Talk:Peter Hitchens

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)

What are the 'decent sources' to which you refer? They consist of people making claims about me, without supporting quotation. 81.155.193.91 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2025 (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)

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)

This is absurd. It is not enoughy for 'reliable sources' (subjectively awarded this status) to 'describe' me as anything, unless they produce evidence for their beliefs. There is no evidence that I, as described, was 'against the MMR vaccine'. That is because I was not. I came very late to the debate about the MMR, by which time the belief that it was possibly unsafe was already widespread and a fact of life. Many parents simply would not let their children have it. I just objected to the high-handed treament, by government, of such parents who were worried about their children. I believed then and believed now that (for instance) allowing them to have their children vaccinated with individual shots would be much more likely to create herd immunity than shouting at them and bossing them about, which is what HMG did. I have been trying to get this evidence-free falsehood corrected here for years now. Will nobody do it? I am irrevocabley banned from editing wikipedia (there is no appeals process in the Jimmy Wales despotism) because I was once insufficienytly respectful to some Imperial Wizard among the hierarchy of wikipedia editors. I wish some public-spirited person would help. I can be reached through The Mail,mon Sunday in London to confirm that this is my view. Peter Hitchens. 195.234.243.135 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have an account here, you can be unblocked by following the unblock appeal procedure. To propose changes to this article, see Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard, but I recommend against doing that until your account is unblocked. Any proposal you make is unlikely to be taken seriously if you are evading your block. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'an account'. As I have been expelled, I dubt that I do. Nor do I have any idea where to find the appeal procedure you mention. You seem to think it is self-evident. It isn't. Please provide directions. 81.155.193.91 (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You say "I am banned for life from editing Wikipedia". Your own words. Therefore, there must be some evidence of such a ban. It also implies that in the past, you created an account that is now blocked or banned. The talk page of that account includes a message with reasons for your block, and instructions on how to appeal it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No. I edited, as I recall, under my name "Peter Hitchens" The dispute was over the editing of th entry on Bishop George Bell, so you may check for yourself. Basically, I was banned for being flippant to another editor, and for then refusing to accept that I was guilty of anything. There have never been any instructions on how to have thye ban lifted. I wrote abut the experince in the 'Specttator' magazine.See https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/08/war-of-words-my-battle-to-correct-wikipedia/ . I see the false assertion that I opposed the MMR vaccine remains uncorrected, even tho9ugh the second hand 'references' given for th claim do not stand up to any investigation. I do wish someone would put this right. Peter Hitchens. ~2026-16743-29 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I used to edit as 'Clockback'. THis is what it says about my banning: * 18:15, 4 August 2018 Jpgordon talk contribs changed block settings for Clockback talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.)

• 08:21, 31 July 2018 JzG talk contribs blocked Clockback talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.)
• 15:39, 2 July 2016 Clockback talk contribs was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user

I see no instructions here for getting the indefinite ban lifted. ~2026-16743-29 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, since you are now engaging in block evasion, you've damaged your chances. You are banned. That is a ban on you, personally, not whatever account you may want to create. The record of discussing whether the ban should continue is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive301#Block review for Clockback. Your block log showing the reason for the block is here.

You may log into your Clockback account and appeal your block by adding this template to your talk page User talk:Clockback:

{{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

This might be more appropriate if you stay away from Wikipedia for six months. See WP:Standard offer. When you do appeal, be sure to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before you write a single word. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I initially blocked him for COI, self-promotion, and belligerence. Nothing I see here indicates any change. I suggest that if he wishes to challenge any specific content, he should ask the OTRS volunteers, who probably have a way better chance of success than he does given his consistently abrasive style to date.

For what it's worth, a lot of people were taken in by Wakefield. The Grauniad was just as likely to publish a pro-Wakefield piece. My personal test is: at what point did you stop pushing Wakefield's nonsense? If it was significantly later than 6 March 2004, then you are ANTIVA. Otherwise, I would not characterise anyone as ANTIVA unless there was actual evidence of it outside of the Wakefield fraud. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Defence of myself is here described as 'self-promotion, and belligerence. ' . I never 'pushed Wakefield's nonsense' and I defy you to produce any evidence that I did. Yet for saying that this claim is untrue, I am called names. I am breaking no rules that I know of here, as I have not logged on and am not editing. ~2026-18715-90 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are breaking a rule. See WP:Block evasion. You, personally, are banned from editing anything, even talk pages. Not your account. You.

