User talk:Clockback/Archive 1

My Evolution/Religion Diatribe

 * (...continued from the discussion on the Peter Hitchens discussion page...)


 * First of all, you asked me to withdraw a claim of certainty about the theory of evolution, as you have done about alternatives like creationism. I’d already admitted I was wrong to use a word like “literally” when describing what the fossil record appears to show. In truth, no theory can ever be “proven”, only disproven by observation. Even with a theory like gravity… if one day the earth’s mass stopped pulling us inward, the theory would have to be abandoned.


 * I have demonstrated a lack of certainty by stating that, if the theory is disproven by observation, I will abandon it with no qualms at all. If that happens, all I will have lost is a delusion, and the search for truth will continue. Nevertheless, I find evolution to be a convincing theory that makes sense to me and correlates well with the world I observe.


 * You wrote: “You have persuaded yourself that you are certain of the truth of evolutionary theory, which, bizarrely, you treat as a proven fact, apparently because it's 'obvious'.” --- Hopefully, this is now cleared up. You perhaps hint that I have some kind of emotional investment in this theory. That is not the case. The theory convinces me because the evidence for it convinces me. Its only appeal to me is that I think it is true (some reasons are mentioned above and some further below).


 * You wrote: “I'll happily concede that the eye might have evolved. It might have done. I cannot prove it didn't. I just don't think it did (because I prefer the idea of an ordered, purposeful universe, and its moral implications), and nobody has ever proved, or ever will prove, that it did. Are you prepared to make the matching concession, and say that, likewise, it might have been created, and that you cannot prove it wasn't?” --- Although you answered “no” for me, my answer is yes.


 * It’s not that I “prefer” to believe in godless evolution for aesthetic reasons. Your version of events actually sounds much nicer in many ways. I just personally find the ID story unlikely and implausible. It does not tally well with the world I observe.


 * When I think about biological malfunctions like cancers, or when I hear of babies being born horribly disfigured and malformed due to a “genetic glitch”, I cannot reconcile these things with the idea of an all-knowing designer. It does not make any sense to me. Any God who would design wasps to lay their larvae inside living caterpillars, to burst out while the poor creature is still crawling along, has a seriously perverse streak.


 * You wrote: “That is because your supposedly scientific view is actually based not upon knowledge, but upon your evolutionist faith, to whose dogma all facts must be subjected.” I don’t accept that evolution is a faith any more than I accept the theory of optics is a faith. If it ceases to stand up to scrutiny, I will dismiss the theory. It is as simple as that. I only stick with it so long as evidence supports it and nothing disproves it. As a faith-based dogma, this hardly compares to Islam or Catholicism.


 * You asked: “What is your source for this belief? Someone told you so at school? You read it in a magazine?” I’m not sure if it intentional or not (probably not), but that reads as slightly patronizing. In fact my “bog standard comprehensive education” was pretty limited all round. It may have touched upon evolution at some point, but it was not very in-depth and it didn’t make much of an impression on me. After leaving school I developed a thirst for knowledge that persists and grows as time passes. It’s self-perpetuating – the more I learn, the more I want to find out. I’ve always been interested in nature, even from childhood, playing with insects and bugs outside. I’ve also always been an avid reader, not being a natural social animal, and I used to spend half my spare time roaming through libraries. My conditional “belief” in evolution has developed as I’ve learned more about it.


 * For a time in my mid-teens I believed in the Bible, and that was not conditional at all. Gradually, though, I began to see gaping holes and contradictions in my belief system - I just couldn’t keep it up. Feeling tricked and quite silly for ever being taken in, I crawled out of the hole I’d dug. What I found quite scary afterwards is how humourless and judgemental my delusions had made me towards people I knew. At one stage I offended my sister by quoting scary mumbo-jumbo from Revelation at her, because I’d become convinced that her soul was in jeopardy. It never quite occurred to me that maybe the whole thing is a made-up mythology, like ancient Greek gods or astrology. The Bible was written a couple of thousand years ago, hardly an enlightened age. Mental illness was seen as demonic possession; angels and miracles were pretty commonplace.


 * You wrote: “ID is a sceptical current. It does not seek to prescribe any particular belief, but to cast doubt on the dogmas of the Darwinist Ayatollahs.” – That’s one way of putting it. Critics point out that prominent ID advocates have made speeches to Evangelical congregations, saying that the reason for distancing the term ID from literalist creationism is strategic – they think it has more chance of being taken seriously if its public face is stripped of any explicit religious connotations.


 * My main problem with ID is that it is without substance. The ID lobby uses many impressive-sounding phrases, but essentially it’s a group of people saying “evolution is wrong” because they don’t like it. Where is the hard science? Dissent alone does not discredit a theory.


 * As you rightly point out, ID is not a rival theory. It’s not really anything more than vague criticisms of evolution without backup, and that is the problem when it tries to present itself as a credible counter-Darwinism force. Some unkind critics also allege links to the Christian Right in America, and its attempted campaign to turn the USA into the CRA, the Christian Republic of America. After watching scary documentaries like God’s next army, nothing much would surprise me.


 * Going back over some of your earlier comments, I notice that you criticize evolution for not having the characteristics of a proper theory. I find your arguments flawed.


 * You wrote: “If it took place at all, it took place when there were no witnesses to record it.” –Yes, indeed, but the fossils and bones are still around for us to look at. The process of evolution is so gradual, anyway, that the only way to directly “witness” evolution in action is to see a person or animal with an unusual feature or mutation that conferred an advantage in survival or reproduction rather than being detrimental – and if this person or creature goes on to procreate and pass on the feature. We rely mostly on the fossil record, stacks of physical evidence, to “witness” the process.


 * You wrote: “And it is not taking place now.” - But of course it is taking place now. Even a while ago in the Daily Mail there was an article about how the human face and skull is changing shape, in terms of relatively recent history. Male faces in particular have become more rounded and feminine, facial bones becoming smaller by centimetres. Researchers took thousands of head and facial measurements of adults walking around today and compared them to statistics of people only a few generations ago. This is subtle change based on sexual selection, rather than anything radical and mutation-based, but it still demonstrates a drip-drip of change. Remember that major changes can take millions of years, dictated by fluctuating selection pressures.


 * There are other examples you could think about – humans taking wolves as companions and ending up with Labradors, Red-Setters, and Poodles. That’s guided sexual-selection by breeders rather than natural selection, but it demonstrates the physical differences (and even differences in temperament and behaviour) than can come about by selection alone.


 * You wrote: “And it cannot be used to predict events.” Yes it can. It predicts that living creatures will physically change over time to adapt to environments they find themselves in.


 * You wrote: “You breezily accept that the fossil record is full of gaps, though you (wisely, perhaps) weave past the other fossil problem, that of the sudden appearances and disappearances which it reveals.” --- I don’t accept that it “reveals” sudden appearances at all. I would say it is more rational to acknowledge that the fossil record is incomplete and that we haven’t yet found all the missing jigsaw pieces. If there was a sequence of numbers – 1, 2, 3, 4… 6… 9, 10 – I would look at it and say steps 5, 7, and 8 are missing. I wouldn’t say that 6 is strange anomaly that has appeared in the sequence with no connection to it. I would first assume that somebody had rubbed out the missing numbers. In other words, it’s unrealistic to expect every stage of every animal in evolution to have a corresponding fossil in the archive. Archaeologists and fossil hunters do their best, but they’re not super-humans. As it stands, the fossil record is still pretty impressive.


 * We can probably argue about the details and specifics of this theory until hell freezes over or until war criminal Tony Blair apologizes for plunging Iraq into a sectarian bloodbath, but I doubt we are ever likely to see eye to eye on this. If Oxford don Richard Dawkins can’t convince you with book-length arguments, I do not have much chance.


 * On the subject of RD, you wrote: “Why do think Richard Dawkins keeps writing books trying to prove that it is true, if it has already been proven to be so?” --- Again, it is impossible to ever “prove” a scientific theory. But Dawkins has said he fears religion is on the march, challenging science itself - while mainstream scientists are not doing enough to educate the wider public. For instance he was baffled to visit an Evangelical Christian academy in England where Noah’s flood was being taught in “science” lessons. For anyone with a vaguely rational mind, such developments are frightening. He fears, rightly, that the institutions of religion are far better versed in the arts of propaganda and proselytizing (they’ve had centuries of practise) than scientists are at making discoveries known and understood.


 * On Israel and the Middle East…


 * You wrote: “If, as you say, you don't know much about the Middle East, and if you really doubt ( for example) that Zionism, National Socialism, British and American colonialism, Arab nationalism and many of the other forces which have been at work there are secular, then shouldn't you try to find out a bit more before expressing such strong opinions?”


 * I admit that I do not know as much about the Middle East as you probably do, although I do aim to educate myself more on this. My main sources of Middle-Eastern information are general history books and news reports.


 * You mentioned a few “secular forces” that have influenced the region. I need to find out more about this, evidently, but are you actually saying that Zionism has no connection to the faith Judaism? Isn’t that its inspiration, ideas about Jewish destiny based upon the faith?


 * Arab nationalism… while there may be some purely secular Arab nationalists out there, are you arguing that the thrust of Arab nationalist feeling (as it relates to the foreign policy makers of Arabic states) has nothing to do with Muslim Arabs wanting Islamic dominance of the region when there is an “intolerable” Jewish state stuck in their backyard?


 * Iran has been linked both to Hezbollah and to Shiite Islamist fighters in Iraq. If Iran is aiding these groups (with funds/weapons and so on), is this motivated purely by opportunistic nationalist interests or is it an attempt to spread the Islamic revolution and Shiite theocracy?


 * I also understand that Nazism influenced the region during the 1940s, as you mentioned. Interestingly, Nazism has all the characteristics that I find distasteful about religion itself… a central figurehead who must be obeyed and who is beyond all question (the deity Hitler), an absolute faith in an irrational belief-system (pseudo-scientific racial nonsense, German “destiny”)… I could almost use this as yet another example of religion scarring the region, leaving a legacy of racial hatred towards Jews.


 * I realize that politics and perceived injustices on all sides play a role in the Israeli/Arab tensions. Obviously it is more complicated than a pure Islam versus Judaism holy-conflict. But I certainly question whether the problems would be half as bad without absolutist religious positions polarizing everyone involved, motivating “martyrdom operations”, causing Iran’s meddling into foreign conflicts, and all the rest.


 * Is it purely a coincidence that the “Holy land” is a focal point for three major Abrahamic religions and it has not known any lasting peace for centuries? From Saladin and Richard the Lionheart to the present day, the problems appear never-ending.


 * There is more to criticize about religion than obvious Crusades and Jihads anyway. The general influence of religion, even in peaceful times within advanced societies, is something I view as mostly negative. Whether it is George Bush fighting stem-cell research that could save lives, whether it is the Catholic Church preaching against condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa, whether it is various faith groups in Europe forcing the censorship of plays and cartoons (all of these initiatives informed by odd supernatural beliefs), religion loves condemning or banning the “sinful decadence” of society – except the nature of “sin” depends upon which faith is most vocal or powerful at the time.


 * Although the local Imam may think it evil and sinful for women to wear short skirts, I find it warped and unnatural to pressure women into wrapping themselves in black cloth to appease an imaginary super-being who supposedly even watches people when they are on the toilet. If such fairytale nonsense were not formalized in ancient texts, it would probably lead to padded rooms and straight-jackets, or at least psychiatric evaluation.


 * There may be a difference between religious moderates and religious fundamentalists, but all buy into the idea that virtually any outlandish belief can or should be taken seriously and treated with respect merely because it appears on a very old scroll or because many people believe the same thing. Anyway, what is an extremist but a moderate who one-day got serious and decided to believe everything in his Bible or Koran – even the lunatic bits about killing non-believers?


 * The problem with religious tolerance is that it paves the way to a society where me poking fun at Tom Cruise’s Scientology becomes a hate crime, perhaps only permissible if I claim mocking Scientology is part of my own Evolutionist Ayatollah religion. I’m tired of the notion, cherished by my Leftie political bedfellows, that religious views and practices are somehow sacrosanct and beyond any criticism. So where do we draw the line? Certain imported African churches, such as Combat Spirituel, have preached that children could be possessed by demons and should be beaten severely if tainted by evil spirits. This has culminated in several cases of appalling abuse and even child-murder. Should we refrain from pointing out the ignorant superstitious madness of believing in demons, for fear of upsetting minority religious sensibilities? Or does stopping child-torture take priority in this case?


 * I am not saying that everyone should become an atheist. One of my best friends is a non-religious theist, and I often find his views thoughtful and intelligent, although we have a lot of debates about his idea of theism (he gets around the problem of evil, for example, by stripping away omni-benevolence from the deity, arguing that God is neither “good” or “evil”, that God is beyond such terms of reference altogether, or that the deity is equally good and evil – all the suffering in the universe is God’s dark side, all the Good and compassion is the light side. Rather than argue against evolution, he says that God created the universe with the Big Bang, knowing that life would eventually evolve as it has done.)


 * I always have to wonder, if a God created the universe… who or what created God? And what created that creator?


 * I’m not arguing that everyone should be an atheist. I am saying we would be better off without dogmatic organized religions that are based upon blind faith in supernatural claims rather than rationality.


 * "HERE we go again, round the same old tragic roundabout. You won't give an inch, will you? You still think that evolution is proveable and proven, until and unless God sends you an e-mail to tell you you're wrong. It doesn't matter to you that Richard Dawkins accepts that it is unproven. You, in some mysterious and unstated way, know better. Your parallel with gravity is wholly absurd and logically worthless. If gravity ceased to operate, then we would want to know why it had ceased to operate. We would not conclude that it had never existed, because there is endless evidence that it previously did. We know it exists now, can describe it and can use it as a predictor. We even know how to escape it and nullify its effects. What we don't acually know is how or why it exists. There is no parallel at all between this observable phenomenon and the speculative, conjectural theory of evolution. It cannot be disproved because it has never been observed in operation, and because it makes no falsifiable predictions. Let me try it another way.  No 'law of evoliution' can be stated and then observed in action. There would be no way of knowing if it had ceased to operate because it has never observably operated in the first place. Evolution concerns events which took place before there were any humans to observe them, and offers conjectures about events that might, if it is correct, be observable long after we are all dead. Gravity concerns here and now. Any of us can observe it in operation. This difference is so blindingly obvious to me that until you have grasped it I really cannot see any point in continuing this exchange. I can argue only with people who are responsive to my arguments, and deal with them, and I think I can say that I have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to discuss this with you. I would persist endlessly if I thought you were paying attention. But, like so many people in the grip of the Darwinist Moonie cult, you aren't. Please try again, and start by explaining to me why Professor Dawkins is wrong about the unproven nature of evolution, and you are right. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * Sorry? Are we on the same page? I never claimed that evolution was proven. I think somebody called Allen Roth did on the article discussion page, but that wasn't me. If I say that evolution is "established science", I refer to the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts it as the most likely origin of the life we see today. Although some disagree on the details, virtually all agree with evolution in principle, and I don't know of any serious scientific paper supporting Intelligent Design as an alternative. I don't claim Dawkins is wrong : I have already discussed the unprovability of scientific theories above. -Neural 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My profuse apologies. My error, mistaking an old entry for a new one. Consider the above withdrawn.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * -Neural 11:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I do not answer at equivalent length. If I have understood you correctly, you have now withdrawn your claim of certainty. Good. This is all I ask anyone to do in this matter. The prescriptive belief in the absolute, unquestioned truth of the theory of evolution implies the untruth of any other position, including one of scepticism. This appears to me to be totalitarian in nature, especially since I agree with Richard Dawkins that the evolutionary theory is prescriptively atheist, and cannot buy the attempts to claim that evolution (a random, undirected process by definition) might have been a creator's chosen method.

I do not wish to debate types of religious belief, or even the reasons why I prefer the idea of an ordered, purposeful universe to that of a chaotic purposeless one. By expressing sympathy for what I regard as the sceptical current of ID, I do not associate myself with every exponent or supporter of that theory. I oppose dogmatism on this subject, of any kind. Religious belief is and ought to be a choice. You say that ID is 'without substance'. That is precisely why I like it. It does not prescribe what anyone should believe about things of which we know little. As I think I pointed out to you, Darwin destroyed a universal certainty. Perhaps for that reason, his followers sought to replace it with a new universal certainty. Yet they are unable to do so. With arguments as elaborate as those of the ancient Church fathers and the dogmatic Popes, they seek to maintain that their theory is the truth and all others are false. What is quite plain (and it is the ability to date rock that is far more important in this than the theory of evolution)is that Biblical literalism is incompatible with scientific knowledge. But Biblical literalism is not the only form in which a man might believe in an ordered universe.

