Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bishop George Bell

I'd like to add something about PH's campaigning to clear the reputation of George Bell (bishop) but I realise the addition may be controversial so I am bringing it here first. I have four acceptable secondary sources which establish notability: Vice.com, The Guardian, The Oxford Student and BBC. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

I am going to revert this edit. While he has edited we only have a primary source. We need a secondary source the notability of his editing Wikipedia and until we have that source we mustn't mention it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Claim of opposing compensation in the Bishop Bell case

I have been contacted by Peter Hitchens who objects to the text: protested against the £16,800 in damages awarded to Bell's alleged victim, known as Carol. The only source for this is a Vice article which gave no source for this claim. The article now includes a correction at the bottom: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Peter Hitchens had protested the decision to compensate Carol. This inaccuracy has now been corrected..

I propose that this text be either removed, or changed to some paraphrase of and succeeded in helping an independent report that reviewed the way the case was handled. which is the corrected text of the Vice article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the statement as the ref has indeed been changed, we could add more detail but BLP needed a speedy initial response. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section of this article is in desperate need of re-writing. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a challenge! I put quotes in the lead as I have seen this in many other bios but I do agree with your comment and will focus on this at some point if nobody beats me to it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Possible source

This interview [1]

might be of use.SovalValtos (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, now reffing his stint in Moscow. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

This article used to contain a detailed summary of Hitchens' political and moral views but seems to have been cut down to a mere fraction of its previous size. Just look back at the edition of 29th November 2017 - a wealth of detail of Hitchens' views that has now been removed.

Looking back in the archive talk pages, one of the main reasons for this as far as I can see is that an editor removed all references from the Daily Mail, since it is considered an unreliable source according to WP:DAILYMAIL. But this is obviously nonsense, as two minutes' thought should make clear. The same page outlines that news sources considered unreliable - e.g. Breitbart News - should not be used as a reference for facts (which is fair enough) but can still be used as a source when attributing opinion. Surely the same principle applies here. And Hitchens literally writes for the Mail on Sunday. This is where he has the platform to express most of his opinions (he recognises that its factual coverage is not always the best but urges readers to separate person from platform). If we discard it as unreliable, we are saying that his own words are an unreliable way of determining what he thinks.

This is honestly important because it has led to a neutered article, ineffective and shrunken from what it used to be. If a reader who wanted to know Hitchens' views on, say, LGBT issues or education policy looked at the current article, they would be far worse served than they were two years ago.

I understand that there is a reticence to use so many first-party sources - i.e. Hitchens' own writing - but relying solely on third-party sources and eschewing the Daily Mail at all cost is frankly ridiculous, and is more likely to distort rather than accurately represent Hitchens' political opinions seeing we are relying on what other people say about him. I appreciate there may be notability concerns if the information is not repeated in third-party publications, but really, the point of this article is to inform us about Hitchens' political and cultural opinions, and it manifestly does a worse job at that than it used to. Insisting on the blanket use of third-party sources to the exclusion of all else, even if it may be more in keeping with Wikipedia rules, has made this article worse. If a rule prevents the encylopaedia from doing its job, as it clearly does here, surely we should ignore it. I would suggest reverting to the version of 29th November 2017 before adding in the new information since then (i.e. about George Bell and Flexcit). If a piece of information can only be sourced with primary sources, then while of course it's desirable to have a third party reference too, we shouldn't delete useful and factually indisputable information just because of a bureaucratic point of policy. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to persuade the community to remove the ban on DM as a source, I'd support that though as long as the ban remains I will help enforce it. Primary sources don't establish notability, only secondary sources can do that. LGBT is a great example, secondary sources would establish the notability of his beliefs on the subject; primary sources don't establish this notability. If you want to change our reliable sources policy you can try to get the community to back any proposed changes. If you try to revert without successfully changing these policies your edits will be reverted and if you insist on doing so you will be reported. The rules do not prevent the encyclopedia from doing its job but, instead, they ensure that only notable material is included in this biography. The article is actually much better than it was a year ago. You should find 3rd party sources for any material you want to be included. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rest assured I have no intention of unilaterally attempting to revert this article, as your (slightly aggressive) comment implies. If I did, I would have done so, rather than attempting to build consensus for such a move on a talk page - but it looks like any such consensus, from what you said, would likely be impossible.

