Talk:Peter Hitchens

LGBT section

This section lacks 3rd party refs, they are all either Hitchens articles or youtube discussions featuring him. This means notability is unproven, we need to prove by citing 3rd party sources or delete the section. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the section till this can be referenced by somebody other than Hitchens himself. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the sections in this article seem to rely on citations to Hitchens' own work, with no proof of notability. Seems unusual to remove the LGBT section but not others, imo. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It caught my attention cos it was the section I was reading. Nothing remotely unusual. I agree re other sections being subject to removal, I'm also happy to see a properly sourced LGBT section. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Likewise. Wasn't meaning anything personal when I said it seemed unusual btw, I was just noting that the other sections were in a similar state. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware this is a very big edit and people here are free to revert if they think I'm being too bold, but I've just removed quite a lot of information from this article which lacks notability: either articles by Hitchens, interviews of him with no real 3rd party refs. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty pathetic stuff. So now primary sources and admissions made by the actual author of the content are deemed to have 'no proof of notability'? This disqualifies the information that some editors have spent their valuable time finding, reading, copying, pasting, double-checking, previewing, triple-checking and submitting to the site for the purpose of rounding up any relevant, additional information on the page' subject, because of 'lack of third-party sources', when primary sources are far more trustworthy - this is not a matter of opinion, but of common sense. I strongly suggest that the edit is reversed or at the very least, partially reversed. --Abc422 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not just now, it has always been like this. Editors need to familiarise themselves with our policies and guidelines if they want their efforts here to remain. We abide by these policies and guidelines and not your definition of common sense. The edit cannot be reversed unless additional 3rd parties refs are added. I suggest you look for these as your strategy of attacking users for following our policies and guidelines won't achieve anything. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

RichardWeiss, you seem to have completely misinterpreted what I wrote. Nothing I said denigrated anybody nor violated Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is not only a blight on the website to delete large amounts of primary-sourced information that contributes to more relevant content on Wikipedia, it is also blatantly wrong to delete such information without the knowledge of users who have contributed to the website, only to find that the admissions have been deleted without a notification and no informative response to a talk page post inquiring about the deletion. If you are going to prioritize third-party sources over primary sources- fine, but to then ensure primary sources alone are deleted in a free and open encyclopedia, goes against the website's very values. In fact, to falsely accuse me of 'attacking' user Bangalamania, when I am clearly criticizing the deletion, not the user, is defamatory. Perhaps you need to re-read Wikipedia's Code of Conduct and learn to treat fellow users with respect, rather then baseless accusations. Again, I reiterate that the deletion must be reversed - either partially or completely. --Abc422 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I clearly didn't misinterpret what you said. You are a new user who appears not to understand how we work. All users can track articles they have edited through their watchlist. Please desist from making unpleasant attacks on experienced users. If you want to chnge our WP:RS or other policies seek discussion there. This isn't the place. You are going to be reported for accusing others of defamation. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abc422: Sorry if I'm re-igniting anything here, but I am genuinely sorry that you feel upset that there has been content deleted from this page because of lack of third-party references. The issue is not trustworthiness, and I don't doubt that a lot of people have spent a lot of time finding these. Unfortunately, we cannot include very jot and tittle on Wikipedia articles, and there needs to be some metric by which we establish an individual's notability. That is what Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are for.

I do not suggest that all additions sources purely primary sources be deleted, and I do agree that a degree of common sense should come into play. In fact, I did keep a few primary sources on this article in my edits. My issue was that there were vast swathes of this article which were just primary sources, which raises additional issues due to the nature of the source (The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online are not considered reliable sources and are generally avoided in BLPs, even those of Mail journalists). If there is anything in particular you'd like to see added for whatever reason, please bring it up here or on my talk page. I am very much willing to partially reverse some of my edits if there is a good reason to do so

And just for the record, I don't feel attacked at all. I understand that deleting a vast amount of information from an article is a very drastic thing to do, and that's why I brought the issue up on the talk page. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The Spectator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has been discussed by the subject, with particular reference to the edit wars etc in which he has participated regarding article content.62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep but what does this have to do with this page? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well for starters it will need to have a "mentioned in mainstream media" banner put on this here talk page (as per Talk:Nick Cohen and Talk:Ice Bucket Challenge.95.148.22.180 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - ah, just checked and another user has already sorted this! 95.148.22.180 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to include the article as a ref we should close the thread now the banner is in place. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. 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 the problematic 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 ♝ ♚ 05:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)