Your assertion that ID is "not really anything more than vague criticisms of evolution without backup" is worrying. Do you really think so? How much of the ID case have you read? The Michael Behe argument about irreducible complexity is not vague, nor is it without back-up. It is a serious attack on the probability of the evolutionary process. Phillip Johnson's popular essays on Darwinism and the justified critiques of evolution education in "Icons of Evolution" also seem to me to score some important points about the pitiful state of public knowledge on this subject, matched with the absurd certainty of so many people about a subject they imperfectly understand. Any serious discussion of the fossil record, especially of the "Cambrian explosion" and the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, casts doubts on Darwinist orthodoxy. And, as you will know, there are significant differences among Evolutionsits on the nature of the process, notably between Gould and Dawkins. It is sympathisers of ID who - with whatever motives and associations - have raised these legitimate criticisms. Whatever else they say and do, their actions have brought us closer to the tyruth, not taken us further from it. Johnson is also good on the popular misrepresentation of the argument itself in popular culture, especially the play and film "Inherit the Wind" which purport to be true accounts of the Scopes case, and are not.

In part of your note, you confuse evolution with adaptation. Rounder faces, refined dog-breeding (which reverts as soon as human agency is withdrawn) and such things are alterations within species of a kind which a designed creation would or could contain. If you think that these developments are the same as evolution, then you wholly underestimate the ambition of the theory you defend - which posits changes from one species to another, from fish to amphibian to biped, from reptile to bird, etc, never observed. You still don't get it about the fossil record. Sudden appearances and disappearances, in strata whose age is known, do not illustrate the lack of evidence of intermediate stages. They illustrate a much faster process than evolution, as currently understood, allows for. The gaps, while damaging to the theory, simply demonstrate a lack of actual evidence for a conjecture which is in any case essentially circular, and explains differences in fossils separated by time as being the result of evolution. If you don't accept the theory of evolution, there are dozens of other possible explanations, one of them being that different but similar creatures existed at different times and are not necessarily each other's ancestors or descendants. Let me try to illustrate this by a non-evolutionary parallel. Denmark and Albania both have several essential similarities, small countries with long coasts at the edges of Europe. They are also deeply different.But is Albania Denmark in an earlier stage of development? Or vice versa? Or are they just phenomena in their own right, unconnected by anything except the fact that they are human societies on the European continent?

The sudden appearances and disappearances, on the other hand, have a wholly different significance. The existence, in dated strata, of evidence of such appearances and disappearances in short periods of time suggests that the evolutionary process, at some stages, suddenly happened much more rapidly than at any other point. Unless you can allow for 'saltations' which suddenly accelerate the process, such things can't happen. And if it does have such 'saltations', then the whole idea of an undirected process is undermined. What could cause these leaps?

By the way, the wasp larva seems pretty difficult to explain whichever approach you adopt.

I repeat, I have NO intention of getting you to see eye to eye, a simple point with which you appear to have grave difficulty. I merely wish you to acknowledge ( as you initially did) that your received belief that evolution is a proven truth is ill-founded, and that I am free to believe otherwise without being derided as a denier of scientific truth.

If you rely on news reports for your understanding of the Middle East then, forgive the expression, heaven help you. This daily parade of ignorance dressed up as expertise is grievous to the point of pain to anyone who actually knows anything. As for general history, the case for Israel is rarely presented in books published on the Eastern shores of the Atlantic, where Middle Eastern (Muslim, Arab) oil is more important than it is on the Western shores.

I haven't time to engage in religious argument here, nor do I wish to confuse it with my much more important case, for freedom of belief in this area.

Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs and Values

 * (...continued from the discussion on the Peter Hitchens discussion page...)


 * The unicorn analogy was very lazy, I admit. Then again... I genuinely don't believe that a personalized deity (or any deity) is required to explain the existence of life. I believe that a God raises more impossible questions than it gives pat answers to.


 * You wrote: There is no comparable equation which would or could be completed by the existence of unicorns, though if Darwinists believed in them I have little doubt they would by now have found alleged unicorn fossils. --You often make these vague insinuations about fossils, and I'm never sure quite what to make of them. Are you suggesting that scientists are gluing bits of old bone together to "create" fossils that back up their theory? If so, do you really think this could survive the scrutiny of the scientific community worldwide? The unicorn analogy may have been intellectually lazy as I rushed out that last reply, but such hints at a conspiracy theory seem... incredible. Perhaps you could elaborate on fossil-evidence being manufactured by scientists, evidently with an amazing degree of sophistication, and the naive gullibility of the entire scientific community and general populace in post-religious societies.


 * You wrote: It is perfectly possible to be familiar with the discoveries of modern science and to be a Theist. --Indeed. I agree. I've said as much. I just don't think it is too reasonable to be familiar with the discoveries of modern science and believe in people walking on water or flying up to "heaven" as Mohammed was supposed to have done. Although the David Blaines of this world can create clever illusions, actual levitation or walking on water would seem to break the laws of physics.


 * Even if we ignore the astounding nature of religious claims (demons, djin, men claiming God to be their dad...), the monotheistic holy texts are riddled with internal contradictions. I am bemused by those who can overcome all this to find a way to believe it all.


 * You wrote: I am not urging my opponents in this discussion to adopt my faith. I am seeking to persuade them to accept that my faith is just as valid as theirs. --I don't accept that my weak atheism is a faith. Strong atheism might be. I don't accept that evolution is a faith. As for your faith being "valid"... Yes, I suppose it is as valid as any set of astonishing beliefs. It depends on what you mean by the word valid. However, I simply don't see such beliefs as being rational.


 * Perhaps it would help if you explained why on earth you believe what you do, how/why you are able to suspend your disbelief to have faith in claims that many find utterly incredible. Or how faith alone is any kind of meaningful defense of these claims.


 * You wrote: Do not seek to mock what you do not - yet - understand. Do not assume that religious believers are stupid. --I have never suggested you were stupid, or called into question the intelligence of religious people. Somebody could be a delusional genuis, and there is no contradiction. If I thought you were stupid, I would not be writing lengthly messages and replies for you to read.


 * You wrote: Treat your opponent's arguments with respect and answer his case. --I've tried to answer your claim that religion is compatible with science, with modern society, or with rationality. I think uncritical faith in religion is a suspension of rationality and critical thinking. I think it is dangerous, divisive, and harmful to humanity. I take the same approach to Christianity, Islam, or Judaism as I would to a UFO-worshipping cult that somehow became evangelical enough to dominate half the world.


 * As for some of your political or social views, I may indeed gain more respect for them if/when I understand them better.


 * I may try to play on the absurdity of my opponent's claims, especially regarding religion, but this is not out of any disrespect towards you as a human being. I have long respected you, as a journalist and writer, for a number of reasons... despite having many views that are polar-opposite to yours.


 * I try to focus my criticisms on attitudes and beliefs rather than people. Muslims are as beautiful as human beings as any other human beings... who often waste their lives in subservience to a religion that stifles their every thought and action. To use a Dawkins-like analogy... I hate the virus, not the person who is ill. I would never attack any Muslim personally, but I refuse to take claims about Allah and Mohammed seriously, because the claims are meaningless/untestable/dangerous. I will democratically oppose the spread of Islam and Christianity by, for instance, voting for anyone who advocates closing down publically-funded faith schools that indoctrinate children. I do not dislike "Muslims" (human beings). I dislike Islam and the effect it has on societies it dominates. I apply the same approach to Christians and Scientologists, or any vocal faith group.


 * You wrote: Former atheists such as me, however, can be said to have chosen their belief. --Maybe so... but now that you are so invested in this belief-system, I'd imagine it would be virtually impossible to "choose" atheism again. Atheism can't provide a heaven or the sense that the universe has a decreed purpose.


 * Likewise, it is almost impossible for me to "choose" to adopt a religion, when they all present an unlikely view of the world, a view that does not correspond to what I see. Not to mention the fact that the BibleGod and Allah often seem unreasonable and psychotic brutes in those texts. I wouldn't want to worship them even if I thought there was a reasonable chance they existed - which I honestly don't.


 * Btw... it is interesting that we are coming from totally opposite directions. I was a believer, raised by strict Christians, but eventually came to my senses (as I see it). You were an atheist and somehow willingly bought into what I see as supernatural nonsense.


 * Instead of going back and forth arguing about evolution (you repeatedly insist it is a religious faith, I repeatedly insist it is a widely-accepted theory, a conditional belief subject to incoming evidence), I thought it might be useful to summarize some of my other beliefs and how they relate to my general views of your social/political/moral ideology...


 * I believe that human empathy is the soundest basis for any system of morality. Difficult moral dilemmas are best solved by starting from this foundation and applying clear-headed reason. Far from being helpful, I believe that religion is a barrier to real morality; people are encouraged to do “good” in order to gain rewards in an imagined hereafter - where “good” is whatever the relevant holy book says is good. This is like the artificial morality of infants trying to please their parents and avoid being punished. I'm not arguing that this is your morality, only that this is the morality of dominant holy texts, and the morality of some who slavishly follow religious dogma. This is also often a warped morality, elevating irrational homophobia to a virtue, for example, or advocating disproportionate punishments for people who offend religious sensibilities. It replaces genuine morality with a simplistic black & white view of the world. Terrible evils have been perpetrated by pious religious fanatics who thought their actions were the epitome of good (see Matthew Hopkins or Osama bin Laden). I believe that morals we discern for ourselves, using empathy and reason, will always be superior to morals gleaned from various ancient holy texts - I'd say they do more harm than good.
 * I don’t believe in any gods, and see no reason to follow any religious creed. Religion may have acted as a stabilizing force in less enlightened times, it may have inspired some good art, but I believe that its usefulness has come to an end. It is a barrier to any positive social change; it is divisive, fostering hatred between different religious factions; it is a grave threat to our freedom of speech; it encourages irrationality and the suspension of critical faculties as virtuous; it puts outlandish myths of miracles on a par with scientific discoveries; it attacks science itself whenever these discoveries contradict baseless religious claims; it spreads through the cynical indoctrination of children, who’ll usually believe whatever a parent or teacher tells them; it influences governments and entire societies, often with disastrous consequences. I believe that humanity should abandon religion (Bronze-age and New-age mythologies alike) in favour of philosophy and science.
 * Social conservatism is the attempt to preserve traditions and traditional attitudes of a society, especially the least progressive attitudes. It appears to be a fearful/reactionary movement, sometimes linked with entrenched religious dogma concerning how people should behave, and/or the perceived “decadence” or “sin” of alternative behaviours. Typically, it is sexual liberalism in others that’s the most reviled of “decadent” attitudes.
 * I believe sex is an inherently good and beautiful thing between willing/consenting partners, where at least mutual affection is assumed. Gay/lesbian sex is not a sin or a perversion, except in irrelevant religious or Nazi dogmas. I don’t expect homosexuals to remain celibate because they’re only attracted to members of their own gender. Sex outside of marriage isn’t necessarily harmful, but secretive extra-marital affairs could be, where families/children are concerned. I see STDs in the same light as Ebola or Malaria – no extra taboo is helpful or necessary. Some woefully ignorant people claim that HIV is their God’s wrath; if so, God’s murderous bile towards His own creations is indiscriminate, since most of the millions dying in Africa from AIDS are heterosexuals, including mothers and their children. Unlike the Catholic clergy, I imagine this holocaust could be lessened by encouraging condom-use. I urge people here and elsewhere to practise safe sex, and view irresponsibility in this area to be immoral. Taking the pill isn’t evil. Abortion is distasteful and wrong where pregnancy could be easily avoided (abortion in rape cases is, of course, another matter). As for relationship-types, I have nothing against monogamy (some argue against it just to sound sophisticated and cool). If it works for those involved, I see nothing wrong with polyamory either (although it’s perhaps only advisable for people not prone to jealousy).
 * I see no valid reason for the strong taboos placed on nudity and sex. For those who believe in a creator-god, the nudity-taboo seems particularly absurd, since the creator’s design is being cursed as “indecent”. People offended by nudity baffle me. I hope that prudish attitudes towards sex and nudity gradually dwindle, as seems to be a general trend, despite attempts by latter-day Mary Whitehouse figures and ranting Muslim clerics to make sex (or sexual openness) the enemy of the civilized world. For me, sex is not ugly or dangerous or harmful (unless mixed in with the drink/drug/irresponsible cultural values we have). I believe it is possible to have a sexually liberal society and still have people be responsible and care about each other.
 * I’m not convinced that watching straightforward pornography (a couple, depicted having mutually-enjoyable sex) could harm anybody in any way, and I favour liberalization. Many feminists have turned against the old argument of pornography exploiting women (emphasizing a competent woman’s right to choose to appear in porn or not) - especially now that women are producing/directing/selling much of the porn with male and female audiences in mind. I’m much more concerned about ultra-violent computer games and rap lyrics that blatantly/graphically glorify violence, even mass-murder. Some of the most convincing arguments for censorship involve violent imagery and violent pornography, such as simulated rape. Our culture is far too blasé about the casual glamorization of real violence (and callousness in general), while simultaneously far too obsessed with stopping kids seeing bare boobs on TV (I’m amazed that breast-feeding is still legal). There is nothing wrong with nudity or sex - everything wrong with violence. Yet you’d think it was the other way around, to look at our cultural values.
 * Like our national religion, football, the drink and drug culture in Britain is vacuous and moronic. Most recreational drugs, including alcohol, produce brain-damage in the quantities they’re commonly ingested. If we had a society that was more humanistic, less centred on accumulating pointless junk, our lives would be far happier and we wouldn’t need to dope ourselves into an oblivious stupor just to cope with the endless routine of working ourselves to death to buy rubbish we’re brainwashed to think we should want. Traditionally terrified of sex (it’s what most of our humour has always been based on), substance-abuse is the only thing we in England have ever had much of an appetite for liberalizing. So now we’re a nation of boring drunks puking into gutters every night. I don’t touch illegal drugs and rarely drink, I’m pleased to say.
 * The doctrine of multiculturalism was supposed to create a cultural “melting-pot” of creativity. Perhaps it has in some areas, but we seem to be creating cultural ghettos and adopting an odd system of cultural Darwinism. A main principle of this doctrine is that all cultural values are of equal worth and validity, no matter what they are. I disagree. I think that secular and humanistic cultural values are healthier than the slavishly dogmatic religious-conservative values of Muslims, for instance. In principle, I would prefer there to be a set of enshrined cultural values that all were obliged to sign up to if they wanted to be part of this society. If those defining cultural values were your values rather than mine, I would perhaps move to the Netherlands and argue for my values over there. I think that those who dream of turning Britain into an Islamic republic should not be encouraged to move here.
 * The universe is awe-inspiring, whether it has a purpose or not. Life is precious and fragile; instead of wasting our lives praying to empty rooms, fantasizing about mystical afterlives and striving for glory in death, we should appreciate this reality while we can still touch it, communicate with it, affect it, and marvel at the mystery of all this. -Neural 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First, to restate yet again the point of this exchange, we are not discussing what you "genuinely don't believe" or genuinely do. If you find the idea of a deity impossible, that's your business.

On fossils, my jibe about unicorns was a reference to the essential circularity of fossil evidence. If you believe that the fossil record would prove the existence of evolution if only it were complete, then you will find evidence of that proof in every fossil you examine. If you don't, you won't. I think I've troubled you with the Denmark/Albania analogy before. If I have, you clearly haven't understood it, so I'll try again. Albania and Denmark are both very similar, small countries in Europe with a lengthy sea coast. They have many fundamental things in common. But is Denmark Albania in a later stage of development? Or will Albania always remain different? Think on.

I was also, ever so slightly, laughing at the way in which dinosaurs are constantly being reimagined, in different shapes and colours. Extrapolation from fossils, which by their nature lack evidence of the soft and biodegradable parts of the creature, seems to me to involve a lot of guesswork. Willingness to believe what suits you must play a part. I find it illuminating to study outdated books on Evolution, including an old encyclopaedia of mine which refers reverentially to the importance of Piltdown Man, a forgery which was not finally exposed for more than 40 years after its alleged discovery. As the Wikipedia entry on this event states :" the genius of the forgery is generally regarded as being that it offered the experts of the day exactly what they wanted: convincing evidence that human evolution was brain-led. It is argued that because it gave them what they wanted, the experts taken in by the Piltdown forgery were prepared to ignore all of the rules that are normally applied to evidence." Of course that could never happen again, could it? Please don't accuse me of conspiracy theories, a tedious and silly way of avoiding the point. . Conspiracies do take place ( they're generally called 'lunch' in London) but widespread willingness to believe something can mislead people into believing - with great conviction - things which are not true. This is as true of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes ( again not a conspiracy) as it was of Piltdown man.