I still think this is a nightmarishly counterproductive rule - the sort of thing that discourages many people including myself from getting an account on Wikipedia. Your insistence that this article is 'much better than it was a year ago' is simply false. It may well be better by the arbitrary standards of the Wikipedia rulebook and its insistence against primary sources at all costs, but for someone who wants to find out about what Peter Hitchens thinks about stuff, it's manifestly and objectively worse than a year ago. People will visit this article to get a good and accurate impression of Hitchens' beliefs, arguments and writings, not to read something that satisfies Wikipedia's standards for objectivity. The article is much less thorough at this than it used to be.

I would argue that Mr Hitchens being the most widely-read commentator in the Mail on Sunday (which is , like it or not, Britain's most widely-read Sunday paper) makes his political positions, as outlined in his Mail on Sunday columns, intrinsically notable and important to mention in an encyclopaedia article, whether or not other publications choose to follow up on them. I imagine the Wikipedia rule against primary sources exists to prevent shamelessly self-promoting articles about figures who are clearly not notable, with the content of the article based entirely on their own personal scribblings. This is completely understandable and a sensible rule - we are not Google - but applying it to Mr Hitchens, whose views so clearly are notable, just seems lacking in common sense. If a rule prevents us making Wikipedia a better place, why not exercise our own judgment here?

That said, two minutes of Google searches have identified plenty of third-party sources that could be used to substantiate some of the excised material. Just key in 'Peter Hitchens LGBT' or 'Peter Hitchens homosexuality' to Google, and you will find two Guardian articles, one by Ben Summerskill, that discuss Hitchens' view on LGBT issues and one article from Pink News (which, as an LGBT publication, I'm sure disapproves of Hitchens' opinions but seems to report them objectively enough on the gay mrriage issue). Keying in 'Peter Hitchens grammar schools' equally brings up articles in the Independent, the TES and the Spectator discussing his views on grammar schools, which are now missing from the article. So, if you really want third-party sources that demonstrate notability, they are there. There are two problems with this:

1. A lot of these articles are from left-leaning publications and oppose Mr Hitchens' opinions. It is much harder to write something objective about what someone thinks if you do so by reading articles by people who disagree with them and therefore may distort their viewpoints, rather than reading their own writing and summarising in a balanced and non-partisan manner what their opinion is.

2. I simply don't have the time to source third-party references to every single piece of the information that used to be in this article. I am a university student with limited time on my hands who has a mild interest in Peter Hitchens' opinions and ideas, and was simply disappointed to see how his article has been gutted of content. If one insists on following the rule that primary sources are not acceptable, surely it would be better either to attempt to find third-party sources yourself, or, if like me you don't have time, to tag the article to say that more third-party sources for some information are needed and leave it to the discretion of other editors to find some? Instead, what has happened is that information that may well have been useful to readers has been removed en masse, even though it is verifiably a correct, accurate and encylopaedically objective representation of Peter Hitchens' views.131.111.184.8 (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to edit wikipedia you need to stick to the rules. If you don't like them, set up your own project. If you can find 3rd-party sources, please add but don't expect other editors to do so alleging busyness. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this is quite an unfriendly attitude given that I was only making a proposal. I just think it is a shame that this project seems to want to prioritise following arbitary rules over actually building an informative encyclopaedia. Clearly it is not possible to have a civilised discussion about what I think is a pretty interesting issue without being told 'if you insist on doing so you will be reported' and 'If you don't like the rules, set up your own project.' It is worth pointing out that Wikipedia actually has a rule that says 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.' But there we go. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's an idea—if you think the article can be improved, make the necessary changes yourself. Please don't come to the talk page and ask other people to make the changes for you. You've managed to find time to write just under 1,300 words here in the last 24 hours, so you can't be that busy. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The unfriendly attitude was you threatening to undo all the hard work myself and others have put into this article over the last year. Your proposals of using lots of primary sources, messing up the new order and re-injecting rejected quotes and broken links (which you would then presumably be too busy to repair) wouldn't improve the article. I'll leave you to read the good article submission which criticises over-reliance on primary sources and quotes. I read and used it as the basis for my edits over the last year and it shows where we need to go. Adding high-quality 3rd party refs re LGBT or any other opinions of his would be very welcome. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

What the IP is saying is simple WP:PRESERVE, which is already Wikipedia policy. When some inadequate source is provided for something (or no source is provided), it need not be deleted; usually Googling will provide some acceptable source. The IP is not asking for people to "do the work" for them. If you have the time to hunt down and remove every Daily Mail reference in this article, you also have the time to spend two minutes Googling and checking if what you're removing is true and relevant (if it's not, by all means do so).