You have been told how to appeal your block. Your talk page User talk:Clockback is available for you to make an appeal. You are no longer blocked from that. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hitchens’ Jewish Descent (Early Life)

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)

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)

Peter Hitchens is not a Christian conservative

A man known for arguing as an atheist, cannot be a promoter of “conservative Christian views” - this needs to be corrected. 24.21.1.191 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been an atheist in many years. His brother was more widely known for atheist/antitheist views. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

POV, edits required?

Not many issues with reasonably fair and neutral first half of this page. More could be said on Hitchens' religious views, especially his views on/within the Church of England, expressed in his published works, columns, etc, and relevant in no small part because users are likely to find Peter's page (where the "Religion" subsection is very brief) via Christopher's. A more detailed account of P's religious attitudes could be moved elsewhere, allowing the clunky #Background to be renamed "Early life and family". The latter half of the page is far worse:

1: #Political Views too much weight to student newspaper, a quote of this size is unnecessary. The content itself is fine if verbose--and overselling something which hyperlinking 'Burkean' already achieves--but the final sentence at least needs chopped, and ideally this section would match the style of the preceding Gove quote. No ill will towards editors contributing to this section, but the remainder is a confused mix, returning again to Burke, dwelling too long (repetitiously) on the Conservative Party. A series of sourced short sentences describing his political views on various issues would suffice but currently these are squashed by lengthy interludes on Christianity (not political) and the CofE (also not political, and lacking proper explanation of the George Bell matter, Hitchens is left looking like an apologist). The legalisation of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, IS a political matter and should be included briefly in this section.

2: #Writings and thought would be more accurately named "Views" or similar. Isn't it a bit lofty to describe one's blogposts, Mail columns, appearances on podcasts etc as one's 'Thought'? This may help to solve the problem of topics repeated in #Publications

2a: Vaccination subsection has already been discussed in this talk page. An improved article would not need to uncritically reproduce Hitchens' position on the MMR combination vaccine (and probably should describe him as having been wrong about its risks), but the page in current form dances around painting him as "anti-vax" by failing to appropriately describe what he wrote at the time or since. Also, is it true that H "defended discredited doctor Andrew Wakefield"? He does not in the cited page, but maybe does in the full text--I cannot access it.

2b: Excessive focus on podcast appearance in drug reform section given Hitchens has written extensively on this topic. Additionally an unfair write-up: that the agreed topics of discussion contained drug law does not contradict Hitchens as the page makes it appear. His stated reason for leaving was the interviewer's dwelling on this topic for an extended period of time, having mentioned already that he wished to move on. It would be better to focus on content from this debate rather than a paragraph on the circumstances of his leaving the studio--at the moment it has little relevance to his "Writings and thought" on the topic and attempts to illustrate instead Hitchens' character

2c: Some tense issues in COVID and Russia-Ukraine subsections. Possible POV in tone when discussing Graham Phillips ("his fight against being sanctioned")?

Would the page be better organised: Early life and family, Career, Religion, Political stance (including general political philosophy), Views and thought, Publications (including reviews and criticism), Bibliography, etc?

Happy to contribute edits to this article given consensus but because of contentious subject matter, welcome opinions from all sides

Klaxoff (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you will find many of the problems originate in Wikipedia's er, eccentric policy of refusing to rely upon quotations from the Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday, where about 95% of my work has appeared since 2001. Doing so would (for instance) demolish all the rubbish here about my alleged views on vaccinations, some of which consists of actual lies, so poorly sources as not to be sourced at all. 81.155.193.91 (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@81.155.193.91 The article could be greatly improved without any need for the Mail (but maybe he should consider returning to the Express, ha ha). Yet as far as I understand it Wikipedia warns against reliance on primary sources in the first place. It would count as original work, for example, to rewrite this article around quotes from Hitchens' published works (however liberally this rule might be enforced elsewhere). For this reason Wikipedia prefers such sources as "Pink News" where Hitchens is characterised by some nobody as a renowned homophobe. I think that is why we are left to suffice with an Oxford undergraduate's profile Klaxoff (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)