Once again, I'm not here to argue about Biblical miracles. I'm here to argue about whether evolution disqualifies an educated person from having any Theist belief. As soon as we settle that, you might want to start another argument and I might get involved in it, but not now. Your bemusement is not evidence. To me the nature of normality seems miraculous. I am bemused by those who examine the universe (packed as it is by phenomena we cannot explain) and the world around them, constructed to tiny tolerances, including enormous globes (whose interiors we have never penetrated to any depth) simultaneously revolving and  travelling at immense speeds on axes and orbits which would be catastrophic if they were only slightly altered,  held in position by forces whose origin and nature we do not know,  and believe it is the result of random chaos. But there. You do think that, and I just have to accept it. If it were not possible to believe in something so apparently ridiculous, then you couldn't do it, could you? By the way, if an inhabitant of the 18th century had been shown a television broadcast, an aeroplane or a telephone, he would have found it quite incredible - just as I found it difficult to credit the evidence of my senses when I recently travelled on Shanghai's MagLev train. But these artefacts (often mistakenly attributed to human creation, when invention actually means 'discovery' not 'creation') involved the discovery of forces always extant in the universe, but  of which men of science were wholly unaware for centuries. What else exists unseen around us now, of which we are wholly unaware? We have barely begun to discover the complexity of the universe we inhabit, and yet so many of us presume to act as if we were omniscient. Theism irrational? Hardly, in anyone with an open mind. Think. Please.

You say you have never suggested that I was stupid. Not explicitly, no. But you imply this conclusion again and again by your assertions that my position is 'irrational' or that it 'bemuses' you that anyone could hold religious beliefs. That is why I feel it necessary to point out to you that others might view your position in the same way.

I am not obliged, for the purposes of this argument, to explain why I hold religious beliefs. It is, in fact, none of your business. If you wish to argue with Christian theologians, find one and try it. I am not one. This argument is about my right to hold such beliefs without being dismissed as an ignorant fool by people who think they know better (and don't), and informed that my decision is incompatible with scientific truth.

I think uncritical faith in the Darwin cult is a suspension of rationality and critical thinking. But then I think uncritical credulity in any field is that. You are aware of my attitude towards Bible literalism, which I put in the same intellectual class as received Darwinist faith such as yours.

Darwinism has spawned many beliefs, especially in Herbert Spencer's formulation of 'survival of the fittest' which have led to terrible horrors. Humanity, when it becomes arrogant and over-confident in itself (and in particular ignores the Biblical injunction to "do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God"), can turn any belief to an evil end. But I think in purely numerical terms, the atheist faiths of Communism and National Socialism have the edge over any religion in the licensing of evil in the name of ideals. It is HUMAN EVIL which is at the root of these things, not religion or atheism. Or why would they occur under both dispensations?

Forgive me (or don't if you prefer) if I bypass your screed on morality. I really haven't time to engage with it, and it wouldn't profit the discussion if I did. If you really are what you say you are, an atheist, then I have no idea why you should concern yourself with this. A general morality, governing actions on an abstract scale, would be of no use to you. What possible purpose could it serve.?Why should anyone else pay any attention to what YOU thought was good, or bad? In an atheist world, the mugger and the nurse are equal, except that the mugger will usually be stronger and will therefore prevail. Hence the attachment of the rich and powerful to atheism (at least in their private conduct) and power-worship, and the attachment of the poor and weak to religion. If there is no God, then there is no good, just as a compass could not function if there were no magnetic North. There is just expediency and ends justify means. If there IS a God, then all kinds of inonvenient problems arise, which is why so many people wish to abolish him. Currently this is specially common in the area of sexual morality, the constitution of private life, where Christian ideas of monogamy, fidelity, constancy, 'heteronormativeness' etc are widely regarded as repressive and pettifogging. But these rules actually deal with pwoerful forces, jealousy, paternity, inheritance, responsibility, duty in sickness and misfortune, and society is having quite a struggle coping without them. I might add that if ther human body is designed, then there a number of sexual practices which it is plainly not designed for. But if it's not designed, I suppose that doesn't matter.

Absolute morality LOOKS unattractive, and ad-hoc make-it-up yourself morality LOOKS attractive. But in the immense complexity of real, long life they don't necessarily work out that way.

Your self-developed DIY moral code makes me think of a man who is given a huge, complex and incredibly advanced computer, which controls his whole neighbourhood, along with a rather simple and brief instruction manual mainly comprised of instructions beginning with the word "Don't...". Well, he begins by following the rules and finds it tiresome and inconvenient, a strain on his patience, so by dint of pressing a few buttons and a bit of experiment, he finds he can get this machine to do all kinds of seemingly wonderful things, if he ignores the maker's instructions. And then he finds that the whole thing is out of his control, shuddering and rumbling, giving off smoke and sparks, howling with alarms and red lights, and he cannot control it at all.

Which brings me to the Garden of Eden, where exactly the same mistake is made, the simplest, clearest instruction ever given to mankind. And the whisper of the serpent, ignore these foolish rules and "Ye shall be as gods". Your mistake is to regard this as a fable. It is the fundamental warning against the arrogance of a humanity which acknowledges no superior, and no law but its own will. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I limit my own beliefs to premises I think have a reasonable chance of being true, we can agree that each of us is ultimately free to believe or disbelieve anything we choose. (What convinces me does not necessarily convince you. What I find reasonable, you find absurd… etc, and vicea-verca.) I suppose only time will tell which of us ends up in the straight-jacket.


 * Again… if evolution is one day disproven (I doubt it, but…) I will rejoice in the fact that all I’ve lost is a delusion.


 * Your beliefs can never be disproven, and that is the clever part of all religions.


 * I could be having this same discussion with a hard-line Muslim cleric, and we would be saying the same things to each other. He would accuse me (and you, probably) of having an irrelevant moral code that did not come from the One True God. Only by following the ways of HIS God could anyone reach paradise. He would likely dismiss the Anglican faith as flawed heresy, while dismissing me as Devil-spawn.


 * So who is right? You or him? Which religion is the One True religion, the moral-system that, alone, can put the world to right? Maybe you are both wrong. Perhaps only by strictly following the teachings of Judaism and being circumcised can one have a hope of being smiled upon by the Lord. What if only the old Pagan gods are real - and they detest Christians and Muslims for massacring their followers throughout history? You’re all in trouble then, however strongly-held your faith may be.


 * This is why these religions are so dangerous. All of you are convinced that only your morals are the correct morals, because they’re God-given. Everyone else is either wicked or misguided. They need to have the TRUE God-given morality drummed into them for their own good. If you can’t convince them, you need to enforce your morality through the law. If another heretical religion dares to oppose you or gets in the way of your righteous agenda, you must denounce them as unenlightened infidels.


 * You say that my personal morality is irrelevant – who will listen to me, after all? Why would anyone care what I thought? I don’t know. I am one voice among many, trying to argue my case. The moral-reasoning of people in Britain has certainly “evolved” by this method in the last 50 years. I don’t relish a return to a time when everyone thought like Alf Garnet.


 * I can only argue for my values by discussing them with others. Sometimes people listen, sometimes they don’t. As time goes by, an accumulation of different views and ideas produces new philosophies and slowly changes the morality of the society, hopefully for the better. As long as human empathy and reason are central to this, the change will be positive. People are not stupid, and human beings instinctively rebel against injustice. While sometimes we have to endure holy fools like Tony Blair, eventually people get sick of unethical conduct and scream for him to leave. If philosophies like secular humanism one day become dominant, I think we will see increasing change for the better.


 * This may be a flawed and uncertain process, as you point out. However, the more certain alternative is a legally-enforced religious moral code, and some way of ensuring everyone follows the same religion, so there isn’t mass dissent. Basically… a theocratic regime.


 * Yet again I will say that theism as a philosophical stance is arguably as reasonable as atheism, so long as you have some way of addressing the problem of evil (or random suffering). However, you are not talking about just theism or even just monotheism. You are also defending a range of outlandish mythology that contradicts itself in many places. If you continue to claim that my beliefs are as “absurd” as these religious beliefs, I really don’t know what to say, except that I disagree.


 * Your Denmark/Albania analogy (regarding the fossil record) is fine until you consider the almost-infinite variety in morphology an animal could have. A country on a map is a two-dimensional image. The three-dimensional structure of a living thing has far more variables that would all have to be similar. It rather stretches the limits of credulity to imagine two unrelated creatures could have a genetic structure so similar as to produce such similar morphologies as those we’re talking about. If you think about the range of life, from a centipede to an elephant, the 2D shape of a country doesn’t really make a good analogy.


 * You are not actually making any statements about how life came to be, giving me little to criticize. The Bible does make some bold claims, but you are not prepared to defend them, admitting by your silence that they are incredible/useless. This leads to the conclusion that the Bible itself is unreliable. If you are free to abandon Genesis, why not all of it?


 * How can you bemoan the "decline of faith in Britain" when you yourself feel free to pick and choose which parts God meant in the Bible and which parts he didn't mean? You accuse me of elevating myself to a god by having my own morality, but you do so yourself, arbitrating what is true in the Bible and what isn't. If you believe the Bible to be the word of the Lord, who are you to second-guess him? You criticize the fact that people are not religious or faithful enough, but then you only half-believe in your own religion.


 * You wrote (about humans discerning their own morality): Which brings me to the Garden of Eden, where exactly the same mistake is made, the simplest, clearest instruction ever given to mankind. Which leaves me to wonder how I can debate with someone who believes this to have literally happened (you go from moderate to fundamentalist from one paragraph to the next, incidentally). I am open-minded enough to imagine theism as a possible reality (although my conception of a cosmic architect may differ considerably from yours – I have difficulty thinking of a narrow-minded or vindictive God who hated gay people, for example). Theism can be a reasonable position, even if I can't convince myself it is true. But maybe I’m not quite open-minded enough to believe in Satanic Serpents and all the rest. I will continue to point out to others what I see as the absurdity of religious claims, whether they relate to Thetans or demons.


 * I’m not sure how far we can continue with this. You have willingly bought into a belief system that does not tolerate any possibility of being wrong. I freely admit that my belief in evolution is conditional upon the evidence continuing to support it – if it is wrong, it is wrong. Neither you nor any of your Islamic friends will be able to escape the self-justifying mental prisons you have constructed for yourselves unless you apply the same degree of scepticism to religious texts as you would to the policies of Tony Blair.

-Neural 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You have reminded me about why I have until now avoided any discussion of religious opinions, however tangential. You don't understand them, because at present you have no sympathy with them. And any attempt by me to explain them to you will be as hopeless as playing music to the tone deaf. Nothing in what I write above suggests a belief in the literal word-for-word truth of the Garden of Eden story, beautiful, haunting and moving as it is. I doubt if any human mind could comprehend or describe what I suspect actually did take place at the beginning of humanity. Read again what I wrote, and you will see that you have misunderstood it as thoroughly as your Edwardian predecessors mmisunderstood Piltdown man, and for the same reason. You wanted to misunderstand it. The story is important because it contains a fundamental warning to mankind, which mankind repeatedly ignores with terrible results. The Bible is an extraordinarily disparate assembly of books, prophecy, journalism, history and literature. Much of it is poetry, that extraordinarily elusive form which conveys far more than the sum of its parts, unsurprisingly since religion is at least partly inexplicable in the vocabulary of men. This is one of the reasons for my opposition to modern paraphrases of the Authorised Version. The poetry is lost in the process, and this is not just a matter of lyrical beauty and sonorousness, but of meaning. Any serious Christian would be willing to debate for years the significance of every part of the Bible in the formation of a Christian conscience. Serious Jews do little else but discuss the Torah and its meaning, which they regard as the most important task of their lives, and who is to say that they are wrong? It might be important to note that so much of the recorded discourse of Jesus of Nazareth took the form of parables, a sort of clue to one or two things. But to treat every word of the Bible as if it were the same, and of the same significance, would be like (say) treating bricks, potatoes, ice-cream, gold coins and night-scented stocks as if they were all the same item. I also note with regret that, after all your apparent willingness to open your mind on this subject, you have tediously reverted to your baseless belief that Darwinism is either proven or open to disproof. Which is why I now withdraw from this conversation. I have done all that is in my power to urge you to think it possible you may be mistaken, my only goal. This is impossible if you treat the discussion as an attempt to persuade you to become a Communicant Anglican ( or 'confused religious maniac' as another generous-hearted contributor to this page would say, which seems unfair to my fellow Anglicans even if it isn't unfair to me). You ask me to be as sceptical about the claims of religion as I am about Mr Blair and his government. But these are things of a different nature. A proper scepticism about earthly power is in fact much aided by a belief in the possibility that there may be a higher source of authority, and the most courageous opponents of tyranny have very often been men and women of religious faith, for that very reason. But, as I find all too often with diehard tribal Tories, American neocon believers in the Global Jihad, visceral Judophobes and people who believe Identity Cards are a good idea, you cannot reason a man out of a position he hasn't been reasoned into in the first place. My chief ally will have to be that most powerful persuader of all, time, and its daughter, truth. Go well. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You two are wasting your time. Hitchens is a confused religious maniac trying to pass off as a rational "moderate" person, and Neural is as sure in his beliefs as Richard Dawkins. This is like watching two people butt heads until they both fall unconscious... Seek an alternative.

-195.93.21.8 13:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (Michael).