This is one of the reasons why I thought (and still do think) the Daily Mail RfC is stupid. Because it leads people to think of arbitrary and restrictive ways of editing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly the case that some editors blatantly abuse the Mail RfC, removing references even when they support either a controversy about the Mail itself, or an opinion expressed in it, both of which are supposedly allowable exemptions. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree re the inadvisability of the DailyMail ban but it wouldn't help here as all the DM links removed were primary sources. The ip was suggesting undoing a year's good work and reverting to an old version full of broken links and an over-reliance on primary sources. Reverting back would take a minute but the ip then claims busyness would mean they were too busy to then fix the problems we have already fixed when reverting. Please do not assume bad faith by claiming I didn't try to find other sources when removing material sourced with primary sources, @Kingsindian:. I don't appreciate such a bad faith assumption about how I work at all. LGBT is a good example, I couldn't find anything indicating notability using google, either initially or yesterday. It is clear from the GA review (did you read it?) that the article was overly long and contained opinions whose notability cannot be established. You too are free to add high-quality secondary sources if you can find them about any opinions Hitchens has. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not in this article, @Nick Cooper:. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the WP:DAILYMAIL policy, and agree that it appears to be regularly misapplied, but I also don't see the value of a crude summary of the contents of Hitchens' Mail on Sunday blog rendered from primary sources. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Heads up! Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Survey (Daily Mail), ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

pic

@New Canadian: Please don not claim there is no need to open a talk page thread, that instead you can just edit war. Please explain why you think an image of his brother, which helps illustrate his background, is unnecessary? Your argument in your edit summary that he has his own article would be an argument to never include a pic of anybody except in their own artoicle. Please point out the policy or guideline where this is a "requirement" ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You might as well argue we should remove the George Bell pic, why aren't you arguing that? I've now shifted the pic to the elft so there is no conflict of space between it and the infobox, not that there was anyway IMO but it looks better as is. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We need secondary sources

@Wing gundam:, in this addition you state that the addition is verifiable, using primary sources. However, primary sources, which have been plaguing this artifcle for years, do not establish the notability of any of PH's views, we need high-quality secondary sources to do that. If the views are as illuminating as you claim it should be easy to find reliable secondary sources; otherwise we shouldn't include about this as the article needs to be about PH as seen in 3rd party sources and not what PH says. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Noting my full agreement with Richard's position regarding his interpretation of wiki guidelines regarding this content. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss, the trouble with this is it conveniently enables Peter to hide his published views. A complete article about him needs to point to what he has written. Favonian and Neiltonks have been using your logic to remove an entire section showing his anti-vaxxer views.Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

2006 photograph of Hitchens violates copyright

according to peter hitchens: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/03/wikipedia-and-me-new-developments.html The photograph is the property of the Mail on Sunday and so violates the copyright rules on picture reproduction. That is why I removed it. Please present evidence of it being public domain before re-adding it. It should be removed from wikipedia if it does violate copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd123lbp (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Good of you to dig that up on Peter's behalf ;) glad to see you back online, User:Gd123lbp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.27.70 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Covid comments

