not the forum to claim biographical articles about living persons and propagandise them in this way. If an individual's views on certain topics are to be written in their biographical article then they should not be written in a negative way like this. It screams bias and looks ridiculous. "Peter Hitchens does not support masking and here's a study from mask proponents that proves his views are anti-science", surely contributors can do better than that. Robby83 (talk) 22:39, 11 Feb 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your thoughts . You are right in pointing out that Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for discussing the article topic. However, I was concerned that the section before the edits were made were actually strongly biased the other way and did not put Hitchens views in adequate context. Although we definitely need to be careful to maintain a neutral WP:POV, Hitchens views are encompassed by WP:FRINGE. We also need to be weary of Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS policy, in that sourcing for medical topics and also WP:COVID-19 topics have a higher standard than non-medical articles. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section now reads in a less biased way but I don't understand your criticism of the sources that I cited. You claimed that one was a right leaning think tank and another an opinion piece from the Telegraph, and that they couldn't be used as sources because of a higher standard being required. Yet I note this section as rewritten by you currently cites an opinion piece in the Guardian, another from the New Statesman, and other from 'fact checking' websites who's own bias in these topics has been questioned by many prominent academics. If the aim is to main neutral WP:POV then this seems to go against that aim. What is WP:FRINGE about questioning the efficacy of cloth masks, the 'scotch egg' rule or the quarantining of healthy people? Robby83 (talk) 22:15, 2 Mar 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a solution and compromise to this would be to add WP:ATTRIBUTION to the content. I agree the whole section needs improvement. Sources should not be here if they have nothing to do with Peter Hitchens, the subject of this article; that would be a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Ah, so was Hitchens actually calling for better, medical grade masks to be used by the public? I must have mistook what he was quoted as saying. The WP:FRINGE views in question, for instance, are the disputing the efficacy of all masks, and the views quoted in this article. This also isn't a forum, but quarantining healthy people was used because COVID-19 can transmit asymptomatically - suprised you hadn't heard this, it has been going on for two years you know. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: COVID misinformation

message: A follower of the "Old Whig" Edmund Burke (a "Burkean Conservative") is someone who believes in smaller, more restrained government - see the works of Edmund Burke such as "Thoughts and Details on Scarcity". A Social Democrat is someone who believes in a bigger government, more government spending and regulations to (in their view) help the people. Mr Hitchens can not be both these diametrically opposed things, at the same time. But it is hard to see where to put this fact in a reference article. It is rare for a political figure to describe themselves in such contradictory terms - so it is hard to know how to respond to such behaviour.2A02:C7E:1CA8:CE00:DC08:EDC1:1DB1:8B52 (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone can not be a "Burkean Conservative" AND a "Social Democrat" - they are opposed positions.