 * Interesting. Well, free to ignore this outside perspective if you wish, but here're my thoughts:
 * First off, it is essentially physically impossible, under our current understanding of paleontology and geology, for a "complete" fossil record to exist; in fact, one could even argue that if we had such a flawless record, that would disprove many aspects of our current understanding of evolution. It is also important to note that fossil evidence is not circular, merely consistent; that different types of fossils are found at different strata of the geologic column, progressively deeper strata representing progressively earlier time periods, was known long before the acceptance of Darwin's theory, so to claim that evolution is used as evidence for the fossil record is rather bizarre. In reality, the fields of physics and geology are the primary validation of the fossil record.
 * I understand what you're trying to say with your "Denmark/Albania" analogy, but it is an exceedingly weak one: you could just as easily try to illustrate a flaw in evolution by saying "a square is similar to a rectangle, yet we don't think that squares evolved from rectangles, right?" Organisms reproduce, die out, pass down their genetic material, etc.; land masses (to simplify a bit) merely change location, so obviously an explanation for the origin of a certain species would be entirely unlike an explanation for the origin of a certain island. Your analogy is also a profound misrepresentation of the actual evidential basis of evolution. Mere superficial similarity between two simultaneously-existing, distinct entities is entirely unlike what evolutionary biology actually deals with, which is ancestry. A better continental analogy would be: "The supercontinent Pangaea can be shown through a wealth of geological evidence to have gradually, progressively broken apart into the modern configuration of the continents." Pangaea and modern continents are not considered to be related simply because they have superficial similarities, anymore than dogs are considered closely-related to wolves, or horses to zebras, for purely superficial reasons: morphological, genetic, and fossil evidence are what justify such links.
 * I agree with you that the Piltdown Hoax was a sad moment in paleontology, but it's also a single incident that was resolved over 50 years ago, and a hoax that was uncovered by scientists (not creationists); to dismiss an entire field of science on the basis of a single 50-year-old error is rather absurd, don't you think? No one is saying "it could never happen again"; we are not omniscient, and errors and hoaxes happen in all fields of science ever single day. But that does not invalidate the verified, well-founded research of those fields; it merely reminds us of the need for caution in assessing the validity of new claims, and especially ones with minimal evidence.
 * Evolution does not disqualify a rational person from holding theistic beliefs (see theistic evolution), any more than gravity disqualifies people from holding theistic beliefs. Gravity does not, in fact, say anything at all about God; and evolution is exactly the same. They are merely descriptions of observed natural phenomena. Whether you personally wish to believe in God or not is entirely your business; it may require a little compartmentalization to simultaneously believe in a Creator God and not reject more well-evidenced, scientific explanations for phenomena, but most people in this day and age seem capable of it.
 * I have never in my life met a scientist who believes that the universe is "the result of random chaos", including numerous atheist scientists. You misunderstand the nature of the scientific understanding of the universe if you believe that not assuming an intelligent, conscious being's hand in things means that the universe is just "chaos"; this is demonstrably untrue. Again, consider gravity: if gravity operates under certain unguided, consistent principles (which it does), rather than being the result of God somehow "pushing" things towards heavy things for no apparent reason, does that make it "random" or "chaotic"? The natural state of the universe is towards order and consistency, not arbitrary chaos; though it may be difficult for us to understand this because of our anthropocentric bias, it is important to recognize that order does not necessitate intelligence: an H2O molecule is ordered, organized, and consistent, yet it is not directly created by an intelligence, not pieced together at an atomic level by some magical invisible watchmaker. Ask any chemist or physicist, and he will tell you that his discipline, despite being entirely secular in nature, is not about "chaos", but about natural, inherent principles and forces which naturally behave in a consistent and regular way (because really, wouldn't the alternative (arbitrary and random inconsistency) be stranger and less expected, even of a godless universe?). Evolution itself is based on natural selection, not mere random chance.
 * People consider theism irrational because it has not been demonstrated to be true by any reliable or reproducible evidence. They do not withhold belief in God because they think themselves "omniscient"; please do not resort to such obvious strawmen to mischaracterize the views of those you disagree with, even if it is tempting. On the contrary, they avoid believing in God because they aren't omniscient, and it would be arrogant of them to assume that they know God exists without evidence to that effect. This is the basis of all empirical study, including the entirety of science: reliance on verifiable evidence and observation. When people say that they do not believe in God, most of them do not think that it is impossible that God exists, anymore than they think that it is impossible that Santa Claus or unicorns or Zeus exists: they simply consider it unlikely enough, in lieu of compelling enough evidence, that making such a leap of faith would be premature at best, and outright foolish at worst. Even if you disagree with their reasoning, this is not such a horrible or arrogant way of going about things, is it? Indeed, skeptical empiricism is a humbling thing, as it forces us to pay attention to the world around us even when it means sacrificing the cherished illusions and assumptions we have which are inconsistent with observable reality.
 * You say that "Darwinism has spawned many beliefs", and imply that evolutionary biology is somehow responsible for the diversity of ideologies that various people formulated based on poorly-understand conceptions of evolutionary biology; but one could just as easily say that "Christianity has spawned many beliefs" and criticize Christianity for every Christian who has ever done something wrong, or every reprehensible doctrine inspired by Christianity. Surely you don't want us to stoop so low? If you have any issue with Darwinism, then criticize it directly rather than insinuating that it is solely responsible for the various distortions of it that have arisen. To do so is a gross oversimplification, though not nearly as absurd as the one that atheism is somehow responsible for ideologies as unrelated to that theological stance as Communism, and your simply patently false claim that National Socialism was ever in any way atheistic. Hitler was, by his own account, a Christian, not an atheist;    to condemn atheism for communism's atrocities is even more ridiculous than if I condemned Christianity for the Holocaust. Again, such accusations are baseless historical distortions and oversimplifications, and it is beneath both of us to draw upon them. As you correctly note, it is "HUMAN EVIL", not whether or not one believes in God, that is the cause of such things. In practical, day-to-day life, whether you are a thoughtful and compassionate person is infinitely more important than your opinions on crusty old theological issues or metaphysical disputes.
 * By the way, your assumption that atheists are immoral or amoral is a common myth. (Atheism itself can be considered "amoral", in that it does not preclude any particular morality or lack thereof, but individual atheists are in most cases caring, ethical, good human beings.) I recommend that you do some further reading on the subject matter before you continue to parrot such unjustified slander.
 * I agree with you that the Bible is "an extraordinarily disparate assembly of books, prophecy, journalism, history and literature" (as long as by "prophecy" you mean "claimed prophecy"), and I agree with you that a literalist interpretation of the Bible is nonsensical. The book is indisputably a fascinating and important work, whether you're a Christian or not.
 * However, your later statement that "A proper scepticism about earthly power is in fact much aided by a belief in the possibility that there may be a higher source of authority, and the most courageous opponents of tyranny have very often been men and women of religious faith, for that very reason" is rather dubious. You are merely assuming a causation without evidence here; wouldn't you expect the vast majority of courageous opponents of tyranny to be religious, considering that the vast majority of human beings are religious? :P If 90% of people in the world are religious and a majority of tyranny-opposers are religious, that obviously does not in any way demonstrate that being religion makes you more inclined to opposing tyranny, anymore than the fact that 90% of the people in the world are religious and a majority of people in the world are female means that religion tends to turn people into females. :) Be a bit more careful in how grounded your conclusions are, especially when you're dealing with such huge generalizations.
 * I do not think that you are an altogether unreasonable person; we have a difference of opinion on several issues, but much of that is because we simply come from different backgrounds and have been exposed to dramatically different experiences, information, and areas of knowledge, not because one of us is omniscient and the other is a raving lunatic. Things are rarely so clear-cut. I do have hope that you will maintain an open enough mind to balance your personal convictions with the evidence and outside information you are provided with; as you yourself point out, no human is perfect. Have a nice day. -Silence 16:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable. I like your tone of reasoned tolerance, though I hope and trust that your concern for the openness of my mind and your concession that I am 'not altogether unreasonable' may not have been meant to sound as patronising as they actually do. Having rather publicly changed my mind (not always a great deal of fun) on most of the major questions of politics, morality and religion, I think I can produce certificates attesting to the openness of that mind. As for the thoughtful Christian's approach to the understanding of his faith, I just wish that dogmatic atheists were half as cautious as we are. The Christian church is an immense edifice of thought, experience, literature, art, music, architecture, courage, martyrdom, and also of failure, ugliness, narrow-mindedness, misunderstanding, persecution, blind dogmatism, intolerance and banality. The ex-atheist, who no longer finds that creed satisfactory, approaches all received religions with caution and - having experienced doubt - respects it. "There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds'(Alfred, Lord Tennyson). This has been a good part of the argument I have been attempting to have with another correspondent. One small but important point about your remarks above. I make no assumption, as claimed above, that atheists are amoral or immoral by Christian standards. It may well be that many atheists observe Christian morality more punctiliously than professed Christians. My only point is that this is, if intentional, is entirely irrational. They have no reason to do so, since their belief precludes the existence of any absolute moral law, there is no such characteristic as 'good' or 'bad' in any action, and they are free to behave as they wish. So, of course, is everyone else, which is why in secular societies some sort of 'common decency' based upon self-interested mutuality, generally exists. Even so, such decency is terribly vulnerable to naked power and wealth, on both the large and small scale. Visit any of the rougher housing estates to see this in operation, as well as any tyrannical or plutocratic country. And it is hard to see how the wealthy and powerful can be persuaded to be subject to any law, unless there is a religious imperative behind that law. This is one part of the enormous equation, which doesn't seem to come out unless there is a divine factor in its somewhere. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much apologize if I came across as condescending in anything I said; that comment about "altogether unreasonable" was not meant to be a jab, just an understatement in jest, it's just hard sometimes to convey tone in written exchanges. I have no interest in offending you; if I wanted to attack you rather than discuss these complex issues with you, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making such a lengthy response. :) I do recognize the increased difficulty of changing one's views significantly when one is a public figure, so I have more respect for you for being willing to make such shifts, and to diverge from mainstream UK conservatives on a number of issues.
 * Your description of the Christian Church is a very balanced and reasonable one, and I won't dispute that there are "dogmatic" atheists out there (in that noone is immune to dogmatism), though I would certainly dispute the notion that atheists tend towards dogmatism, that atheism fosters dogmatism, or that most dogmatic atheists are dogmatic because of their atheism; the irreligious, like the religious, are about as heterogeneous as a group can be, making it very difficult to construct accurate generalizations of them. Atheism is not really a "creed"; it does not hold any one ideology or moral code or beliefs (other than the lack of belief in a single thing, God), does not have a hierarchy or structure or culture, has no rituals or practices or customs. In essence, atheism is just a term for people who happen not to hold a certain supernatural belief, little different from a term like "areincarnationism" would be for people who don't believe in reincarnation.
 * Thank you for explaining your views on atheism and morality in more nuance. Here's the heart of the matter: one does not need an "absolute moral law", given by a divine lawmaker, if one bases one's morality on a core assumption like "it is good to help people, and bad to harm them or let them come to harm", rather than on a core assumption like "whatever God likes is good, and whatever God dislikes is bad". In both cases, an assumption is required in order to justify morality, but both are functional and working ways to judge whether something is "good" or "bad". Yes, atheists lack God-given commandments on what Thou Shalt Do and Not Do, but that doesn't mean that they lack basic human compassion, or a desire to bring happiness to themselves and others. It is things like empathy and love for fellow human beings, which are universal to the religious and irreligious alike, that are the ultimate origin of working morality. "Murder is bad" can be just as well justified by defining "bad" as "whatever causes undue harm to people" as by defining it as "whatever is against God". The former, in fact, has an advantage over the latter: it does not rely on an external authority to know right from wrong, but allows individuals to make evaluations like "killing is wrong" or "torture is bad" without knowing every divine decree. Not to mention, of course, that it protects individuals from being deceived by those who would use the name of God to promote unethical conduct, something that's been going on throughout human history and would be impossible to resist without a moral compass external to one's theology. -Silence 14:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of Beliefs and Values and Religion generally, I'd like to put my tuppence worth: The UK is a Christian country (just, but Bliar is changing that) and it's laws and traditions were based on Christian values and beliefs. The foundation of the Christian Church in Britain is the Catholic Church as established in Rome. Even a cursory glance at Roman culture at the time the Catholic Church was established and then brought to Britain is illuminating. Many attitudes inherent in Roman society can be seen expressed in Catholic religion and therefore in the Christian religion of Britain. Despite the excellent work a woman did to amend this faith it is still flawed, in that a misogynistic and arrogant attitude towards women still exists. This attitude comes from the traditions of Rome not from God. Miamomimi 11:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to make a few quick points before leaving this.


 * Firstly… as to having doubts regarding evolution, I’ve acknowledged many times that I’m not certain evolution is true. There’s room for doubt in almost anything. Once again, I have no emotional stake in this theory. I would be an atheist with or without the theory, having reasoned myself out of theism before ever having any real knowledge about evolution. Now that I have more detailed knowledge, however, I find evolution to be the most compelling and reasonable explanation for life on earth, despite being uncertain.


 * Secondly, Peter, you wrote somewhere above about the moving beauty and poetry of the Bible, suggesting that getting me to appreciate this would be like playing music to the tone-deaf. This is misguided, if not a little insulting. As a former Christian, I know well how moving and intoxicating these texts are. In my view, this is all the more reason to be sceptical rather than be pulled with a torrent of inspiration and emotion that tends to wash away doubt and any attempt to apply rigorous critical thinking. The obvious multi-facetted appeal of religion is what makes it so dangerous, in my opinion.


 * Thirdly, a minor point regarding a comment from another contributor… I’m not sure how accurate it is to describe Britain as a “Christian country” any more. A majority may be nominally Christian, but how many of these people are Christian in anything but name? Church attendance is pitifully low and dwindling all the time. This is DESPITE Tony Blair’s policy of funding (often Evangelical or Catholic) faith-schools with tax-payer’s money. He sent his own son to a Catholic school, so people can hardly accuse him of having an anti-Christian agenda. He is on a mission from his God, anyway, as he revealed a while back on Parkinson’s chat show. We have a state religion – thankfully, it has little power. But is this a Christian country? It’s probably more accurate to describe Britain as a post-Christian country, one bizarrely reluctant to admit it has lost its religion. Thanks for an interesting discussion everyone. Go well. -Neural 10:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neural - I hope you pop back to notice my comment that I think you're correct - Britain is a post-Christian country. I meant that most of the fundamental laws in Britain were written and based on Christian values and beliefs. Tony Bliar has caused the most change to that foundation I think. Thanks for noticing. Miamomimi 11:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If people wish to correspond with me direct, rather than in this over-loaded public forum, my e-mail address is published each week at the head of my column in the Mail on Sunday. I try, but do not always manage, to respond to all reasonable communications. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 10:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. Since Neural brought up evolution again: Peter, I notice you only responded to the moral and religious parts of my post, not the parts relating to evolution and fossil evidence. Are you still interested in discussing evolution? If so, I've been carefully reading your earlier discussion on this page and would love to respond to some of the points. I've so far written responses regarding (1) the nature of proof in science; (2) the evolution/gravity analogy from before; (3) whether evolution is unfalsifiable and unobserved; (4) science and "purpose"; (5) intelligent design; and (6) fossils. If you're interested and you'd like to discuss these one at a time, feel free to pick any one of them; or if you'd like me to just post them all at once, I can do that too. -Silence 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter, whilst I'm sure those concerned appreciate the invitation I'd like to point out that there is value in a public forum - others who are not involved in the discussion but interested in the topic can watch and learn. Email is private, making that impossible, but if you prefer your own little boys club there's nothing I can do to stop you. I'd just like to point out to the others involved in the discussion that there are others interested in their opinions and arguments. I'm not able to contribute, but I can read, and learn. Miamomimi 11:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and private email means each person cannot be privy to anothers argument so therefore cannot support it. Perhaps you aim to divide and conquer Peter? Be wary of personal invitations chaps, it could be a honey trap! Miamomimi 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

help


 * As to this public page getting "over-loaded", I think it is possible to archive the discussion to clear this page. I'm not sure how this is done, so I've added a help tag.


 * Btw, everyone... theism and cosmology is an interesting subject to debate.


 * It seems strange to think humans have an important place in this universe when we consider our place in the cosmos. Our solar-system is a relatively insignificant wisp of dust in an apparently random position in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Galaxy itself is only one of billions, in no particular position of significance compared to other galaxies. And if religion is true, what are all these glaxies for? If creation is centered on the Earth, are these trillions of planets barren and lifeless? If so, this seems mind-bendingly absurd. If not, what is so special about our planet. Theism and religion bring up more impossible questions for believers than they give rather pat answers to. Religious faith appears to be an obsolete method of trying to understand this reality. -Neural 12:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If we ever really need to get feedback from others, we could easily post the conversation online somewhere after-the-fact. So then, Peter, are you interested in continuing our discussion over e-mail? -Silence 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Swearing
Something made me laugh in Peter's last Mail on Sunday page yesterday. Peter, you objected to politicians and people in the media using the word "cr*p" (I've removed the "a", so as not to offend anyone). Amazing. My Granny used to swear much more colourfully than this, with never much fuss from anyone. You said that swearing was the "de-militarized zone" between normal behaviour and violence. I'd love to your the socialogical research. I got to mentally comparing straight-laced murderers like Osama bin Laden to Tourettes-sufferer Pete from Big Brother 7 who fell out with fellow housemates for harming insects and cried in the diary-room when somebody suggested killing a lame rodent that infiltrated the BB compound. I could be wrong, but your theory sounds like poppyc*ck to me. As you hinted before, human evil probably has more to do with violence. I don't think the f-word has been strongly implicated in any murders in known history... -Neural 10:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Evil and Cruelty often wear a pretty face and have a pleasing voice. Cruelty is indifference to suffering and even positive pleasure in inflicting it. (Often followed by 'Where's your sense of humour?') Cruel ways of inflicting suffering may involve violence, but violence is not necessary for an act to be cruel. For example, if another person is drowning and begging for help, and you can help but you merely watch with disinterested amusement or pleasure, you are being cruel — not violent. Cruelty usually carries connotations of supremacy over a submissive or weaker force. I've known bigger men whose normal speech involved much swearing but who were not cruel, displayed honest and consistent integrity and, though built like a barn door, were not violent or aggressive. They saw violence for it's own sake as childish but would use it when absolutely necessary and would not run and hide. In fact they upheld their moral code (which they lived not just advocated for others) and saw cruelty or persecution of a weaker person, especially the weaker sex, as the most revolting cowardice. Miamomimi 11:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the above contributions completely fail to grasp the simple point that the general acceptance of swearing in public places and on broadcast media has lowered general standards of behaviour. Nobody, least of all me, said that "the f-word was implicated in any murders". What I said was that, when there was more inhibition about swearing, there was less casual violence.Clear now? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback 18:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And what we, or at least I was saying was that the two are not necessarily connected. Clear now?? Miamomimi 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Other readers of this exchange, should there be any, may judge for themselves. My suggestion was as follows, word for word :"How extraordinary that the word beginning with 'c' and ending with 'p' has gone so quickly from being dirty and taboo to being used by Cabinet Ministers and blazoned in headlines. Are we really so short of rude words to describe George Bush's policies that we have to go to the lavatory for one? Taboos matter. Once broken, they cannot be repaired. Swear words are the demilitarised zone between normal behaviour and violence. If they lose their power, there will be more violence. There already is." Now, be so kind as to tell me what, in this brief item, is demonstrably untrue, or unreasonable, or even has anything much to do with the two objections above. One suggests baselessly that I suggest a connection between swearing and murder, the other, equally baselessly that I suggested that swearing - at all - was some kind of personality defect or moral fault in itself. Neither is the case, as is clear from the quotation. What I was discussing was the growing acceptance of swearing in public, and its devaluation as a result. Neither of these correspondents even addresses this point. To say that swearwords are, as I argue that they are, a demilitarised zone between normal behaviour and violence, is to say exactly that. It is not to say that they have no other function or importance, nor does it attempt to be, or purport to be, a full-length essay on the subject. . Had I thought so, I should have said "swearwords are only..." or "swearwords are no more than...", in which case the above contributions might have had some value. I am wearily used to being attacked for being conservative, and therefore automatically horrible, rather than being challenged for what I say. I may well be horrible, and make no pretence of being a moral exemplar, as one correspondent falsely implies that I do. The question is not, am I a bad person, but am I right? This sort of stuff irritates me because of the lack of communication and reason involved. I am perfectly happy to discuss at length the many ways in which swearing is significant and important. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 07:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But I am not, at least not with you. I wanted to compliment Neural on a point well made and add my agreement. I am, of course, sensible of the fact that my comments appear on your user talk page so will, of course, explain to you (I cannot be held responsible for your dogged failure to understand) that swearing and violence are not necessarily connected. When ladies wore long skirts, as was the fashion in Edwardian times, they also travelled by horse drawn carriages more, but one fact is not dependant on the other. They just chanced to happen at the same time. There are other factors involved in the increase in casual violence. I believe the most significant is the complete absence of punishment for violent behaviour. It is not the habitual use of swear words. (It's not that subtle a distinction but I don't expect you to get it) I do not wish to repeat my point and suggest you read it again. If I want to read your column I'll buy a paper. Miamomimi 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Clockback - yes, please, read my initial comment in this section again and take note of it - especially the last line. I'm sure you missed the point. Miamomimi 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "What I said was that, when there was more inhibition about swearing, there was less casual violence."


