Talk:Peter Hitchens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Peter Hitchens was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
January 11, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture[edit]

A few weeks ago I went to great lengths to validate a new picture of me, via wikimedia commons. I obtained the personal permission of the photographer to post the picture here. I posted it here. Then some officious person removed it without explanation or any attempt to communicate his reasons to me. Now I have lost all the notes through which I validated it, and have no idea how to reinstate it or what to do. Is there anyone there who can help me? If so, I can e-mail them the picture, and provide them with exact details as to its origin, date and place it was taken etc, and send them a copy of the photographer's e-mail giving me permission to use it. Peter Hitchens signed in as ClockbackClockback (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the one you added here- SidneySussex.jpg? I don't know about images, but according to this, it was deleted by Wiki commons user Didym- their Wikimedia profile is here. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean , its full title, which clearly shows that I had put it through the proper wikimedia process. The user involved, if you visit his page, says he has left wikipedia. he offers no explanation. He also *deleted* the file, for no reason I can see, forcing me to go back through the wikimedia procedure, which I apparently got wrong though nobody has told me how and I have no way of knowing how , as I followed every step to the letter. What I am looking for is someone who can help me get this legitimate picture legitimately restored, proof against trh such nuisance bureaucrats, who seem to remove things for their own satisfaction. Clockback (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing[edit]