It looks like there has been some back-and-forth on Peter_Hitchens#COVID-19_Pandemic_and_UK_Lockdown_Views, but it seems WP:UNDUE versus the rest of the article. What do people think? Darren-M talk 17:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Darren-M, this is agreed and is one issue to seek consensus on (another is just above). The section reads like a personal website, summarising Peter's views with citations which are either not notable or are notable but do not reference Peter. I tried to remove this in one of my edits, but it was reverted without explanation by Serols. @Serols, please can we reach a consensus here on how to proceed? I note that Davey2010 had approved my change before you reverted it, but now we are bound to ask you what you require to make the change acceptable, since you did not state a reason for your reversion. Thanks in advance.Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon examination, I am fine if it is re-added. CLCStudent (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put these back up. It seems that Favonian is now querying the source, but it is not clear to me how a GP's letter published by the British Medical Journal is not enough to support the fact of Peter having published these anti-vaxxer views. I am hopeful that this section will not now be censored yet again. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentences like "Peter holds no qualifications or experience in medicine, science or public health policy" will never be acceptable (and unless you are mates with him, don't refer to him as "Peter", that goes for all subjects of articles). You clearly have some sort of vendetta - you are a single-purpose account with a tendency to exaggerate the urgency of your edits who has consistently failed to assume good faith with other editors. The content you actually want to add is clearly biased against Hitchens. Your edits are clearly using synthesis as well - taking things he said decades apart and using them to form the contention that he is an 'anti-vaxxer' - that's not the opinion I get from reading his explanation of the earlier comments - he is clearly not against all vaccines, and was apparently saying we should be more cautious about them. Further, as someone who has written 9 books, are two comments he made worthy of an entire section? - maybe, maybe not. But you're not providing any evidence either way. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If your argument is that you don't like one sentence, then your edit should have been to delete the sentence, not the section. The rest of your comment is aggrandising Peter and belittling me. Not sure how to respond except to point to Floquenbeam's comment in the anti-vaxxer section above. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El cid, el campeador, please can you respond? You have taken down an entire section and cited just one of its sentences in justification, then ignored Menge's challenge. Why shouldn't the public know about Hitchens' history of writing about science/health/policy despite no knowledge of it? It is dangerous, significant and currently hidden from Wikipedians& view, despite Menge's efforts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.27.70 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:El cid, el campeador, I agree with everything you say here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxer section

Please can we reach consensus on a new section showing Peter Hitchens' vaccine hesitancy? I had proposed the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Hitchens&oldid=969956370#Views_on_vaccination. However, this was reverted, then restored, then reverted again by CLCStudent, each time without explanation. In case the reversions were inadvertent, @CLCStudent, please can you explain your position and whether this section is fine?Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The BMJ piece does not appear to be an article. It's a "letter to the editor" merely quoting the Daily Mail. The extra level of indirection does not make the reference more legit. Favonian (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

So Favonian, is your assertion that this page cannot reference Peter's anti-vaxxer views, because you regard the citing of a GP's letter to the British Medical Journal, referencing the original articles in a(n albeit disreputable) national newspaper, not to be strong enough? And while we are on the topic, do you regard the many other citations on the page, which you have let stand, all to be more authoritative than a GP's letter to the British Medical Journal? This is disappointingly inconsistent, and it is difficult not to infer from the particularly high bar you are setting for this citation (which after all, is just pointing to a journalist's published views) that you have set your heart on preventing Peter's anti-vaxxer views appearing on his page. Given that another admin (CLCStudent, as you can see below) has also come around to the anti-vaxxer section not being censored, please can we leave it there? Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As an update, Favonian, this has now been approved by Neiltonks also. While you may maintain the view that a GP's letter published in the British Medical Journal is not good evidence of the pieces having existed (which is all that is being suggested), can I ask please that you refrain from overriding him, me and CLCStudent on this? My reason for asking is that to censor this vaccination section on those grounds would be inconsistent: the article is dripping with self-promotion, riddled with citation of far less reputable provenance than a GP's published letter to the BMJ, and so it seems unfair to start with this, even if the premise about GPs and the BMJ is true (which I hope you will agree it is not!). All the page now does it shows Peter's past work on that topic, and readers can judge him on that basis. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Men2ge4zhong3, please understand that my 'approval' was simply to accept the pending change. This doesn't mean any more than that the change wasn't obviously bad in my opinion (e.g. not vandalism, not referenced to a source that's been declared unreliable etc.) It doesn't mean it can't be challenged by other editors, as my opinion doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's. Think of pending change reviewers as gatekeepers, keeping out the obviously bad so that other editors with an interest in the topic of the article can concentrate on improving it rather than having to deal with the obviously inappropriate edits. Neiltonks (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Without thirrid party sources we cannot include anything in thsi article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, this is a doctor's letter published by the British Medical Journal pointing to the existence of Peter's articles in a national newspaper. Please can you explain your deletion, on which you did not seek consensus before overriding me and the two other admins who have discussed it on this page? Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC

Indeed it is, which means it is NOT a reliable, 3rd party source. We know Peter's views appear in British news sources but that is not sufficient for inclusion here. What has admins got to do with anything, admins don't have greater weight when it comes to discussing than non-admins, at least try to understand how Wikipedia works. This 3rd party sources issue is not new, e.g., look at the review of the article a while back where it failed to become a "good article" due to improper use of 1st party and/or user-generated sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section. This is not a reliable 3rd party source of the standard we require here. If his views are notable they will appear in reliable 3rd party sources, if they don't appear in said sources the views are not notable for inclusion. The problem with this is it user-generated, I could such a page and then use it to verify whatever I wanted on Wikipedia. Do NOT reinsert his views on vaccines without a reliable 3rd party source, there are plenty of examples in the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard, your pretext for censoring this section is inaccurate. This is not user generated. It is a registered GP's published response to a BMJ article. You could not have such a response to the BMJ published. As if this were not third party source enough, the existence of the pieces is also evidenced in the national newspaper in which they were published. Why is it that the BMJ source and the newspaper source here are being used to censor the entire anti-vaxxer section, yet there are other sources to the self-same newspaper elsewhere which you let stand? Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You are looking for trouble if you start to accuse me of censoring this article. I suggest you strike that comment. How is sticking to policies "censorship?" Censorship would be removing reliable, 3rd party sources, which I have not done. Go find those reliable, 3rd party sources rather than blaming other editors because such sources appear unavailable. Yes, it is user-generated, the users may be GPs but they generate these pages as users, meaning it is not a 3rd party source. I am not denying Hitchens has opinions on this and many subjects but to include them we need reliable 3rd party sources. Nobody is censoring anything, you are assuming bad faith in your accusations of censorship, which leaves me disturbed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

By censorship I mean you have removed this section entirely from view. I am happy to relabel this "removal", but it remains that you are depriving Wiki users of an entire section (and one particularly significant for assessing Peter's thought) because of your assertion that a registered GP's published letter to the BMJ is not enough to show that something exists. Remember, Richard, all the citation is supposed to show is that the articles exist. Elsewhere on the page there are fake citations (for example, the COVID section is largely uncited, and where is cited, some of the citations have nothing to do with Peter - so why is that section still standing?); there are university newspapers and unknown online outlets like Joe.com; there is even a Mail on Sunday citation. Yet here you are removing an entire section because it points to the existence of the articles it pertains to, and these articles are published by the same newspaper group and, crucially, are referenced by a the doctor's published letter also. Are you really satisfied that you have applied the same standards to the rest of this Wiki page? Some sentences aren't even cited at all; others are cited, but when you click the link you find they have nothing at all with Peter. It is still not clear to me why you so resolute on hiding this anti-vaxxer section from view, given this context. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the fact that it's in the Daily Mail is a red herring. I 100% agree we couldn't cite a Daily Mail news article to show that Hitchens said something. And I hope we all agree that if this Hitchens column had been in the NY Times, it still couldn't be used as a reliable third party source about "facts" either. But in the same way we can cite someone's blog to show that they actually said something (WP:ABOUTSELF), we can cite a Hitchens column in the Daily News to show Hitchens said something. If this column had been posted in the NY Times opinion pages, that wouldn't make it more or less eligible for inclusion.

  So to me, as an uninvolved observer, I think discussion could better be focused on: do we think this is a notable thing to include? Is it undue weight? That's an editorial decision (i.e. even if it is undisputed true that he said this - and it is - it is possible to collectively make the editorial decision not to include it). Do other sources discuss Hitchens' opinion? Do they need to be reliable in order to demonstrate the notability of his vaccination opinions? Does this help the reader understand the article subject? Do his other "views" in the "Views" section have the same rigorous sourcing (seems like a lot of blogs in those sections)? etc. I'll leave that discussion for people better versed in Mr. Hitchens' history. But I don't think we can just say "WP:DAILYMAIL1" and think we're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, the Daily Mail point is a red herring. A photo of something simply shows it; a link to a journalist's published views simply shows those views. It is confused to say (rightly) that the Daily Mail may not be a credible source of authority for a statement, and therefore (wrongly) that it cannot be cited to show what a Daily Mail journalist has written. As for the weighting of Peter Hitchens' vaccine hesitancy, it is part of Peter Hitchens' work that he wrote the words I quoted. This is not currently visible to the public, because RichardWeiss and El cid, el campeador have removed entirely. But the two articles, which referenced each other, are as much among his views as the other stuff. It is surprising that RichardWeiss and El cid, el campeador have been particularly focused on removing the vaccine-related content, with its citations (whether Daily Mail or British Medical Journal), and yet were perfectly happy with whole paragraphs uncited (or fake-cited, without reference to Peter) in the COVID section, and an uncited sentence in the intro yesterday describing him as "staunchly principled". They will no doubt demonstrate why this is the case, rewarding our assumption that they are acting in good faith. Men2ge4zhong3 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Could you please dial back the snark? I promise it is not helping your case. Just focus on content. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:RichardWeiss, could you please respond? You have imposed your view on Menge and ignored the thoughtful defence of his edits put forward by Floquenbeam above, as well as the other admins who at various points approved them or edits like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.96.27.70 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We can only use PH to source PH when he is talking about himself, as per WP:RS. We cannot use him expounding his views on any subject other than himself to establish those views as notable and nobody is providing reliable third-party sources to establñish the notability of these views. I am not claiming these aren't his views, simply that these views aren't notable, exactly the same as with his views on LGBT, another controversial subject that has been deleted from the article because of lack of reliable third-party sources. We as editors do NOT get to decide which of PH's views are notable, we use 3rd-party sources to indicate notability. BMJ is suer-generated and the Mail is PH himself so neither are reliable third-party sources. If people continue disagreeing with this I suggest going to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and seeing what the folk over there say, but less us know here if you do so. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I have no idea whether admins have edited this article recently but when it comes to editing admins have no special privileges. All I am doing is enforcing our policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardWeiss (talk • contribs)