 * Maybe there is more casual violence now. Perhaps a lax attitude to public decorum and verbal etiquette even contributed in some way to the Rwandan genocide. Or maybe there was less swearing when Hitler was purging Europe's Jews and Stalin was liquidating anyone who gave him a sideways glance. In either case, I can't see much of a connection between violence and swear-words at all --- although I find some foul-mouthed people pretty tedious at times, when their vocabulary consists only of expletives or when they swear for punctuation.


 * Premise 1: "There is more casual violence now than there ever has been." Is there really? Or is it more publicized and talked about now? Going back over history, is our situation today the pinnacle of casual violence? I somehow doubt it.


 * Premise 2: "Lower inhibitions about swearing have contributed to the tide of bloodshed and low-level disorder mentioned in premise 1.". Says who? Where's your evidence? Common sense would suggest it has more to do with a national fixation on group binge-drinking, and the fact that violence is practically celebrated in our culture, while we remain a country famous for being uptight prudes.


 * "The question is not, am I a bad person, but am I right?"


 * You have it back-to-front. I don't think you're a bad person; I just think you're wrong.


 * -Neural 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is extraordinary, and I'm only returning to it because I happen to have a spare moment and because it so well illustrates the problems that arise when anyone tries to make a statement which is even slightly unconventional. User 'Neural'(Why won't you people use your names? What is the reason for this masked ball?)seems unable to distinguish between a comment on current social mores in this country, and a general theory of violence. It is quite clear that there is no single cause for violence, either here or anywhere else. To suggest that the ending of the taboo against swearing has led to more violence, by removing a restraint on behaviour and a means of warning, is not to say that all violence, or even many types of violence, are thus explained. It says what it says, which I why I have appended the original article which was the cause of Neural's contribution, and which clearly does not make the claims for which 'Neural' criticises it, or anything remotely resembling them. Thus to say that it doesn't explain them is like attacking a dentist because his remedies for your teeth won't help your tulips grow better. The main reason for violence is, as it always has been, the failure of human beings to restrain themselves from violent acts, which is of course the failure of the moral sense and the failure of law. This failure takes many forms. One such form, in modern Britain, is the far quicker resort to violence in public places, with fewer intervening stages of warning or restraint, as those who have ( say) attempted to stop youths damaging cars in the street, now find. Who would deny that this is taking place? Who would care to deny that the decay of manners and restraint, including the devaluation of taboo words, might have something to do with this?

What this even has to do with the incidence of murder in Britain, the Rwandan genocide, or Stalin's mass murders, I have no idea at all. Though it certainly could be connected with some recent street murders and serious assaults reported in the press, and the casual assaults which leave hundreds in hospital every year,, it has little connection with the general homicide statistics, murder especially, which are generally connected with other crimes. 'Neural' also gives away the weakness of his position by his or her attempted summary of my arguments. Both supposed premises are gross misreadings of what I said. I did not say and have never said "there is more casual violence now than there ever has been". I am sure there was far more casual violence than there is now, certainly in the middle ages, certainly up till the middle of the 19th century and the start of the Victorian remoralisation and the foundation of the police, and possibly - in some places - as recently as the Edwardian era. The interesting thing is that, after a long period of progress in this matter, we are now starting to go backwards again. The second purported premise uses the phrase 'tide of bloodshed'. I never used this phrase or anything resembling it. I think this pretty much wraps the matter up and I might add that this will be my last contribution to this page. I am readily available at my public e-mail address to anyone who wishes to have a reasoned discussion, and I prefer to know to whom I am talking. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! Hitchens throws his toys out the pram. Miamomimi 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think he explained what he meant quite well in his above response. The problem was that the original column simply sounded silly. The word in question hasn't seriously been "taboo" for many years and I doubt anyone other than Hitchens would have batted an eyelid at its use. Prescott also said it in private conversation at the time, as each and every one of us do, and he was not expecting his remarks to be leaked to the press, so its hardly as though he was casually swearing in a public statement. I note that the Mail itself did not shy from printing the word - Perhaps Peter could have a word with his employers re their contribution to the lowering of public standards? And anyway, if nothing else, it's the only time in the last 20 years Prescott has actually made sense. Nsign 12:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some fair arguments, Peter, although I have no idea what my choice of Username or not giving out my real name have to do with anything. Why does who I am matter a jot? Surely it is my argument that you need to overcome in order to make your point stick, not who I am. I could be a cleaner in a Hull hospital or an academic in Oxford University - what does it matter? Surely the onus is still on you to demonstrate some causal link between a lowering of inhibitions about swearing and casual violence, rather than just stating it as some kind of truism. --- Matthew, signed in as Neural 12:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it seems that religion fosters bad behaviour. Miamomimi 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PH; ‘swinging from the gallows pole’
I’m sure we are all aware of what Peter Hitchens stands for. (if not read his main article) Peter repeatedly writes about the 'liberal elite' that have taken over the asylum. Despite his chosen pseudonym it would be stupid of me to accuse him of simply wanting to turn the clock back as I’m sure others could direct me to his published caveats, and Peter knows the rules. But I came across a comment from another who has “completed a personal journey from soft-left university stereotype.” (was PH ever soft?!!! In the normal wanting to | “fit in and be part of the crowd”kinda way) | This comment made me think about the people in power that Peter criticises and his own attitude and proposed solutions. Whilst his criticisms of present and past governments are convincing his solutions are not. Well, not to me, I think he fails to fully recognise the reasons those changes came about. We, the people, are the architects of our own downfall. Whilst Peter quite rightly points out that due process in government quietly selects the choices available to us, those choices we selected proposed changes that appealed to the electorate. It wasn’t all spin. There were genuine problems that have been addressed. At the risk of my example seeming cliché, No-fault divorce is a case in point. In defending the married family from State usurpation Peter seems to object to no-fault divorce. I think this is wrong but won’t go into why here. It has been noted (citation needed) that Peter is against political correctness yet has objected to a number of fairly mild words, such as a dogs name, even going so far as to assert a cause and effect between swearing and casual violence (see section above), a position I disagree with. So on the one hand we have a Nanny State, and on the other a ‘pundit’ who would tell us how to live to the same degree: “Offensive T-Shirt? You are The Enemy” (see MoS column july 30th: Clueless Harry is a walking advertisement for tyranny). With our present cultural zeitgeist on his last legs, is Peter tomorrows Volksgeist, or yesterdays man? Miamomimi 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In a few years time if any of us dares to say a taboo word, New Labour will probably come and sterilize us, take away any children we may have (or plan to have if they're not born yet) and send them off to re-education camps to learn correct New Labour values. I will join Peter Hitchens in denouncing Tony Bliar as a hyocrite and a would-be tyrant - a murdering warmonger like him preaching morality to us???? But I wonder if Mr. Hitchens objects to labelling a small child a "Christian child", a "Muslim child" or a "Scientologist child", then sending them off to faith schools to be brainwashed into the correct [insert your religion] values. Ah, but that is different. It is immoral to label and brainwash an infant into being a New Labour child or a UKIP child, but views on the cosmos and the meaning of life are different. These views must be instilled from a young age. Waiting until a child can reason and make her own mind up is dangerous because she might just decide that there is no Lord in the sky and that she is an atheist. -Neural 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Peter and Tony (sounds like a 60’s singing duo) would agree that the main cause for concern is that if the child was conceived and born out of wedlock. | FASBO’s pending for the progeny of harlots who do not use the ploy advocated by Peter of withholding sexual favours to get a man up the aisle. (Not so effective today and Peter – were YOU a virgin when you married?) Not forgetting, of course | the forgotten hell of everyone in society to conform to the ideal of the nuclear family. As for instilling views from a young age, it seems | “Peter would want his children to be brought up as Christians,”but I'm guessing, not as Lib Dems ;-) Miamomimi 21:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Miamomimi, we are getting personal here. Peter met his wife while they were both at York University in the early 1970s (see, I think, the Lynn Barber Observer interview for this piece of information), both tried to reform the Hampstead Labour Party while Peter was a LP member (1979-83) - Peter has openly admitted to this - but only married in 1983. I am hinting at nothing at all disgraceful here, unless one happens to be Peter Hitchens. Perhaps the first offspring was on his or her way? Philip Cross 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea! Oh dear feel I must clarify but typing staright in off the cuff and can't get point to be short. Was just trying to comment on differences in attitude towards sex before marriage - you know, men are 'just sowing their wild oats' kinda thing. With whom? It always seems to be the womans responsibility to be the adult, like she's got a crystal ball! well there's more to the point than that but don't want to go on. Miamomimi 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This Sceptic Isle
I've looked for a link, hopefully to download the prog, or ref to a review at least or transcript of this prog. The one's I've found are either old prog listings on the day it was broadcast or have an unfortunate political bias I want to avoid. It's a good prog and I'm interested in it's factual content. I've even applied to 'Clockback' himself but it seems "communication and reason" go out the window where I'm concerned. I think there should be something in the reference section on his main article to this work but am getting nowhere. Can anyone else provide info? Miamomimi 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I'm not a politician, so I can change my mind
I stated somewhere up in the above arguments that I thought deism was arguably as reasonable as atheism. My consciousness has been raised by the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, and I no longer hold such an opinion. Just for "the record". -Neural 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey whats' up dude? I read your book!! It rawks!Bookishreader45 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your main wiki article
PLease would you consider my request on your main article discussion page to update the article, including your opinion on global warming and it's social/political repercussions? Many thanks Miamomimi 09:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Saki
I draw your attention to my comments at Talk:Saki. Please feel free to continue the discussion there or here, as you prefer. And please let me know if I can help. BrainyBabe 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Debates on the grammar school
An article that you have been involved in editing, Debates on the grammar school, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Debates on the grammar school. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

ADHD article
Please don't unilaterally revert the ADHD article. Three editors have now commented and all agree consensus should be attempted first in talk. Thanks --scuro (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Versa geek  22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution
At the risk of an unwelcome message I thought I'd mention that I contacted AGK to request informal mediation in the edit war on the ADHD article but thought progress was being made and reassured him accordingly, which may have been premature and you may wish to freshen the request for mediation. Miamomimi (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm getting used to the wiki-way too and I understand that here conversations are usually kept in one place so I've replied to your message on my talk page but as I'm writing this can I just mention a piece of research that I haven't noticed in your draft (forgive me if it's there, it's hard to unscramble the coded stuff); there was an article in Daily Mail tues May 25th 2004 written by Beezy Marsh and Robin Yapp entitled 'Proof that E-numbers really DO make a child hyperactive.'. It mentions a conclusive study on the IoW, the first study of it's kind, proving that nutrition and chemicals in food really do produce the symptoms of ADHD. The research was led by peadiatrician Prof. John Warner (Southampton Uni) and was published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood. I can find this link but to be honest I'm PC blind at the moment. Case studies were also mentioned as evidence of todays toxic childhood, namely; Carol Johnson and her son Alexander who was diagnosed with D.A.M.P. and campaigner Alex Gallagher of Glasgow whose 7 yr old son Ryan was diagnosed with ADHD. I mention this because I think it might be easier for you to access this research (I can't find a link online) and I am caring for a sick child myself at the moment. Beezy Marsh seems to have written a lot about ADHD and MMR. Miamomimi (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: I have tried to add a comment to the ADHD talk page but it is locked at this time. Good luck! Miamomimi (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The database is locked from time to time when usage or other CPU load is heavy; usually trying again works, if not immediately, then after a few minutes..... --Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abd - I did know that but thankyou. Miamomimi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, I have added a comment here to your request for editor assistance. Incidentally I found the presentation of your comments on Abd's talk page interesting and noticed that he seems quite anxious for your attention. Also, another editor, Barrylb, has provided sources to evidence controversy, see ADHD talk page. Miamomimi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is happening now is that users are starting to introduce sourced text, which is what I've been requesting. Simply introducing preferred ways for the text to read, without justification from reliable sources, isn't going to work when there are editors with strong POVs involved. I can defend sourced text, watch and, assuming I don't have some accident, and I continue to have time, and you will see, it should be somewhat visible already. I assume you have also noticed that more sophisticated users track the contributions of disputants on an issue of interest to them, so they are aware of what is going on. If, for example, you contact an administrator, if another user wants to follow what you are up to, he or she will know by watching Special:Contributions/(insert user name), you can add this to your Watchlist. Admins usually respond to official communications on the contacting user's talk page, so if an editor is watching your Talk page, they will also see that response. This is all part of the process, most of it is out in the open, unless users decide to contact each other by email or phone or in person.... oh, yes, isn't there that thing with stamps, I forget the name.... :-) --Abd (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback - have you seen the feedback, here? Miamomimi (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Use "Show Preview"
Clockback, it's apparent that you "Save page" with your changes, *then* read them over and make a change, save it again, then repeat this numerous times. That clogs up article history and creates other problems as wel. If you use Show preview, you can read over your changes before you save them, and fix them, before committing the changes to Wikipedia. Also there is a button "Show Changes" which will show the exact changes you are making. I did take out some text you had inserted into the article today; quite simply, it was not sourced. Some of what I took out could probably go back if properly sourced, though, as I've indicated before, it can get complicated. I made some changes in the introduction to make it a little more neutral, and justified this in Talk.--Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

offical warning
Please see post in ADHD talk. Argue content and not personalities. It's in the code of behaviour.--scuro (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's right, Clockback, which comment by me evinces no judgment that you have been doing what is implied by the warning, I haven't read today's talk edits yet. However, this "offical warning" isn't "official," that is, it's his personal warning, though an administrator, later, looking at abuse, might consider whether or not the user was warned. They aren't stupid, though, they know that a "warning" from someone involved in a dispute can be less effective than one from a user not involved. Take all 3RR warnings seriously, though. Any user can put a 3RR warning on another user's page, and when improper reverts come to an administrator's attention, a disregarded warning is essential for the user to be blocked -- unless the offense is outrageous, in which case it might be block first and ask questions later. You are in no danger. Scuro might be, for blocks for edit warring can be placed even without the four reverts in 24 hours. It can happen, sometimes, with one. In my view, Scuro has been pushing the limits, but, my judgment, he's not quite over the limits yet. An administrator might disagree. However, I highly recommend that you stay away from official complaint about edit warring. It's a tricky process and administrators can be easily irritated when new users don't do it right. If it comes to a need for that, there really should be several editors involved, and it's best of someone who doesn't have an axe to grind other than Wikipedia process quality does it. Just be patient and persistent in providing sourced text. You can Be Bold and put stuff in the article directly, but if it gets reverted, as it might even if properly sourced and appropriate, watch out for multiple reverts that don't make at least some attempt at compromise language. Edit warring is like stalemate in chess: moves back and forth with no progress in position, two sides dug in (rarely more than two sides) insisting on their idea of what is right without listening and seeking some higher understanding, a synthesis. Stuck. If that happens, *then* there is a graduated dispute resolution process. It can start with WP:RFC, to get wider opinion on some *specific* issue, though there is also RFC for user behavior. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

comment for you..
On my talk page from Abd, do pop by but I will copy here for your convenience:


