This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Peter Hitchens was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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, herehere 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is barking. Assertion isn't ebvidence. Evidence is evidence. My rejection would 'carry no water' if any source could produce a direct referenced quotation showing otherwise. There isn't one. Peter Hitchens See above for my contact details. 195.234.243.135 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hitchens is of course free to *claim* whatever he wants regarding his heritage and to identify as he wishes, but as a scholar of Jewish cultural history I can’t see how his claim of only 1/32 Jewish descent for him and his brother is substantiable, even in purely genetic terms. According to this article and several other media sources, eg. The Guardian, his maternal grandmother was Jewish — ‘the daughter of Polish Jewish migrants’, per a Guardian article on his brother Christopher. Unless there’s genealogical information I’m unaware of, and leaving completely aside the traditional notion and practice of Jewish matrilineal descent, even genetically a Jewish grandmother would make Hitchens’ mother at least 1/2 Jewish, and him and his brother 1/4 Jewish. That’s a far cry from the 1/32 Jewish ancestry Hitchens claims. I have no stake in making Hitchens any more or less Jewish, but I feel a Wikipedia article should be based in fact, not fantasy, and at least point out the discrepancy or mention the issue. Unless, as I say earlier, there’s actual genealogical evidence to the contrary. Happy to discuss. Thanks and best. - MKh MotkeKhabad (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My 'Jewish grandmother' was in fact half-Jewish, and that not through the matrilineal line as her mother was not Jewish at all. As you seem to care, let's compromise on 1/16. Peter Hitchens 195.234.243.135 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