@RichardWeiss: I don't know why you're pinging me. I have never said, or acted as if, or implied, that admins have special editing privileges. Pinging me while saying this implies I have done so. Hopefully you are replying to the IP editor and singled me out in error, because otherwise that's an obnoxious thing to say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Article sanitisation?

As a passer-by, I want to comment on the recent sanitisation of this article, especially by the removal of worthwhile sections about Hitchen's own expressed views. Their extirpation appears to be being justified by a few active editors using the invalid rationale that no third party source had reported that Hitchens expressed those views, and that they are therefore not notable and should be deleted. This is tosh. Providing the views can be demonstrably shown to be written and published by Hitchens, and are of significance in the context of the person's influence or role in society, then they should NOT be removed on those grounds. It's fine that the WP:DAILYMAIL has been declared 'unreliable' by Wikipedians as a Reliable Source, but when it comes to Wikipedia reporting the published views of one of its notable employees, then we are quite free to use those sources. Failing to do so is a a somewhat stupid mis-application of policy See WP:ABOUTSELF. Picking just two recent examples: I would say that his recently added views on gun control and on his own Wikipedia artcile are absoultely relevant, and should be reinstated immediately. It would not be unreasonable to wonder whether any editor removing such cited content might not have a WP:COI or some agenda to sanitise this article. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't think which policy or guideline covers this, but for a long time I've been under the impression that third party sources are required in these circumstances, in order to highlight which views of a subject are the significant ones. Otherwise, the significance of one view over another is being decided by Wikipedia editors, which is a form of original research. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think if that were carried to the extreme, you might then have reason to be concerned about WP:OR. But only in extremis. The alternative is a cleansing of an article about a public persona's key views on notable topics when they have publicly expressed strong views about them through formal publication (even when employed by what we, here, regard as a unreliable source like the DM). WP:ABOUTSELF indicates this is ok, whereas WP:TRIVIA allows editors to remove any unwanted chaff and/or fancruft if carried too far. The removal of any mention of strong, publicly-expressed and properly published views by the subject of an article, as appears to have been happening here to some extent, seems quite inappropriate (on the proviso that each can be linked to a citation to their expressed views.) That mention should, of course, be brief and not seek to expand unduly upon it, per WP:COATRACK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We can include his views when 3rd party sources establish their notability. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

We all need to read and take Talk:Peter Hitchens/GA1 on board, when I came here the first thing I did was read this and then apply it, and I keep on° applying it in spite of the resistance of certain editors, but we absolutely need to take the criticisms to heart and apply them , and that means relying for the most part on 3rd party sources and especially when it comes to PH's views. We could also get another assessment but it is fundamentally going in the wrong direction to recreate an article that fails to meet GA criteria. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Pointless photo of George Bell

Lets get rid of the photo of George Bell, the point about him is so tiny and insignificant compared to everything else relating to hitchens. Ive already tried to get rid of it but its been re added for no reason.Gd123lbp (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The wikilink to George Bell (bishop) suffices. The image is irrelevant, provided the text accurately portrays the sub-topic. We don't need an image of a gun or a Wikipedia logo to illustrate the fact that he has expressed strong views on these subjects. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What have you guys got against illustrating Wikipedia? And want policies and guidelines are you using to de-image Wikipedia? And Nick, we don't need to mention gun views at all unless you can find some 3rd party sources backing your belief that these are notable views. Besides, readers know what guns look like but they don't know what George Bell looks like, as I am sure you were aware when commenting. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I see your point about de-illustrating Wikipedia, but it's unclear to me why a reader of this article needs to know what George Bell looked like. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Gun rights