 * Clockback, you can lead a horse to water. Yes, I congratulate you on discovering tags. It's exactly correct to do this, and you are serving the project when you place them. Before, you complained about unsourced material in the article, how come you had to provide sources when there was so much unsourced opinion already in the article? Instead of complaining -- which gets little done here -- you are now acting. If no citation is provided in a reasonable time, anyone can take the text out, and putting it back in without a citation would be considered, quite likely, POV-pushing if there is some POV involved. It *gets it done*. The theory is that if it is true and appropriate for the article (two separate issues), there should be reliable source available, and demanding that something be in the article without reliable source is quite recognizable -- usually -- as POV pushing. As to the text-marks, yes, I could have fixed it quickly if I had seen it. I'm not your proofreader, I was a professional proofreader at one time, and I'm not being paid for it. But I do what comes to my attention. Notice how, fairly consistently, you have assumed bad faith and dereliction of some imagined duty on the part of other editors, and you haven't thanked me once, for I'm a major part of the "others joining in." I'm a mature editor, in more ways than one (I'm older than you), and I'm also pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works with disputed text. *Nobody* is truly a master of it, in my opinion, it's too new and too much in flux. In any case, whether you thank me or not is less my business than it is yours. If you would realize who is helping you and who is not, you might become more effective. You have stated you are not a politician. That's certainly true! Politicians don't turn away help, unless it's from someone truly offensive -- and even then.... Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kind regards Miamomimi (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING
You have begun contentious editing in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, making edits that you expect to be reverted. (acknowledged here) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, see WP:POINT. If you believe that an edit is going to be reverted, don't make it. Instead, propose it in Talk, specifically, and seek consensus on it. Don't edit war. If you believe that your edits would improve the article, but they are being blocked by others, use dispute resolution, see WP:DR. None of this should discourage you from making improvements to the article, but material you add should meet WP:RS, the requirements for reliable sourcing. Disruptive editing can result in blocking of your ability to edit Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

re: No it doesn't
Clockback wrote: Your censorship of my insertion in 'Controversy about 'ADHD' article is unacceptable and morally wrong. Please restore it at the first available opportunity. I have no idea why you think you can arrogate the right to remove such things from an entry about controversy. Adding to entries is an honourable activity. Deleting what other people have written, especially where it is a plain statement of the truth, is wholly different. The fact that some people are described as 'individuals' implies nothing clear. Anyone unfamiliar with this controversy, news of which you seem so anxious to suppress or minimise, would not gain this impression from the censored version - which is presumably why you have censored it. The statement that these people are unconnected with Scientology etc is necessary to counteract the powerful insinuation in the article. This is clearly intended to suggest that critics of 'ADHD' are dominated or driven by cultic or other agendas. This is quite simply untrue. Oh, and please assure your friend'Scuro' that those who wish to see the truth told about this matter have not gone away,nor 'died down' but are still working on the matter by other means, having tried very hard but failed to achieve any compromise by discussion with 'Scuro'. Peter Hitchens, signed as Clockback (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have misinterpreted my intentions when I made this edit (I think). I believe you added that line in good faith. I removed it not for any censorship purposes, but because I felt it was redundant and detracted from the flow of the paragraph. By calling them individual medical professionals and other prominent media personalities, it already implies they are wholly unconnected with Scientology or any other movements which were mentioned in the sentences above. If you wish add more emphasis that they are separate from a movement or Scientology, perhaps the sentence could be rephrased as something like "Unassociated medical professionals and other prominent media personalities also independently question the existence of the disorder." (That sounds ok, but I'm sure between us we can come up with something better.)


 * In any case I appreciate that you didn't simply revert my edit back and chose to contact me on the talk page. That was very courteous. I try my best to negotiate and avoid being confrontational.


 * As for User:scuro, he/she has no other relationship to me other than as a fellow Wikipedia editor who happens to work frequently on the same page as I do. I'm my own party in this with the goal of trying to improve the article quality as much as I can. Cheers, Sifaka   talk  18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. On a completely irrelevant note I found an article about your visit to Pyongyang which I will check out when I get back from a meeting. Are there any other interesting places you have been to or thinking about going to?


 * I am not going to change your version of the statement because I thought we were both attempting to say the same thing: that the medical professionals and media personalities were entirely unconnected with Scientology. I understand the merits of stating it explicitly like you phrased it leaves no room for error, which it excellent.
 * On another note, I felt your response on my talk page could have been more civil. I read the guidelines on the Civility page and I think it might help clear up misunderstanding if I explain why I reacted negatively at first when I read your response. I am not trying to debate your reasoning or say I'm right. Rather I am trying to state clearly what I thought you were saying which may be patently wrong.
 * When I first made this edit to the ADHD controversy article, I thought that the sentence as I changed it meant the same thing as your sentence, only with fewer words. So, when you wrote this on my talk page, my reaction was "Huh? I thought both versions meant the same thing. Now he thinks I am purposely trying to censor him in order to push an agenda, which isn't my goal at all. I had better explain that I think he misunderstood my intentions."
 * I then wrote this on your talk page. I thought it would clear up the confusion so that you would understand that I made that edit in good faith and I am not trying to push any sort of agenda.
 * So when you responded, I was very surprised because I thought you knew that I wasn't trying to push any sort of agenda. My first impression of the tone was that it was condescending. I was offended that you seemed to say that I didn't know what censorship was and whether or not it was immoral. I felt like I was being accused of a crime on the level of North Korean censorship.
 * I DO NOT think this is what you intended. I am sorry for the confusion I have caused you. I do have some constructive criticism.
 * Aim for moderate language, especially when the other person may not have the same viewpoint as you. It will get your point across just as well and you have less risk of causing others to react negatively.
 * Avoid statements which categorize or accuse the other of being X or engaging in Y to avoid putting them on the defensive. Putting someone on the defensive will "close their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming." An example from one of your responses is, "until you recognize that censorship is immoral." I naturally want to defend myself and say "I already know censorship is immoral."
 * It is helpful to include "escape clauses" which will allow someone else to explain if they think you are misinterpreting what they are saying. "If I understand you correctly..." "Assuming you mean X..." etc...
 * I tried to put myself in your shoes and decided that it would be helpful for me if you clarified what your reaction was to my responses. I also look forward to any constructive criticism you have for me so that I may improve my future dialogue. Cheers! Sifaka   talk  05:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have a private conversation with you regarding the ADHD controversy page. Can you suggest how we can accomplish that
--Ss06470 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I work for a London newspaper called the Mail on Sunday. I can be reached there without too much effort. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

what's your deal?
why don't u think adhd exists?

what's your deal?
why don't u think adhd exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Restores censored information about dissent. Removes assertions of opinion as if it were fact"

"the invented complaint "ADHD"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Google it
And you will find out. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

bare helpful...(why no identifier?)

Interesting that the above incomprehensible remark ( "bare helpful")appears without any identifier of any kind. But to be more specific, if you Google "Peter Hitchens" and "ADHD" you will find along article, followed by correspondence, which explains my position. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/05/the_adhd_fantas.html is what he is no doubt referring to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprw (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Controversy
From what I can gather there's been quite a lot of blog chatter on various parts of the Internet, but bloggers discuss virtually everything and I haven't been able to find anything written by a professional writer or similar. I removed the paragraph detailing the article because there wasn't anything in the text to indicate that it had actually been particularly controversial and, at the time, didn't come up with much when I searched on Google either. Obviously you know more about the sort of response the article got than I do though. Do you want the segment to be restored or is it the inconsistency that bothers you? I don't think the Diane Abbott bit really adds anything to the article and wouldn't be bothered if it was removed. EvilRedEye (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr Eye for his response. I suppose my view is that if the Diane Abbott bit deserves to be there, then so does the rape segment. But the implication of that (for me) is that it is better to restore the rape section ( as revised by me) rather than delete the Abbot one. I'd always rather add (see below) than delete. Only a few swivel-heads on the web seriously think that I have any sympathy for the BNP (plus Diane Abbott MP,of course). But since they exist, and still spread this untruth when they can, it does no harm to feature my dismissal of this as "garbage" and a link to a blog article rebutting it in detail. Similarly, if my views on rape are being widely misrepresented ( as they are) in many places on the web, then a full summary of the argument is helpful to me. I am very reluctant to delete anything (unless actually untrue) written about me, believing that to be censorship. So, where I think it's misleading I instead edit it for greater accuracy. I took some trouble to make the rape reference accurate - so was a bit dismayed when the whole thing was almost immediately wiped. I am not sure that these days anything needs to be written by a 'professional writer' for a controversy to exist. On the contrary. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe both bits could be moved to the 'Core beliefs' section? I don't really mind, restore the article to how you left it if you want. EvilRedEye (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just have a sort of feeling that the person who made the change should do the alterations if he thinks them justified. I get enough trouble for editing my own entry as it is.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your opinion on professional wrestling?
Out of interest. Luther Hull (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth
In short, WP policy on original research means we can't rely on the claims of editors. Rather (WP:V) we have to verify claims from reliable sources. cheers, Rd232 talk 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am happy to show you her e-mail." - if you'd bothered to read the policy links above, you'd realise how absurd that sounds. To spell it out: policy requires that factual claims are sourced to reliable sources which are verifiable by virtual of being published by reputable organisations. Clear enough? PS WP:BLP policy, in case you're not familiar with that either, requires that editors "swoop" and pre-emptively remove unsourced material that may be damaging (and as noted before, it may be re-added if properly sourced). cheers, Rd232 talk 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what more can I do? The article is in fact a sourced fact ( not even a claim). Assuming good faith - as you have not done from the beginning of your dealings with me - I took it that your inability to understand this might arise fom a lack of knowledge about the terminology and rules of political journalism. To reassure you that the terminology used was normal, and that the 'spokesperson' quoted was, as I said, an official spokesperson for the Secretary of State, and the words I quoted were the spokesperson's as communicated to me via the government e-mail system, I was and remain prepared to forward you a copy of the e-mail. This is not to establish veracity, which is already clearly established in the eyes of those who understand how political journalism works ( and practically anyoe else, in my view), but to help you understand an area of life you appear not to understand. Of course, were I to assume that you just wanted to keep the information out of the entry for other reasons, I needn't bother. But, as I said, I'm assuming good faith. Isn't it time you did the same? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The DSM
Clockback - I think you will find this interesting. Mimi (yack) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth and neutrality
Thanks for your note. I'll have a little think about it and hopefully come up with something later today. I know that Wikipedia is well known for having people make political motivated edits to all sorts of articles up to and including ones on the age at death of renaissance artists, but the policy is that we should strive for neutrality as indicated by the balance of evidence given in WP:Reliable sources. As you have come out as an individual well-known for expressing political views in your public life, I suspect that there are going to be individuals watching your contributions, both to your own article and elsewhere, with malice aforethought all ready to accuse you of bias. I should therefore counsel a certain degree of caution.

That's not to say that you wouldn't be able to detect my own views from my contributions, but I have still seen fit to, for example, amend the Vernon Richards and Albert Meltzer articles to include mention of their feud even though as an activist at the time I found the constant bickering between Freedom and Black Flag annoying to say the least.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN is a well-recognised problem. And yes there are lots of silly little disputes. There's currently one going on at Arab Capital of Culture‎ where, even though the 2009 capital was clearly awarded to the Palestinians, some people are wanting to make a (WP:POINT) by placing an Israeli flag in the table of hosts in retaliation for the Arab League making their own political point in treating Jerusalem as an Arab city.


 * WP:RFC is probably the next step if things remain deadlocked on the Ainsworth page. It does strike me as curious that there is a big song and dance on whether your referencing yourself about his attending the IMG meetings coudl create a BLP issue, but the negative suggestion in the article on you about why you left the Tory party, was left without comment until I flagged it on Friday. You, of course, would have the right to demand removal of the claim in the absence of a reference to a reliable source, but I wanted to see if someone could produce a reference in the next couple of days.


 * It's good that you are aware of the dangers of conflict of interest. Of articles where I am involved, David Langford is very good at using the talk page to flag changes, while Rosalind Plowright's agent tried to remove all criticism and the Jewish Internet Defense Force regularly introduce new accounts to say how wonderful they are and remove any suggestion that they admire Meir Kahane.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rd232 talk 14:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the relevant policy on verification of identity is WP:REALNAME, which gives an email address to write to and verify that you're Hitchens. (I'm not saying you're not, but impersonation does happen and if you could send an email and put the matter to rest, it would be better.) cheers, Rd232 talk 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that this account is used by Peter Hitchens, the British journalist, as confirmed by OTRS #2009081010023961. Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nor have my opponents paid any attention to, or even acknowledged my repeated offers to reach a compromise, and if they addressed the facts I adduce and the logic I deploy it would make a nice change. Generally they simply ignore them" - pot calling kettle. But if you need my help or support then you can call on me. Mimi (yack) 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Clockback for confirming that, I really appreciate that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clockback
I hope you will take this as just a little help which is what it is. Calling other editors here opponents is poor form, we are all editors together just with different opinions about what is best for the article, you will get a better response if you stop refering to others as opponents. Also, you seem a bit focused on this, with your talents in writing and your knowledge and experiance in the political sphere there are so many other articles you could help improve. Ainsworth will take its own wikipedia time and if it doesn't get in now it will perhaps get put in later, that is how it goes here. I could accept the edit if the article was longer and more expanded as that way it wouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. I offer you my comments with respect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do like bikkies, I know we are also in a way all opponents attempting to get our point in but it is better left unsaid, it is quite funny here getting along with other editors helps in many ways. I am, over time, getting more and more neutral about this edit. I would like to see it in a citation apart from your column. Is it cited anywhere else? It is always going to be hard to get edits in that are cited from your writings, although not impossible. Actually I am starting to like that edit, something like, According to Bob Ainsworth's spokesperson he was invited to (or went with) a friend to a couple of marxist meetings in (whatever year it was) the 70's and it confirmed his views that he did not agree with those opinions and became a socialist.... there was something like this edit..and it is quite neutral and not too bad. I also agree that the fact that the article needs extending is a side issue and has no weight in whether this comment should be included, if I could be shown the comment or something like it in a cite other than yours I could support it's inclusion. If the disputed comment is inserted I will work on finding some more detail about Ainsworth to reduce the impact a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Forms of address
Clockback - when commenting specifically on anything I've written on WP, which you have this evening, please use my username. I do exist, you know precisely who I am and what gender (thanks) and ignoring me won't make it otherwise. Thanks a lot. Mimi (yack) 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ainsworth stories.
Hi Clockback, in [this link here]..you say this....

''I can recall members of the International Marxist Group yelling ‘Victory to the IRA!’ on student demonstrations. So I was interested to see stories that the latest Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, was a ‘candidate member’ (they didn’t let just anyone in) of the IMG in 1982 and 1983, when he was 30 years old, not a student''.