The subject of this article has been directly editing the article; please stop doing that per the WP:COI guideline. I have tagged the article; the tag can be removed by an independent editor who has reviewed the article for NPOV and sourcing. If you do that review and remove the tag, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, do please try not to be so silly. See the note above from many years ago 'Of course I edit this entry'(April 2008, I think it dates from) . I have done it quite openly under my own name, and have limited myself to correcting factual errors made by others, which I am in a position to put right. On this occasion, I have been trying to insert a photograph of myself. The photographer has given me his written position. I had taken it through the entire wikimedia commons procedure following all the required stpes. And an officious perosn then removed it without explaining why, and needlessly *deleted* it so that I have to trudge through the whole weary procedure again. I am seeking HELP from wikipedia editors in reinstating t, and get nno help, just these futile heavy-handed bureaucratic bureaucratic interventions. Petr Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You may continue to make appropriate edits directly to the article, Clockback, which the WP:COI guideline definitely allows, but discourages. The COI tag on the article is inappropriate and I will remove it forthwith; as I see no evidence here from anyone of a currently unresolved problem. Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Warm wishes.--Elvey(tc) 17:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I was about halfway through reviewing this and fixed several issues. The article needs to be actually reviewed for NPOV and sourcing before the tag comes off. Elvey COI is not a breezy la la thing - we need to manage COI to preserve the integrity of WP as a reliable source of information. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The most recent edit by Clockback which changed the text of the article (rather than changing the picture and adding misplaced pleas for his preferred picture to be restored) was this one from almost a year ago. Plenty of editors have had time to deal with any NPOV issues since then. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I got half way through and found unsourced content that i fixed here. I haven't finished going over it. But Maproom if you have reviewed the whole article and find it NPOV and all sourced, please take the tag off. This is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've checked through to the end, adding a couple of references. But I've never done this before, I'll leave it to you (or someone) to take the tag off. One remaining doubt: do we really need to list the ISBNs of all his books, when they can easily be found in the articles on those books? Maproom (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Can't we get a better image than this? The camera angle makes him look a bit too like Aloysius Parker. The curtains behind makes it worse because it looks like he has even has strings. Also it needs cropping.--Aspro (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I look like Aloysius Parker from any angle, anyway. The effort involved in getting pictures past the pointlessly officious, nitpicking bureaucrats who monitor the site could not possibly be justified by such minor concerns.Most photographs of me are copyrighted by professional photographers and could not be used without charge. It's a perfectly good picture and far better than the one it replaced, which was here for a decade without a syllable of protest from Aspro or anyone else, even though it also had multiple copyright problems. Getting this picture uploaded, and many thanks to the photographer, Nigel Luckhurst, and to the heroic efforts of Mr Philbrick, has involved many long and difficult hours. I strongly urge leaving it as it is. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Think it was my Grandfather that fist pointed out, that when I found things difficult it was because I was going about it the wrong way. Uploading photos to WP is easy when you go about it the right way. If Clockback resides in London I could even pop over on my bus-pass and take a few dozen shots on my camera, which he can select from (thinking here: a backdrop of his Remington typewriter to one side and heavenly loaded book shelves behind) (from a public relations point of view that would come across as a portrait of a serious critic). I don't have to go through the OTRS business because all I have to do is upload them on a compatible CC licence. The photo can be cropped and uploaded on the same evening. No long and difficult hours involved – no copyright issues either – no heroics - no frustration.--Aspro (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Mr Aspro is once again mistaken. My experience (and thanks to my chosen trade I have had my picture taken many times under many conditions by many very skilled and experienced photographers, most of whom agree with what I say here) has been that any *posed* picture of me will be terrible. This is a problem faced by unphotogenic people, such as I am, and we could spend hours here discussing the explanation for it. I might just say that, on the one occasion when I met the late Princess Diana (who was both photogenic and telegenic), I did not recognise her even though she was six feet away, I knew she was there and I was looking for her. She did not look at all like her pictures. But unlike me, she looked much *better* in pictures than she did in reality. There are various tricks to lessen the problem, but that is all they do. The virtue of the chosen picture is that I was not aware that it was being taken, and it is therefore a far better likeness than any conscious portrait. That's why I chose it. And it is all very well chatting merrily about 'uploading on a compatible CC licence', but to most normal human beings such an action is as obscure, worrying and unknown as nuclear physics in a foreign language. What is a CC licence? How do I know if it is compatible? How do I upload? What, indeed is uploading? I've no idea of the answers to any of these questions, and nor have most people. Nor do I know where to find out (though I wasted some time in trying very hard to do so).They've never heard of it and they don't know how or where to do it. There are two kinds of technologically knowledgeable people. the sort who understand that most of the world hasn't a clue what they are talking about, and the other sort. By the way, I don't live in London and abandoned my last typewriter in late 1980s, when I first began to use computers. Very useful they are too, but learning to use them is not the same as learning to understand them. Indeed, I have now learned at least eight separate and different systems. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
My thanks to Maproom for cropping the image properly. Shame we did have one from a very skilled and experienced portrait photographer who is not content with just taking a quick paparazzi like snap.--Aspro (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, Took many months to calm down about Clockback's comment about unphotogenic people. No one is 'unphotogenic' not even him. Was just saying: it would be nice to have a portraiture shot to complement (not his article) but the article about him (and didn't ask him for his view on this talk page but the subject of the article butted in never-the-less). Just because a photographer is highly paid by some newspapers to take some happy-snaps of this subject doesn’t mean any such photographer is highly skilled at placing a subject at s/he's ease and doing what portrait painters know how to do. My point was that the original image could be construed as ridiculing the subject as a puppet figure -and yet the subject himslef took um-bridge. Should the subject doubt my views, then he may thank me later for taking my advice that his face has so much (add one's most favorite French phrase here), that he could just walk into (say) Ugly Models modelling agency and he would get signed up straight away ( also one attribute that good photographic model needs is self confidence – and he has that in overpowering abundance). Its a win-win for him. When sitting at home twiddling his thumbs the phone will ring with the offer of yet another photo assignment... I.E. More Money and an another assignment, shot by a truly skilled photographer rather than a newspaper paid happy snapper who just wants to get in-and-out as soon as possible and blames any short comings of photogennacy of the subject upon the subject. Hereby, rescind my above offer to pop over to him and take some studies of this article's subject, as the above personality conflict is sure to continue. So why should I bother? Ὁ βίος βραχύς.--Aspro (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The brother section is way off topic[edit]

That section about Hitchens and his brother is off-topic and irrelevant. Beyond that it goes into far too much detail. This is a biographical article about Peter Hitchens, not about his relationship with his brother, his cat or anyone else. This problematic section was discussed back in 2009 but remains problematic. The Dissident Aggressor 23:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The section seems about right to me. Following the discussion in 2009, it was shortened slightly; it is now even shorter than it was at the end of 2009. It is relevant because his brother (unlike his cat) was another notable journalist. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
We generally don't have sections about relationships in biographies for every notable person that is related to or works with other notable people. The Dissident Aggressor 19:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Here are the first three examples I thought of:
  • Christopher Hitchens: nine sentences mentioning his brother, mostly grouped into a section.
  • Ed Miliband: eight sentences mentioning his brother, scattered through the article.
  • Dave Miliband: eight sentences mentioning his brother, scattered through the article.
This article has twelve sentences mentioning his brother. Ok, so maybe the section should be trimmed. Maproom (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done The Dissident Aggressor 00:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)