The gun-rights section contains no third-party sources establishing the notability of the section, merely stuff PH says. So I am removing the section. To restore the section you need to add reliable third-party sources establishing the notability of these views. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

fair enough, I was thinking of removing it too. Thanks. Gd123lbp (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it was a worthwhile section to have been recently added, and it's absolutely fine referencing sources written by that person if it demonstrates their views (so long as those views are signicant and relevant to the article about that person, which I think these were). See WP:ABOUTSELF if anyone feels the need justification for its retention. In essence, we do not need 3rd party sources to have reported Hitchens' views, providing we can accurately cite sources which show what he said. Even if that source is normally regarded as 'unreliable', in the context of an article about a person employed by that source, it is absolutely OK to cite it. Please reinstate the deleted content. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As per my comment in the 'article sanitisation' section below, I believe third party sources are required to establish which of Hitchens' views are the salient ones. Hitchens has commented on many things over the years, and third party sources should be used to establish which of those views are the most important/notable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability is about whether to have an article, not about what toi include in it.Once the article topic is deemed notable, any relevant content may be included, and need not be separately notable, as long as it is relevant, supported by proper sources, (which can include self-published sources for the subject's own views) and not being given undue weight. A brief mention is rarely undue weight. RichardWeiss is quite mistaken on the policy point above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest a compromise? While not every one of Hitchens' opinions is worth including (imagine if he mentioned his favourite toothpaste in a blog), some are still appropriate, but without independent sources I suggest they simply should not merit their own section. Surely his opinions on guns fall under some other broader philosophy/political stand of his and thus relate to a general encyclopedic understanding of who he is? But at the same time, if they haven't been talked about independently, then do they really merit their own subsection? WP:N is a guide for article creation, but I use it constantly for determining how worthwhile any given chunk of an article is. tldr: Keep opinion on gun rights, but don't overstate its importance by giving it undue length or its own section. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: PH isn't writing about himself when it comes to gun rights. I agree that when writing about himself, first party sources are acceptable but gun rights has nothing to do with PH or his life, this is merely him expressing his opinion about a political issue and therefore fails WP:ABOUTSELF. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Some quotes from Wikipedia:Notability for you. "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." This is exactly what I said, so how is the page not about what to include? It goes on to say "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." This is exactly what I am saying. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

RichardWeiss Yes that is a test for notability in many circumstances, meaning whether or not to have an article about a given topic. However the WP:NOTEWORTHY section of that same page says The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. And in reply to your comment to Nick Moyes above, when a person expressions an opinion about any subject, he (or she) is writing about what his (or her) own opinion is, and thus about himself. WP:ABOUTSELF absolutely applies to such statements. Indeed there can hardly be a better source than a person's own writings as to what that person's opinions are. There is still the principle of Due Weight to apply. A person might note on a personal web site that that person strongly prefers Mint Chip ice cream to Vanilla. There may be no question that this is accurate, and it is verifiable. But it would be a case of undue weight to mention it in a Wikipedia article, unless it was somehow significant -- perhaps if the person was in the business of making ice cream. The key point is that Notability is not the standard for inclusion of a particular fact in an article. Due weight and relevance are, along with editorial judgement. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hazzzzzz12: but you have no source that his views on gun rights are more notable than his views on LGBT and a whole range of other subjects from changing the clocks to Boris Johnson. Nobody is explaining what is the importance of gun rights within the wide range of beliefs espoused by Hitchens but all his other beliefs which we mention, such as about cannabis and George Bell, have secondary sources to justify their inclusion. We either justify with secondary sources or based on editors' opinions, and the latter is NOT how Wikpedia works. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I don't disagree with you on this specific case (although I do disagree that Wikipedia is never shaped—carefully—by editors' opinions). My point was mainly to agree with you that without 3rd party citation, there should not be a Gun Rights (sub)section. But if there were reason to include his opinions on gun rights elsewhere as it pertained to, for example, individual liberties, we shouldn't exclude it for the same reason. — Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

TalkRADIO interviews with hitchens as sources? 2nd party sources?