 * Could you please explain where you saw these stories? Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, later today lets try to close this down and get a satisfactory comment for insertion. Regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage guidelines.
As it was mentioned yesterday here is a link to talk page guidlines, Talk_page_guidelines which is a page that I need to read also. regards.Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. May I say how pleased I am that we are getting somewhere with this edit. If you are interested, I've two small comments on the entry as it is. I think it would be better without the word 'several' for which we have limited evidence, and the item referred to is a 'Mail on Sunday' blog, not a 'Daily Mail' one. You may be unimpressed by the distinction but the two papers are in fact rivals, who share a building, a library and a switchboard but have separate staffs and editors and follow their own agendas.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, cool indeed, I am also happy about the addition. To be honest I don't want it in the article, however it has been worked out and cited, written in a ok way and we have added it. With a biography of a living person we have to be especially careful. I will change the citation for you no problem, later we'll have a look at the time phrase..several. mail on sunday blog, ill have a look at corrcting that now. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford to Cambridge cycle route
Clockback - did you recently mention a cycle route on an old railway line between Oxford and Cambridge? Could I please trouble you to tell me where that can be found? I have friends in both cities and intend to visit. My children are too young to cycle on roads and by canals. I've googled and have only found routes that include roads and 'quiet lanes'. Is the one you mentioned Route 57?? If it isn't and it is too troublesome to provide a map ref then please ignore this message. Although I intend to archive my talk page and you wish me to do yours too then please say. Best regards, Mimi (yack) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing in the Peter Hitchens article
Hi Clockback. You recently added quite a big chunk to the Education section of the Peter Hitchens (PH) article. The first part (dealing with a general dilution of education and of examination standards) had references embedded within it and it was possible to edit it accordingly and make it a strong valid inclusion conforming to Wikepedia guidelines. The second part, however, (dealing with sex education) was totally free of references. Entries like this are just exacerbating the main problem with the PH article—a lack of referencing. It would help therefore if you could include at least some sources when making entries, even chapter numbers in books would be better than nothing. If there are no references available, WP:NOR becomes an issue.Jprw (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback thanks for your reply. Hopefully the referencing problems with the PH article can be gradually sorted out. I was thinking of sitting down over Xmas and including a clutch of salient references from The Broken Compass and The Abolition of Britain -- the fact that these are not referred to all in the PH article is in my view a problem. Of course, ideally, greater involvement is desirable from other editors -- in the meantime, it looks as though progress will be slow.

Re: the indexing business on the TBC page, I'm sure it will be reinstated -- I've seen one or two references to it and I need to find them.

Say it like it is
This is a good piece of writing, I am considering adding a comment to the Cameron article. Say it like it is, regards to you Clockback. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war
Clockback - I am not being hostile or unreasonable to you on the Broken Compass article or anywhere else. AGF. My right arm is in a sling and i am right handed. I'm sure it would be better for you if other editors expanded that section and made those edits. Regards Mimi (yack) 14:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mimi I can't post anything on your talk page -- nothing but a list of archives but I strongly suspect I'm missing something. Please send me any references you have. Will probably get round to doing some more editing this weekend. ThanksJprw (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits done. Just needed little time. Douglas Murray not strictly a book review but as respectd source that featured book thought ok. Mimi (yack) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clockback - yes of course your comment will be left in place as you are so clearly detirmined it should be. You are writing of a few minutes where an edit conflict occured. I was trying to be helpful but can see that I was in error. Believe me I am sorry for doing that. Kind regards, Mimi (yack) 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

K&C
I've removed it -- it's a clear example of mischief making and would have been dealt with eventually by a Wiki editor. Jprw (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

TBC reference
Hi Clockback. I'm in the process of trying to round off the work I've done on The Broken Compass article. About two months ago I edited a lenghty contribution you made there, and removed a reference to a Private Eye piece re: the index, expecting to be able to find it on the web and include it later, properly sourced. However, I have been unable to locate it -- making various searches in Google has been to no avail. I'm writing to ask if you know which issue of Private Eye it was in? I believe it was written by Craig Brown. Ideally a web link would be best. Thanks in advance and Season's Greetings. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me -- in the absence of a good Private Eye link I can refer to the Poole reference -- not ideal but better than nothing. Best, Jprw (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: A Brief History of Crime I will be glad to get round to it at some point. Actually, The Abolition of Britain was next on my list, and as I have a hard copy of that (essential for writing a proper synopsis) I'll be concentrating on that for the moment, and probably only for the time being adding a needed reviews section to A Brief History of Crime. Also, work on TBC is at present more or less over – barring any sudden late reviews in the Conservative press appearing which could be included (and which would in fact balance out the reviews section). Help from other editors would of course be most welcome but alas recently has not been forthcoming. Best, Jprw (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Craig Brown parody
Thanks for the reference. As a result of getting the title and more searching in Google was finally able to get the source which enabled me to go ahead and reference it in the TBC article.Jprw (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Brief History of Crime
Hi there, Peter. I have hopefully improved this article somewhat (certainly with regards to style), but I have a number of issues:
 * Was it released in 2003, or 2004? There seems to be some conflict as on your own entry, it is listed as 2003, but on the book's entry, it is 2004.
 * Again, the reissue on your own article is listed as 2004, but on the book's article as 2005

Since searching, I've found reviews dating from 2003, so I assume the earlier date is correct and have listed it as such.

I've also removed some of the text, so as to stop it from reading like an advert (not to suggest that this was your intention).

Unfortunately I couldn't find many reviews, bar the NS and DT reviews, neither of which were very quotable, and both of which were unduly harsh, I feel. Have you any more reviews I could add in? user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 16:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I have amended the Times reference, and Mr Jprw is going to write the synopsis, so we should have it up to a decent standard in no time. user:SE7User_talk:SE7/Special:Contributions/SE7 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I note with concern your comments re: the Rose review. I included this (as part of two negative left leaning reviews balanced by two positive right leaning reviews) but I can withdraw it if you like as in line with WP:BLP we have to be very careful with ad hominen issues. Also, I'm afraid SE7 got the wrong end of the stick re: the synopsis -- I was rather hoping he might tackle it, as I don't have a hard copy of the book (as I mentioned earlier). I'll leave a note on SE7's page about this.Jprw (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Booker book
Hi Clockback, I have created what in my view is an overdue Wikipedia page on the Christopher Booker book The Real Global Warming Disaster. However, within two minutes (literally) of creating the page an "earmarked for deletion" type banner had appeared at the top of the article. This is an ominous sign -- if supportive messages don't appear on the discussion page or if another person doesn't edit the article (preferably citing a good source) then the article may be deleted. Any support you could offer on this would be helpful. Best, Jprw (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Clockback, re: the above, alarm over -- the problem with the mediator concerned has been resolved. Jprw (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI -- see Booker controversy at the bottomJprw (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head Jprw (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New Hitchens book
I've created a new page for The Rage Against God: Why Faith is the Foundation of Civilisation.

Neural (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment's Surrender to Drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Mullin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PICTURE?
A few weeks ago I inserted a recent picture of myself, with the personal permission of the photographer and all necessary registrations with wikimedia commons etc. It has now disappeared. Who removed it? Why? How do I put it back? Peter Hitchens, signed in as clockback Clockback (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit history shows that the picture was deleted from Wikimedia Commons due to having no license. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Hitchens&diff=next&oldid=660196441). I had a look at your user page on Commons, and there is an explanation (albeit from a template) as to why it was deleted (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clockback). My knowledge of Commons is limited, so I can only suggest a re-upload with an even more careful search of the intricacies of their copyright rules. 58.7.58.183 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

==Yes, well thanks a lot for nothing much, but the picture was cleared through wikimedia, hence the filename given to it https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SidneySussex.jpg Which was helpfully deleted by the bureaucrat who pointlessly removed it. == Peter Hitchens signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Peter Hitchens because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your unhelpful message on your talk page. Clockback (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens
The talkpage is the place for discussing issues, not the article itself. Please stop adding contents about a dispute/need for help at the page, as you've done, , ,.

If you read my talkpage comment at Talk:Peter Hitchens, I've told you who looks to have deleted the image. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, be aware of WP:3RR, which says you should not revert content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Your request for help is valid at the article talkpage, but not the article itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Then stop removing it, and I won't need to. If you can't help. why not just stay away? I'm trying to attract the attention of someone helpful. I've asked  for your help. If you won't give it, please let me carry on seeking someone who will. What good do you think you are doing?   Clockback (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've told you who deleted the file, they're probably the only person who knows why it was deleted. As I haven't seen the file, this is the best help I could give. Also, nowhere on their Commons talkpage does it say they've left. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  13:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And stay off my talkpage means stay off it. I've helped as much as I can, and all you're doing is using my talkpage as a vehicle to complain. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to User talk:Joseph2302, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  14:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, you're banned from my talkpage, which means don't touch it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Your picture
Hi Peter,

I doubt you remember me, we haven't met for over fifty years - I was a classmate and friend of your brother. I remember you mainly as being amazingly good at golf.

I see you are having some trouble about a picture. I would like to help you, but I don't fully understand the problem. You did not do your cause any good by posting an all-caps complaint at the top of the article. But I have had problems with images and copyright myself, and know how the bureaucracy over images can drive one crazy. So I would like to help.

The article on you had a picture, which seemed fine to me, and is still available at Wikipedia Commons. On April 23rd you replaced it by another picture, which you (I assume) had uploaded to Commons. Later the new image, SidneySussex.jpg, was deleted from Commons, leaving a red "File:SidneySussex.jpg" text in the article. The link to the now-nonexistent image was later automatically deleted with the explanation "Removing 'SidneySussex.jpg', it has been deleted from Commons by Didym because: No license since 24 April 2015." As far as I can tell the original image was never re-instated, I don't know why; it would be easy to put it back.

I will be pleased to do what I can to help. If you want to discuss it, please reply here, or on my talk page, or privately by clicking the "Email this user" link at the left side of my user page. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find the e-mail prompt. That is very kind of you, though I must confess I have never played golf and am appalling at all sports of all kinds.so that memory must be of someone else.I absolutely do not wish to reinstate the 'original'image. I never again wish to see the the picture I removed (which was a Mail on Sunday staff photographer's picture from long ago placed there not by me (I wouldn't have known how, and would never have posted it as I disliked it so much) by someone else. Paradoxically, it endured there for years though I loathed it, and though it was quite without any kind of copyright or wikimedia approval. It was the change which attracted the attention of the bureaucrat who arbitrarily removed it. Now Nigel Luckhurst, who took the NEW Sidney Sussex picture, is very kindly, out of the goodness of his heart, going through all kinds of hoops to re-register his picture with wikimedia commons, though I have no idea if some officious person will come along and finds a full stop out of place and delete it again .This is what I would like some help with. Ensuring that the sidney sussex picture is uploaded in such a way that it is proof against any more such officiousness. I'm livid about this because there is no question that the sidney sussex picture was supplied and posted in good faith, and there are no copyright problems. If you can help, pleas,please do.Petr Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do remember that you were appalling at official sports. But there was an undersized nine-hole golf course in the school grounds, and my memory says it was you who won the golf championship every year, despite its being played with handicaps. Probably my memory is faulty after 50 years; or maybe you were the only boy who actually played golf, having discovered it was an excuse for avoiding football.
 * Official Wikipedia policy is that it is the editors who choose which of the available pictures to use, the subject's opinion is irrelevant. But many of us, I think, respect the subject's preference, as long as the preferred picture is a reasonable one (looking towards the camera, not too gimmicky). The easiest way to put a picture into your article is to get someone with a confirmed Wikipedia account (it takes ten edits and four days for a registered account to become confirmed) to take the picture and then upload it to Commons, stating that it is his own work and releasing the copyright. People without confirmed accounts can still donate images and release the copyright, but a painful amount of bureaucracy is involved, which I would not recommend to anyone.
 * I see that Nigel Luckhurst's picture has now reappeared on Commons, and a user named Sphilbrick has added it to the article. As far as I can judge (and I am have a very poor understanding of the bureaucracy at Commons) everything is now in order. I would have preferred to trim the left and right ends of the image, so as to give a better view of you, and can do this if you ask. But it is presumptuous of me to propose improving the work of a professional photographer. Maproom (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring at Peter Hitchens
You've been warned per the complaint about your edits at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I left a message at commons:User talk:Didym to see if he can advise how to get the picture back. If you need general advice you could contact User:Maproom who has posted above and is willing to assist you. Reverting the Peter Hitchens article itself is not a good idea and the next admin could block your account. Please be patient until the wheels turn. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Clockback. I work on conflict of interest (COI) issues in Wikipedia. I don't see that anyone has discussed COI in Wikipedia with you, and wanted to open that discussion. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some questions for you below.

Hello, Clockback. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments
COI has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here, and editors directly publish their work with no mediation from publishers or peer review. Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work. Please note that any kind of external relationship can lead to a risk of biased editing here in WP. Writing about yourself in WP is about the most clear COI that can exist; writing about people with whom you are in real-world disputes is also conflicted editing. Editing about your employer, or editing for pay, are yet other forms.

Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, managing COI is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

You have been very clear in disclosing that you are Peter Hitchens on your user page and on the various Talk pages where you have interacted with others. That is great.

With regard to the peer review part: we ask editors who have a COI to refrain from directly editing articles where they have a COI, and instead to make "edit requests" on the relevant article Talk page. Independent editors can then review those proposals, and if they comply with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, can then either implement the proposals or green-light the conflicted editor to directly add them. Will you please agree to refrain from directly editing articles where you have a COI going forward, and instead to use the edit request function? Thanks, and best regards. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried it and it doesn't work. You'll just have to trust me. If I restrict myself, as I have for more than a decade, to correcting errors of fact, I can't see any problem. the temptation to rewrite the whole thing in better English is immensely strong, but I have resisted it all this time and will continue to do so. I really don't see why doing this, openly, is a difficulty.Clockback (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. It is fine to make minor, uncontroversial (defined broadly) changes. Correcting a fact, correcting grammar or spelling, that sort of thing. You should never get into an edit war.  You have actually used the  in the past to request changes? Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Search me. I have idea what a template is. I have posted messages here asking for others to help sort out problems. They have not invariably been answered.
 * I added a new thing to the Talk page of the article -- it is at the bottom of the beige/mustard box at the top of the page, and says "	Individuals that have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. Click here to request corrections or suggest content, or contact us if the issue is urgent."  If you click where it says "click here" the wikipedia software sets up a new section for you with the "edit request" and if you type what you want changed in there, and save it, it will have the template on it that will notify folks you want something done.  give it a spin if you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bell (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Moore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about the above – I've fixed the link to the Charles Moore article. Maproom (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Bell (bishop), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Butler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks
for your contributions to Wikipedia and to free speech in general Govindaharihari (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How could I contact you?
Dear Peter Hitchens! How could I contact you? Хлопотин Н. В. (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Education Policy Institute
Hello Clockback,

I saw that you made a big edit on 5 December to the Education Policy Institute article. I've reverted that edit. It looks like you intended to do one thing (i.e. comment on the independance issue of EPI), but unfortunately reverted lots of other bits of information in the article. I know this because I remember spending ages reading their accounts to provide things like the financial figures and staff numbers. Along with a lot of reference tidying up, all that information got removed by your edit.

As a suggestion, you might prefer to edit specific parts of the article. That way it's a lot easier for other editors to track and contribute on. I find that most of Wikipedia editing is incremental. I actually delete quite a lot myself when I edit Wikipedia, but it tends to be very specific. Seaweed (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not'commenting' on anything. You are censoring the truth. I am simply ensuring that important independently-available facts( see my link, which in turn links to the sources for this) ) are included in the entry. Clockback (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not my intention to censor anything, but let's not have an disagreement over a few words. As an Wikipedia editor I'm only interested in building in an encyclopedia, which by definition must be neutral among other things. In fact, the only reason I ever edited the EPI article is that I had ended up working my way through loads of UK "think tanks" in an effort to remove all the hyperbole and bombast that most of them have, usually added (I suspect) by the organisations themselves. One thing I especially like about Wikipedia is that it's a place of "flat", basic information about things. I'm the kind of pedant who adds the company registration number of EPI to its Wikipedia page. I do that to assist people to carry on in their own research if they so wish. Incidentally you might like to read the What Wikipedia is not article.


 * I can see that the reference you've added to EPI about the Liberal Democrats links back to your own blog. That feels a bit weird and sounds like conflict of interest to me, but I'm not sure. I'm going to assume good faith on your part and leave that Lib Dem information. By the way, I've tidied up the format of the reference. You might want to read the guidance on citing sources. To be fair, it is a bit of steep learning curve. Also, I think the visual editor makes it easier to cite sources, although I still edit the old fashioned way.Seaweed (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

July 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at George Bell (bishop), you may be blocked from editing. Charles (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify; you are also free to reject my position entirely and request an unblock regardless of WP:NOR. I just suggest you'll have the most luck if you follow my advice here. --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yamla (talk) does not appear to be listening to what I am saying. The other editor on this entry does not own it.But he acts as if he does. I made several attempts to reach a compromise with him which he ignored. How else, apart form drawing the attention of other editors, am I supposed to get an impartial review of the matter? Why should I be indefinitely blocked for this? Nothing I placed in the entry was untrue. It was designed to illustrate the absurdity of the entry as it wa, and the need or changes, as I made c;ear on the talk page, though then other contributor made no response. The other user removed earlier edits which were entirely uncontentious. Look at the history.Why don't you have anything to say to the other editor?
 * I have looked at the history, and agree with Yamla; your edits were inappropriate in the extreme. Unless you can write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone (very different to the journalistic tone for which you are noted) your contributions are not going to be welcomed. You may also want to read WP:NOTTHEM, which explains why pointing out other users' perceived wrongdoings is a surefire way to remain blocked. Yunshui 雲 水 15:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyone would think that I had used swearwords, insulted the other contributor, or told lies. As I keep trying to make clear, I am happy to compromise on the entry if only the other user willenterinto discussions. he just ignores and reverts me. Yunshui User talk:Yunshui)
 * You can sign your comments by using four ~ characters, by the way. --Yamla (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know.****

Comment on the block
I believe that an indefinite block is excessive.

