Talk:Peter Hitchens

}}

Rhodes Must Fall movement section

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)

@Gd123lbp: 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)

Bangalamania I think youve made some great edits recently, I dont really want to delete this because I feel there might be some content in his comment "establishment on parade" and other things. It defo needs to be edited. Gd123lbp (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is note worthy. It is mostly 1st party sources and says nothing especially interesting or note worthy. Gd123lbp (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

COVID misinformation

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)

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)

Thanks for your thoughts @Robby83:. 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)

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)

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)

Anti vaccination activist category.

Should this article be in the category "British anti-vaccination activists"? The article says he "promoted anti-vaccination views and misinformation about the MMR vaccine", but it also reports that he "rejected accusations he is an anti-vaxxer". Would the initial, secondary sourced information be enough on its own to categorise him, and/or does his own denial override the previous evidence? (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hohum Given that he has had the vaccine, and has claimed he has never spoken against the vaccine, and I cannot find an instance of him doing so, then I believe it would not be accurate to implement your proposals. HelpfulPi (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't advocated anything. I asked a question, which you haven't actually answered.

I don't know what vaccine you are referring to as him not ever having spoken against, but the article has decent sources on him denouncing the MMR vaccine. (Hohum ^@) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hohum I was referring to the COVID-19 vaccines. I don't have the time to argue with people on the internet. I saw your query that no one else had attempted to respond to, and did my best to apply my knowledge to resolve it; I was not obliged nor required to answer it in any capacity regardless. He has had the COVID-19 vaccine, he therefore cannot be anti-vaccination; he may be sceptical of some vaccines, but 'anti-vaxxer' implies he is anti-vaccination, not anti-particular vaccinations, or sceptical about one. HelpfulPi (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That is a more helpful answer, thank you. No categorising him as an anti-vaxxer then. (Hohum ^@) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I am banned for life from editing Wikipedia, for reasons which still elude me. But I never 'denounced' the MMR vaccine. I merely sympathised with parents who felt browbeaten into giving it to their children, during years when fears that it might be risky were still prevalent. I thought that a readiness to take their fears into account, by extending availability of the single vaccines, would be more likely to achieve the herd immunity which I thought then, and think now, to be desirable. I came very late to the debate. If I had denounced the vaccination, then you would be able to find words in which I had done so. The quotation provided does not make any such denunciation, but asks a question. Likewise I never expressed any opinion on whether other people should or not have the Covid vaccine, and in fact was reluctantly vaccinated, a fact I made public. I cannot stop people lying about me here, but at least they should *know* that they are lying. Peter Hitchens. Anyone who wishes to verify that I am the author of this statement may reach me at The Mail on Sunday in London. +44 203 615 0000 will reach me. 86.157.175.107 (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, for the simple reason that I never did so. The sources cited contain no direct quotations of me denouncing the MMR vaccine, because they do not exist. This is because I did not do so. That was 'Private Eye' magazine. Peter Hitchens (barred from editing wikipedia) 195.234.243.131 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

His "rejection of the accusations" carries no water per WP:MANDY. Do reliable sources describe him as an anti-vaxxer? If yes, then that is what wikipedia should call him. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone can not be a "Burkean Conservative" AND a "Social Democrat" - they are opposed positions.

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)