There have been a lot of new edits recently which have included sources directly from Hitchens' column (which I am trying to remove) and also sources which are just interviews with Hitchens. I am not sure if these should be acceptable? WP:IS

For instance: Graham, Mike; Hitchens, Peter (22 June 2020). "Peter Hitchens: Oxford statue protests were 'the establishment on parade'". talkRADIO. Retrieved 29 October 2020. Gd123lbp (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Youtube video

Gd123lbp has reverted to insert a youtube video from a channel called "Triggernometry", which just appears to be self-published content from two people, not WP:RS. In it Hitchens is rambling about COVID-19 and entertaining various fringe ideas, including that masks (which he calls "muzzles") do not reduce viral transmission. Removed per WP:RSPYT and WP:ELNO. Gd123lbp, you are aware of the general sanctions applying to COVID-19, and that replacement of material removed for a credible reasons shall not be replaced without consensus - so why have you done this. I suggest you self-revert. Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I did this because it seemed to be removed for non credible reasons. you said it was "self published" aka hitchens had published it. That's not the case. I suppose you have an argument for removing as a non reliable source but as a video link I would think it would be fair to direct to Hitchens' own words. Whether we agree with what he is saying is another matter, this is a section about hitchens' views. You can remove it again if you wish, my objection was to the false reason you gave for deleting it; that it was published by hitchens. We also don't use the phrase misinformation, that's not neutral, some of the things he says could be wrong others right. Hitchens makes no claims of being a medical expert in this field, nor are his claims primarily concerned with medicine. The word misinformation has rightly been removed from other articles when added. Nevertheless you have given other reasons for removal so I will leave you to edit with those reasons. Gd123lbp (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:SPS, particularly the explanatory note "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". These comedians' "free speech channel" is self-published by them, using an array of ... interesting characters for content. Since you are not self-reverting, but agreeing to reversion, I shall do it for you. Alexbrn (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

The LGBT rights and marriage section states (using a Pink News article as a source), "Hitchens was one of the most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage in 2013, the year before same-sex marriage was legal in Britain" although he later came to regret his involvement in it. But by 2013, he had already concluded that opposing same-sex marriage was a waste of time because it only led to being called a bigot and a homophobe and, in his view, what he saw as the weakening of heterosexual marriage was much more important. See this Spectator article and this Question Time appearance (go to 5:03 and 12:34), both from 2012. There are earlier examples of Hitchens expressing views against homosexuality and same-sex civil unions -- for example a 2002 Mail on Sunday column in which he criticised the Tory MP Alan Duncan for coming out as gay, but by 2013 he had given up on the issue and was mainly concerned by what he saw as the increasing "liberal bigotry" over it (see QT appearance above). In 2018 I wrote an LGBT issues section which was more accurate, though it was later taken down because it wasn't considered notable enough. Jon1901 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What is your point? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My point is the section should be changed to reflect the fact that Hitchens was not an "outspoken opponent" of same-sex marriage in 2013 and by then he had already reached the position that same-sex marriage was relatively unimportant and not worth opposing. Jon1901 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable in theory, but there are two problems:
1) Hitchens could never be said to have been a supporter of gay marriage, even if he thought the issue relatively unimportant
2) What sources could be used? - the ones you list are primary. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source from 2002 of Hitchens's opposition to Alan Duncan's openness about his homosexuality, while here is a 1999 BBC article in which Hitchens denounces the TV series Queer as Folk; his opposition to it is also referred to in a 2019 column by Owen Jones. And we could keep the stuff about how by 2012/2015 he regretted his involvement in the debate about homosexuality/same-sex marriage, maybe including the Spectator article as a source for that as well. Maybe the earlier stuff from 2002 and 1999 is too long ago to be relevant and I realise it isn't specifically related to gay marriage. I know of primary sources of his opposition to same-sex civil unions in the 2000s but not secondary sources. In any case, I think it's worth removing the statement that he was one of the most outspoken opponents of gay marriage in 2013 as it's inaccurate. Jon1901 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My comment above was in response to your proposal that the article should be changed so it doesn't state Hitchens was an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage in 2013. I wasn't commenting on any other proposals. The sources you list don't seem pertinent to the proposal I was reacting to. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal life first?

I don't like the way this starts with his personal life, that's typically at the bottom of an article because it's secondary to the main subject. His personal life is not the most important thing so it should go lower down on the page. Gd123lbp (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)