Talk:Peter Hitchens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Peter Hitchens, has edited Wikipedia as Clockback (talk · contribs). This user's editing has included this article. Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia. |
.
Contents |
[edit] Staunch
I have now three times removed the word 'staunch' from the description of my position. If my position is staunch, it shouldn't need saying, likewise if it isn't. 'Staunch' is in any case not a word in normal currency. Its use makes a factual description into a partial statement and a cliche. Someone keeps putting it back. I cannot imagine why, but perhaps he or she could explain. I should have thought ( having already been outed as the evil editor of his own Wikipedia entry) that I was entitled to get rid of what looks to me like sycophancy from an entry about myself. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of middle name
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)
Is there any such name as "Johnathan"? I thought it was a mis-spelling. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yes, of course I edit this entry
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)
[edit] Disagreeable experiences
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)
Noted - however, if if I am not mistaken, you did say in your blog that you thought it was an unpleasant experience, which prompted the chosen wording, though I can see now that that wording does indeed create the inaccurate impression that this directly led to your decison not to debate C Hitchens again.Jprw (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am puzzled. Which words are these? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Terrible terminology
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)
[edit] Core Beliefs
Peter Hitchens frequently asserts a (supposed) love of free speech but doesn't seem to understand how to apply this ideal in practice. Comments to his blog are apparintly screened by a team of 'moderators' who delete or heavily edit anything he might just find hostile or disagreeable. When a comment of mine was published (attached to my real name at his insistence), he attacked me at leangth. Strangely my response never appeared... JDerek.C (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If this person contacts me at the Mail on Sunday with copies of the contributions involved, I will see to it that they are published provided they fall within the rules of the blog, which is on the site of a major newspaper group and (like the newspapers) governed by the laws of England, not covered by the US First Amendment as we would all no doubt prefer. I also ( as I have made clear from the start) refuse contributions which contain bigoted expressions, even if they are lawful.
I do not and obviously cannot "insist" that contributors use their real names, though I state clearly that I prefer them to do so, and tend to mock and chide people who needlessly hide behind pseudonyms or silly names.
I am perfectly entitled to respond to contributors, in fact that is the point of the site. And I am perfectly entitled to attack their arguments, if I disagree with them. It seems a bit odd to allege that free speech is being impeached, and then to complain when it is used against you. Any visitor to the site can see that many comments highly critical of me and my ideas are published.
Some contributions simply get lost, including ones that I post myself. The technology is imperfect, and so are we, and so such things can happen. Others get needlessly snared by over-sensitive filters. Keep a copy and send it again, is my advice.
Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Too much about Christopher?
Does anyone else think that a disproportionate amount of space in this article is dedicated to his relationship with his brother? It almost makes Peter seem like someone who is only notable for leeching fame off of Christopher. We don't need such a detailed breakdown of their political differences.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) After looking at Christopher Hitchen's page, I feel the need to mention that Chris' article has a smaller section on the relationship between the brothers, despite having a much larger article in total. That reinforces my belief that the weighting is a little off.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The section only seems to be a slightly more fleshed out version of the one on Christopher's article. I think the first paragraph could probably be cut down significantly though, maybe reduced to a sentence. Other than that I wouldn't say it was overly large. EvilRedEye (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
