Talk:The Broken Compass

Reversion
The author is quite entitled to edit an entry concerning one of his own books, provided he does so openly and honestly. If the person styling herself 'Miamomimi' cares to provide reasons for reverting my changes, she should do so. Otherwise, the change would appear to have no editorial purpose. The revised entry (mine, that is) is fuller and more accurate, contains a new reference and more information. In whose interest is it to have a less full, less accurate account? If 'Miamomimi' wishes to make constructive edits, then let her do so, and justify them. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clockback, you are clearly cherry picking reviews of your own work. Given more than a few minutes I'm sure I and others could expand the article in a balanced way if you would give us time and not edit war. Thank you. Mimi (yack) 14:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I was placing this note here 'Miamomimi' reverted my reversion, without apparently making any attempt to read this explanation. Can this possibly be a reasoned action, or proper behaviour for a wikipedia editor? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not so, as I pressed save there was an edit conflict - you really should not be so quick to judge, Clockback. Mimi (yack) 14:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Mimi was justified in doing a complete undo -- Clockback's contribution contains a couple of excellent new references including a review from a more right leaning newspaper, which, given that the right wing media has chosen to ignore the book, we must surely include (and therefore given this context, Clockback's adducing it would appear to not constitute cherrypicking). Clockback's contribution does however need a good edit -- the Gove quote is probably too long, hostile might be a problem word, etc.Jprw (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Have had a go at tidying up Clockback's insertion which I suspect he wrote quickly. I have also temporarily removed the sentence referring to the Private Eye parody but I have seen this mentioned in a few places so maybe this would be a nice coda-like section for the article at a later stage after we've got a couple of references together. Also, the Gove and Poole quotes may still be a bit too long.Jprw (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Have now added more reviews and tidied, Still think as above, just needed a little time to edit. Mimi (yack) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The following part of the discussion (made around 15.16 on 18th November) mysteriously disappeared. I do not think it is permitted to delete contributions to talk pages, and if it is, it shouldn 't be. So I am restoring it. "For the benefit of any disinterested person who may become involved in this, let the following information be taken into account. I read this entry for the first time on the evening of 17th November, and made some revisions to it (as I always do when editing here) under my own name, clearly identified. The sign-on 'clockback' has now been officially verified on Wikipedia as being mine. I am not'clockback'. That is a sign-on. I am Peter Hitchens (see Bob Ainsworth discussion for details). I removed no factual information. I did, however, remove the word 'lukewarm' as a general description of the book's reception. I did not think the general use of the word 'lukewarm' could be justified in relation to the reviews. Though it certainly could in relation to Anthony Howard's, it couldn't be applied to at least two of the others. Nor is the total boycott of the book by the pro-Cameron press necessarily an expression of indifference. I would argue the contrary (and am quoted as doing so). At 13.45 on Wednesday, 'Miamomimi', who so far as I can see has never previously edited this entry and has no special interest in it that I know of, simply reverted the changes. On discovering this, and on seeing what I regarded as insufficient justification, I undid the reversion (at 14.29) and opened the discussion page to explain my action. By the time I had returned to the article, 'Miamomimi' had again (at 1430, without any time spent considering the matter) reverted the entry again, and made accusations of edit warring. At 1435, I reverted it again. continuing to believe the reversion to have been inadequately explained. At 1436, again without conceivably having had the time to consider the matter or read what I had written here, 'Miamomimi' reverted yet again. At 1439, urging her to read the discussion page, I undid this extraordinarily and needlessly rapid re-reversion. By 1442, she had reverted once again, which did not seem to me to be the action of someone interested in discussion. I would add that I am most damagingly accused of 'cherry-picking' reviews of my own work. So far as I know, this expression means that I am selecting reviews which suit me. On the contrary, I have ensured that every mention of the book in the mainstream press, complimentary and uncomplimentary, is now recorded, as was not the case before (Michael Gove's article in the Times, the excerpt in the Mail on Sunday the Hannah Pool interview, the parody of the index in Private Eye). I have not removed any hostile review. I have added one link (I would have added more but my computer skills make this slow work) This accusation is definitely not an 'assumption of good faith'. She writes of 'expanding the article in a balanced way', but her only actions as I write this have been to cancel without any further ado an attempt to do just that, and to repeat, and again repeat that action without pausing for reasoned discussion. I urgently invite other editors to help. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Let us hope it is now left in place. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - I removed the comment as it seemed uncivil and there was an editing conflict which was explained so the comment seemed unnecessarily uncivil. There is explanation in my edits and as soon as I saw your comments in Talk I read them and replied. We are talking of a few minutes in which an edit conflict occured. You seem keen to gain support against me rather than addressing me personally and discussing any issue. It did look to me that you were cherry-picking and indeed edit warring as I said. I thought it would be helpful if others made the edit (as you are the author), I wasn't against the inclusion of that information as you can see. As the information you wanted included is in fact included then this is not a discussion of content. I was trying to be helpful but can see that I was in error. If you would address any issue you have with me, with me personally rather than as if you are talking to an audience and I'm on trial ("If 'Miamomimi' wishes to make constructive edits, then let her do so, and justify them") it would be helpful. Many thanks. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In answer to this person, I repeat, I am not called 'Clockback', which is my sign-in. My name is Peter Hitchens, a fact which I have always stated but which was formally verified under Wiki procedures when it became relevant in a discussion of the Bob Ainsworth entry(see discussion on that entry). The deleted and restored comment is in my view purely factual, containing a log of the times at which each event happened. My constructive and open edit was abruptly reverted without explanation and then re-reverted without explanation or attempt at discussion. It is all very well 'Miamomimi' insisting that she planned to make constructive edits. No doubt. However, she made none until challenged. Her first action was not to mkake those edits, simply to revert the whole edit without offering any explanation on this page, while making an allegation on the edit summary of 'cherrypicking' that has not stood up to any test. The comment also needs to stand, as in it I defend myself against this unfounded allegation of 'cherrypicking'. I also explain and justify my edits and my reversions ( which I believe to be have been reasonable and fair and which I also believe subsequent events have shown to be so). It contains no expression of incivility. I note that the person calling herself 'Miamomimi', who removed a comment critical of her actions(and has now clearly stated that she did so) is the same person who elsewhere on Wikipedia (notably the 'Comment' page on the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) makes unsupported allegations against me, among them a complaint that I censor critical comments made against me on my weblog. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - I see no reason not to use your username on Wiki, it is perfectly proper procedure. And you chose it. I have said I'm in error and apologised on your talk page. I don't see what else I can do. The information you wanted in the article is in the article. On the Peter Hitchens Talk page I make reference to another contributors comment that alleges "outrageous comment-editing that is commonplace on the forum" and say that other complaints cannot be included in the article due to WP:V so my view is that a section on Hitchensblog is unsupportable. Incidentally I seem to remember that comment editing is within the rules of the Mail online site. You don't seem very civil now: "In answer to this person" and your views on the Peter Hitchens article really should be on that talk page. This is for discussing content of The Broken Compass. Any personal issues should be on my talk page. Hope that helps. Once again I see I was in error in trying to help as I did and am sorry for it. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 13:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion
The following exchange appears higher up this thread but should be known to new readers:

