Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 3

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Hope for the future  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position on Iraq  

message: This has to be a joke surely??
Michaeltyne 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Former Trotskyist" Category

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Private Eye

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article source 

message: 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)
thread_title: Toff at the Top

message: 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)
thread_title: Geese and Ganders

message: 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)
thread_title: English Parliament

message: "(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 'Bonkers' Hitchens

message: 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)
thread_title: International Socialists (IS): Group or Movement?

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Toff at the Top Google Video

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links to site infringing copyright 

message: Dispute on length of external links section, see above for previous comments. EvilRedEye 11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request For Comment: External link section

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Terrible terminology

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling of middle name

message: 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)
thread_title: Yes, of course I edit this entry

message: 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)
thread_title: Disagreeable experiences

message: 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)
thread_title: Rape and Reason

message: 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)
replies: text: He is vociferously against it. Philip Cross (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on Immigration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: On motor cars

message: 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)
thread_title: On [[Second Life]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title: 'Old Labour'

message: 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)
thread_title: The Daily Express

message: 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)
thread_title: And Again

message: 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)
thread_title: Rape and Poverty

message: 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)
thread_title: Devolution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moral Poverty

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Hitchens' blog

message: 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)
thread_title: Early life section

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Possible 'appearances in the media section'/persistent problems with the early life section