The following part of the discussion (made around 15.16 on 18th November) mysteriously disappeared. I do not think it is permitted to delete contributions to talk pages, and if it is, it shouldn 't be. So I am restoring it. "For the benefit of any disinterested person who may become involved in this, let the following information be taken into account. I read this entry for the first time on the evening of 17th November, and made some revisions to it (as I always do when editing here) under my own name, clearly identified. The sign-on 'clockback' has now been officially verified on Wikipedia as being mine. I am not'clockback'. That is a sign-on. I am Peter Hitchens (see Bob Ainsworth discussion for details). I removed no factual information. I did, however, remove the word 'lukewarm' as a general description of the book's reception. I did not think the general use of the word 'lukewarm' could be justified in relation to the reviews. Though it certainly could in relation to Anthony Howard's, it couldn't be applied to at least two of the others. Nor is the total boycott of the book by the pro-Cameron press necessarily an expression of indifference. I would argue the contrary (and am quoted as doing so). At 13.45 on Wednesday, 'Miamomimi', who so far as I can see has never previously edited this entry and has no special interest in it that I know of, simply reverted the changes. On discovering this, and on seeing what I regarded as insufficient justification, I undid the reversion (at 14.29) and opened the discussion page to explain my action. By the time I had returned to the article, 'Miamomimi' had again (at 1430, without any time spent considering the matter) reverted the entry again, and made accusations of edit warring. At 1435, I reverted it again. continuing to believe the reversion to have been inadequately explained. At 1436, again without conceivably having had the time to consider the matter or read what I had written here, 'Miamomimi' reverted yet again. At 1439, urging her to read the discussion page, I undid this extraordinarily and needlessly rapid re-reversion. By 1442, she had reverted once again, which did not seem to me to be the action of someone interested in discussion. I would add that I am most damagingly accused of 'cherry-picking' reviews of my own work. So far as I know, this expression means that I am selecting reviews which suit me. On the contrary, I have ensured that every mention of the book in the mainstream press, complimentary and uncomplimentary, is now recorded, as was not the case before (Michael Gove's article in the Times, the excerpt in the Mail on Sunday the Hannah Pool interview, the parody of the index in Private Eye). I have not removed any hostile review. I have added one link (I would have added more but my computer skills make this slow work) This accusation is definitely not an 'assumption of good faith'. She writes of 'expanding the article in a balanced way', but her only actions as I write this have been to cancel without any further ado an attempt to do just that, and to repeat, and again repeat that action without pausing for reasoned discussion. I urgently invite other editors to help. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Let us hope it is now left in place. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - I removed the comment as it seemed uncivil and there was an editing conflict which was explained so the comment seemed unnecessarily uncivil. There is explanation in my edits and as soon as I saw your comments in Talk I read them and replied. We are talking of a few minutes in which an edit conflict occured. You seem keen to gain support against me rather than addressing me personally and discussing any issue. It did look to me that you were cherry-picking and indeed edit warring as I said. I thought it would be helpful if others made the edit (as you are the author), I wasn't against the inclusion of that information as you can see. As the information you wanted included is in fact included then this is not a discussion of content. I was trying to be helpful but can see that I was in error. If you would address any issue you have with me, with me personally rather than as if you are talking to an audience and I'm on trial ("If 'Miamomimi' wishes to make constructive edits, then let her do so, and justify them") it would be helpful. Many thanks. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)

In answer to this person, I repeat, I am not called 'Clockback', which is my sign-in. My name is Peter Hitchens, a fact which I have always stated but which was formally verified under Wiki procedures when it became relevant in a discussion of the Bob Ainsworth entry(see discussion on that entry). The deleted and restored comment is in my view purely factual, containing a log of the times at which each event happened. My constructive and open edit was abruptly reverted without explanation and then re-reverted without explanation or attempt at discussion. It is all very well 'Miamomimi' insisting that she planned to make constructive edits. She made none until challenged. Her first action was simply to revert without comment, while making an allegation of 'cherrypicking' that has not stood up to any test. The comment also needs to stand, as in it I defend myself against this unfounded allegation of 'cherrypicking' explain and justify my edits and my reversions (which I believe to be have been reasonable and fair and which I also believe subsequent events have shown to be so). It contains no expression of incivility. I note that the person calling herself 'Miamomimi', who removed a comment critical of her actions(and has now stated that she did so) is the same person who elsewhere on Wikipedia (notably the 'Comment' page on the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) makes unsupported allegations against me, among them a complaint that I censor critical comments made against me on my weblog. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious choice of reviews?
Mimi, I'm very doubtful about the extra reviews you've introduced -- I dismissed the Morning Star review when creating this page because it was frivolous and totally lacking in insight. The Observer review also seems to be a problem, in that is obsesses, pointlessly, with PH's relationship with CH and makes the highly contentious claim "it is impossible to understand the younger Hitchens except as a man who is trying, intellectually and emotionally, to define himself against his brother". In any case, if The Observer review is more interested in dissecting his relationship with his brother than actually analysing the book, then it does not deserve to be included (or at least quoted from at length). Moreover, I get the feeling from reading it that the reviewer hasn't actually read the book; also, its closing paragraph just seems to be a below the belt dig at a fellow journalist. In short, it is cheap and nasty.

I therefore suggest that the Morning Star review be removed altogether (because it is completely facile) and that to the line "the reviews in the left-wing press were generally unfavourable" in the opening paragraph of the section, the words "particularly in The Observer" be added.

Also, I’m afraid that you are completely wrong to include the D Murray article here. If you read it closely, you’ll see that it is only concerned with a historical consideration of the left and right, and that TBC is only mentioned in passing.

I'm going to ahead and remove the Murray reference (because of its complete irrelevance).

I will then wait until I hear back from you before making the other changes I propose. As always, input from other editors is highly desirable. Best, Jprw (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jprw, I have no probs removing the Murray ref as I mentioned on your talk page, it's not strictly a book review. There is nothing wrong with the extra reviews I've introduced - I got them from Continuum (the book and PH's publisher) and it's web page promoting the book . You seem to be using your own preference with regard to the subject an awful lot and I question your nuetrality. You can't 'get the feeling' a reviewer hasn't read the book - you don't know that. You may have liked the book but with respect your opinion can't be included unless it meets WP:V. These are published reviews and good or bad that's what there is. Please leave them. Thanks, regards, Mimi (yack) 12:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing wrong with the extra reviews I've introduced - I got them from Continuum (the book and PH's publisher) and it's web page promoting the book". Yet another non sequitur. I do wish you would address my specific points. And the fact that you chose the nastiest comments from the most negative review really does call into question your own neutrality once more. I'm not showing bias towards the subject -- just trying to do something to correct your increasing overt hostility towards him, in other words, restore the balance. I maintain that the Morning Star review is facile and not worthy of inclusion. If you cannot address my specific points above with constructive comments (and not non sequiturs) I will go ahead and remove the MS ref and seriously shorten the Observer ref.

Perhaps a good place to start for you would be stating why the MS review is worthy of inclusion. Jprw (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jprw - I do address your points, I have addressed your points. Just because the reply doesn't please you doesn't make it a non sequitur. The fact that it's from the publisher promoting the book should tell you that I haven't gone out of my way to find negative refs or facile sources to quote from. Good grief I haven't chosen the nastiest I've done them all! Really, it's not me who has a problem with neutrality, it's you. You say you are "just trying to do something to correct your increasing overt hostility towards him" - him? I thought we were talking about a book, you seem to be protecting a person from anything "nasty" and thus in your opinion "not worthy of inclusion". Please don't remove my refs as you have given no other reason than they are not nice to Mr Hitchens, which is no reason. If a book is reviewed negatively or positively then those reviews should not be cherry-picked to suit the taste or prejudice of the editor. I haven't cherry-picked, I did them all. Mimi (yack) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Where are you addressing my specific points? Specifically:

1.	That the Observer review is vicious, full of pointless references to the relationship with CH, and offers no insightful, serious analysis of issues raised in TBC; 2.	That the Morning Star review is facile and not worthy of inclusion.

I have to say that I find it astonishing that you wish to remove the Gove reference (whose review IS serious, directly addresses issues in the book, offers insightful analysis, etc.) and yet you deem the two above worthy of inclusion. It appears that you are the one guilty of cherrypicking – negative/facile reviews, and, that in doing this, you are hampering the process of creating a good Wikipedia page on this subject. And that is not my trying to "defend" PH but appraising the situation sensibly. Your lack of quality control is also evidenced by your choosing to include the wholly irrelevant Douglas Murray quote. Please note that I also didn't include the Ed West review (which is basically pro Hitchens’s positions) because it also does not meet the essential criteria of offering insightful analysis (it just summarises the book and is overall rather weak). I would have thought that that was evidence of my own neutral position.

On a side issue, your continuing to wish to include the Observer review, and specifically its most denigrating and sarcastic comments, is one of the factors which leads me to seriously question your neutrality towards PH. But I'll deal with this on my talk page as your own talk page has just gone out of commission, it seems.Jprw (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jprw - I don't want to remove the Gove ref, never have. It seems my fate is to be misunderstood so I will go do other things. The fate of this article is in your hands, Jprw, and a more steadfast guardian it could not hope to find. All best wishes, miamomimi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.219.143 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't want to remove the Gove ref, never have". Then why did you, repeatedly, after Clockback introduced it? It's a shame we couldn't have a more rational debate and make better progess.Jprw (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well written article
Hey, congratulations with this article, it is pretty good now. Two things though, it says at the top that it is a stub and it clearly is not so someone needs to re assess it or what ever is done to change that and book pics are usually inserted, some pic expert should find a pc and make some fair use rational and insert the book cover pic, anyway, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Remarkable advertisement
... and nothing much else. Lots of quotes from Hitchins, with no counterbalancing criticism. Not very encyclopedic really. Is this how WP is turned into B&N? Twang (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

left-wing newspapers/conservative press
The lead says, "In the media, The Broken Compass received mostly negative reviews from left-wing newspapers, and was largely ignored by the conservative press." The article then defines The Guardian, The Observer and the New Statesman as "left-wing" and Standpoint and The Times as "conservative". That is not a neutral way of describing those publications and is apparently taken from Hitchen's blog. Also, it falsely implies that all these publications apply an ideological test in selecting book reviewers. TFD (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

″The book's index contains an embedded joke″
What kind of a joke? I can't find this in Pooles review. --Freisinniger Demokrat (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)