Yes, has repeatedly added editorialising material to George Bell (bishop). To do so was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. He was warned, once, for this; and added it once more. That warrants a block, but IMHO not an indefinite block.

He has discussed the issue, extensively, at the article's talk page. He has been civil throughout. He has declared that he is seeking to compromise.

I hope that the admins involved will consider replacing the block by a shorter one; and that if they do, Clockback will learn from it. Maproom (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any edits that come close to meeting Wikipedia policy? Even the ones that don't contain editorialising, violate WP:COI. Every one I have reviewed thus far is to a subject connected with the user's admitted real-world identity. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Clockback will learn from it His unblock request doesn't show the slightest sign he's learned anything at all, so I fail to share your faith that he's somehow going to automatically learn going forward. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * He has declared that he is seeking to compromise You mean like the bit where he no one agrees with him and he goes and makes the changes anyways? That's a strange new meaning of "compromise" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A scalpel, not a bludgeon
In my view, the situation requires a scalpel, not a bludgeon. In my view, Mr. Hitchens was trying to improve the (rather shoddy) section on child abuse allegations, but may have gone a bit overboard. I have rewrote/rephrased the section. Mr. Hitchens can peruse it here. I cannot guarantee that this will gain consensus, but it tries to address his concerns while staying within Wikipedia guidelines. Does he think that this rewrite substantially addresses his concerns? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 03:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC) I am most grateful for these intelligent and thoughtful efforts. They do not wholly satisfy my own estimate of the case, but I think they are an acceptable compromise, of the sort I was seeking from the start. Peter Hitchens, signed in asClockback (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not know his identity when I blocked. The clincher for me was the edit adding that the complaint might as well have been made to the fire brigade or Tesco. That’s not even remotely appropriate. And it’s representative. He edits like a Daily Mail columnist. It would be exactly as bad if he edited like a Daily Mirror columnist. Guy (Help!) 06:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Actually, the statement is entirely true, and I am unsure of the reasoins for his maidenly shock at the mention of the Fire Brigade and Tesco. Anyone would think, from my being marched off in chains for this, that I had inserted chunks of the writings of the Marquis de Sade. It is not obscene, or insulting, or in any way objectionable, and is a correct statement of the true legal position.  But as he well knows, it was placed there, after other persuasions had failed,  to bring impartial editors into the matter to resolve a conflict of more than two years. I am a columnist for the Mail on Sunday. Our editing standards are very high and extremely professional.  Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this section focused on whether Clockwork is satisfied enough with the rewrite, shall we? The other matters can be discussed in other sections on this talkpage. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Other editors may not be aware that Peter Hitchens has a great conflict of interest on this subject, having long promoted Bishop Bell as some kind of Anglican saint. He spoke on behalf of Bell on one of the BBC's "Great Lives" series. In my opinion he should not be directly editing the article at all.
 * He has repeated removed sections of text that are verifiable from reliable sources and important to the story, just because they do not suit his view of Bell. When stopped from doing this he has insisted of adding rants rather than balancing content. A topic ban could be the way forward here?Charles (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Please see my detailed riposte to this vindictive and censorious suggestion below . Peter Hitchens, signed as Clockback (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback, writes: I don't regard George bell as a saint, but i do think he is a rare and powerful example, in our time, of selfless courage, and it would be a pity to lose such an example on the basis of unproven allegations. Here’s how old this dispute is, and also how unwikipedian my principal critic and opponent has been. Please see the segments on ‘POV flag in Child abuse section’ and  ‘Pruning the Child Abuse Section’, earlier on,  on the George Bell talk Page, to which I am currently absurdly denied access:

See this contribution on 'Talk' by me in February 2016, more than two years ago (from ‘Pruning’ and by no means my first attempt to reason this matter) : 'If we are pruning, rather than just spitefully removing things with which we disagree because of our personal prejudices, then let's prune the evidentially worthless sections about how the police were not called to investigate the actions of a dead man (why would they be? The alleged crime was in the far past and the suspect, being no longer alive, was beyond prosecution, to assist which is their only function. You might as well say that the fire brigade or the coastguard or the Home Guard or the Spanish Inquisition weren't called) and how the police later said they would have arrested a dead man if he had been alive (so what? An arrest is proof of nothing even when a live person is arrested, and the police in any case had no business naming the notionally arrested person. They aren't allowed to do this when the arrestee is alive). Similarly, the stuff about the 'experts', unnamed, their expertise undisclosed, their independence unproven, finding 'no reason to doubt' the claim is of no evidential value either. The reason to doubt any claim of criminal acts against anybody does not need finding, if one is in England at the time. It is called the presumption of innocence. If they couldn't even find that, then their other attempts to find reason to doubt must have been pretty laughable too. If we're truly pruning for strict relevance, this worthless, prejudicial flannel should go, pronto.The fact that it is not clear what the Bishop of Chichester apologised for (and has, significantly, never been disclosed) should be added, if this apology is to be mentioned. Is 'pre-litigation process' accurate? Surely an out-of-court settlement of a claim against the Church is a more accurate description. No case of any kind against George Bell himself was ever conducted. Nor did anyone in this process represent his interests. The letter from the former Choirboys is significant in that it represents a contribution to the discussion from several named living people, entirely disinterested, corroborated by each other, who actually remember George Bell, and whose knowledge of him is beyond dispute, as a result of their known duties at the time. The only other such direct material comes from the alleged victim, an unnamed person who.in an uncorroborated statement, is recalling incidents when she was five years old. Peter Hitchens Clockback (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I reproduce the following contribution because it reveals, from his own computer, that ‘Charles’ and ‘CharkesDrakeW’ are one and the same person, which is important for reasons I mention below:

‘I am User:Charlesdrakew not "Mr Drake" and I do not have a "side". I am merely trying to bring this section more in line with wikipedian policy of reporting verifiable fact rather than unverifiable opinion and editorialising. The spoutings of professional loudmouths who have no way of knowing what may or may not have happened in Bell's private life come in the latter category. This whole article is about Bell, not about church politics and reactions to them. That belongs in another article.Charles (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)’

Note also that ‘Charles’ and/or ‘CharlesDrakeW’ is far from civil, referring to defenders of George Bell(and so presumably me, prominent among them) as ‘professional loudmouths’, which is hardly polite, civilised, eirenic or wikipedian behaviour.

Then note that in the segment on POV ‘CharlesDrakeW (presumably at that time still the same person as our current friend Charles, who has been needlessly personally rude to me above and now calls vigorously for me to be punished for my alleged failure to be a civilised wikipedian) writes :

‘This section seems to give undue weight to the unverifiable opinions of various right wing and establishment commentators. It takes up more space than the actual story. It looks like a whitewash job, which demeans Wikipedia. Should this be pruned?Charles (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)’

I have no idea who this person is. Unlike me, he does not clearly reveal his identity (I do this everywhere on the web so that people need be in no doubt who they are dealing with, and what my views and interests are, and judge the value of what I say accordingly. I do not pretend to be impartial, do not claim to be so or think that I am, and understand that others may view my contributions as partial, and rightly so. That is how we struggle towards the truth. As is clear from the George Bell talk page, I hung back form direct intervention in the hope that others would sort this out. ). But Charles plainly thinks, in this contribution, that the expression ‘right wing’ is axiomatically pejorative. Well, he is welcome to that point of view. But by expressing it he reveals he does ‘have a side’, is himself of the left, perhaps the source of his obvious hostility towards me, and has a point of view too. Worse, he is unaware of it and does not declare it openly. I personally find the use of the term ‘whitewash’, applied to my efforts to get justice (all I seek))for Bishop Bell, as most objectionable. I felt it reasonable, at this stage, to rebuke him for his behaviour, firmly but politely at the time. The rebuke is still on the talk page.

But as I believe strongly in free speech for my opponents, I did not seek to have Charles blocked or otherwise punished, a rather strong contrast to his wholly unjustified behaviour towards me. He does not own the Bishop Bell entry, and is going to have to get used to the fact that others have views on how it should be edited, which he should respect. When i come here to argue for changes in the entry, I do not speak only for myself. I am more than happy for others to produce a compromise between our views, welcome the intervention of KingsIndian, and I have no desire to have my opponent blocked. I do think the editor who has blocked me has failed to exercise his considerable powers (where does he get them from?) with judgement or caution, and has pronounced sentence without reading the evidence. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Clockback. I read your statement above, and have a few comments. I am not an admin, just a normal editor who is somewhat versed in the confusing Wikipedia bureaucracy.

First, if I understand correctly, you are largely satisfied with my rewrite, or at least think it is a step in the right direction? I will proceed on this assumption. I will try to neutralize some of the emotional words used in this discussion, just to de-escalate and focus on content, and comment on how this situation could have been handled better.

It's been more than half a year since the Carlile report came out, so you found the section largely written on the basis of older sources to be misleading. There were several points you raised. Let me concentrate on the most serious one:

The issue of the Sussex police saying that if Bell had been alive, he would have been arrested. The Carlile report criticizes this action by the police, and says that Bell would likely not have been arrested, and even using the word "arrest" led the Church of England authorities to infer guilt. Now, how to resolve this issue? There are two ways, broadly speaking. One is what you took, simply removing the police statement. However, on Wikipedia, the typical practice is to use WP:PRESERVE -- it's usually easier to add rather than remove stuff. Also, removing stuff can rub people the wrong way, because it can smack of "censorship" and "whitewashing". I am not endorsing these claims, just noting the reasoning. The approach I took in my rewrite is to simply juxtapose the police statement with the comments by Lord Carlile. The reader can make up their own mind, and it is likely to lead to less heartburn among editors. Perhaps this approach is "good enough". If you feel that it's not good enough, let me know; I can try using an WP:RfC to settle the matter one way or another.

As I try to make clear, there are valid points to all sides here. All it required is some work to bridge the gaps. According to the talkpage, an editor proposed a general outline last December, but didn't find the time to follow through. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am content with this for now. I expect future events (the resolution of the second supposed allegation against Bell, now being investigated at the pace of an arthritic snail) to require further major revisions, and, if I had total control over the entry (which I do not seek or expect)  it would be very different.   In fact the article's coverage of the Carlile Report itself (which is devastating to the accusations against Bishop Bell) is very weak - there was not even a link to it until I inserted one a few days ago. The 'arrest' issue became urgent two years ago when the entry was substantially reduced. All kinds of things were removed, including the fact that the (radical left-wing) clergyman Giles Fraser was among those protesting against the presumption of Bell's guilt, a fact which wholly undermines the suggestion from 'Charles' n that this is some sort of right-wing establishment cover-up.  If brevity was truly required, it seemed to me that the highly contentious and frankly misleading discussion of the police role could go. The alternative would be to balance it with a thorough explanation of why the arrest claim was false, why it had no legal significance and how the police had been dragged into it. In fact, the complainant makes it clear (the Carlile report shows this) that her complaint was a civil one against the Church, not a criminal one against a dead bishop.  The police *had* no role. They *have* subsequently admitted that they were cozened into getting involved by the C of E. I have referenced material for all of this, but it would involve acres. I would favour  a description which said, accurately that the complainant went first to Bishop Kemp, and was offered counselling, then redoubled her complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who ensured her case was taken up, and that there was then a confidential out-of-court settlement of her claim out of court, in which nobody at all represented the interests of the accused man, and basic tasks, such as checking facts and looking for living witnesses, were not undertaken.  That is, in fact, all that all that happened before the controversy. The Church then decided to announce what it had done, and chose to put a  great deal of spin on it, with a statement which suggested Bell's guilt without stating ut, using the untrue 'arrest' claim as a principal buttress of that. I cannot tell you how many people, including Oxbridge graduates, said to me in the first few miserable months that 'Surely the fact that the police said they would have arrested him means there was a serious case against Bishop Bell'. That is how effective it was.  I have probably shortened my life in the efforts involved in overcoming this carefully-confected smear, and trying to clean up the filthy emess it has made.   All of us now live in danger of being destroyed by this sort of thing, alas. Wikipedia should not help such things to happen. If you really want to know about this, then the Carlile Report, my long blog article 'Murder in the Cathedral' and the original Bell Group report are all more accurate and valid than the largely lazy and incurious newspaper reports at the time, which assumed Bell's guilt without justification.  But it's a saga of Tolstoyan length. Many of its details are deeply damaging to the church . We can't possibly put them all in. But why then leave in, of all things,  this claim, demonstrated later to be quite false? Beats me. Peter Hitchens, signed in asClockback (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not at any time urged that you be blocked, only warned of that possibility. When you are in a hole it is usually best to stop digging.Charles (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No? What, then, do the words 'A topic ban could be the way forward here?' mean? Is a topic ban not a block? He'll have to explain the difference. This editor 'Charles' also sometimes 'Charkesdrakew', while using unpleasant pejorative language such as 'loudmouth' and 'whitewash' without official rebuke, and never at any stage responding to my suggestions of compromise on the Talk page, has used his bureaucratic power and greater knowledge of Wikipedia procedures to have me more or less silenced anywhere except in this small corner.  Shockingly, supposedly impartial Wikipedia editors, without offering me any chance to defend myself, accepted his suggestions. If I defend myself with any vigour I am tutted at and told to get my mind right, and incorrectly told that I have departed from fact when I have never done so, though I did on occasion attempt the use of humour, which I now realise to have been a bad mistake here. I am genuinely sorry that I assumed Wikipedia editors had senses of humour, and can promise that i will not do so again. In the meantime, we are in Wonderland: Sentence before verdict,verdict before evidence. No trial, the prosecutor active in his own cause, and the accused denied (by a block) almost any means of self defence.  This appears to be a totalitarian state. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If I might add another perspective to the issue (as an outsider, who knew almost nothing of the matter till a few days ago). The block has mostly served its purpose of preventing disruption. It stopped the edit-warring, and resulted in a rewrite which largely satisfies all parties to the matter. As I said above, the compromise was not hard to find; it just required a bit of work. Perhaps the block can now be lifted, or reduced from an indefinite one to a time-limited one. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Block review for Clockback". Thank you. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Alas, this discussion has now been closed (by whom? on what authority?) Perhaps too many people were in favour of unlocking me, I am not sure. This again is typical of the Wikipedia despotism. It has no conception of due process. How can you close a trial half way through? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Clockback. Please see the section at the bottom of this article. The admin who closed the section is simply asking for your confirmation that you understand the situation and would like to see the block review re-opened. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 08:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Clockback. If you have any comments on the block review, you can write them here, and I (or someone else watching this page) can transfer the comments to the WP:AN thread. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you: I will address the issues involved as soon as it is clear that I am in a forum where I know I am to be given a fair hearing and a chance to defend myself in front of an impartial tribunal, rather than punished without trial and so prevented from mounting a proper defence by being muzzled everywhere on Wikipedia except here by a closed club of pseudonymous humourless, self-appointed judges who grandly style themselves 'editors' and award each other medals. Most users of Wikipedia face huge barriers in trying to make good faith edits to entries which are guarded by determined and partisan persons. Wikipedia offers minimal (in my view no) guidance on how to seek help in such disputes. I am not prepared to beg this secret tribunal for forgiveness. I did what I did to obtain the involvement of an impartial referee in a dispute in which my (abusive) opponent (who seeks to have me banned from this topic) was utterly uninterested in compromise and did not reply to me on the talk page. I gave warning of what I planned to do, and it attracted no attention. It was only when I acted that a) wrath descended and b) the dispute was fixed. How does wikipedia expect people to behave if this is its practical reality? Why so swift to muzzle and punish, so slow to help, O Wikipedia Editors? Peter Hitchens, logged in asClockback (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to quote here the contribution to the discussion of the block by 'Charles' (Also 'CharkesDrakeW' on some occasions. There is no doubt they are the same person).

He says : 'I have suggested a topic ban as an alternative to a full block, but as Clockback is effectively a single issue editor he might not regard that as an improvement. Assuming this is Peter Hitchens, which I have no reason to doubt, he is too closely involved with the subject to edit without conflict of interest. Hitchens has long been a leading member of the Bishop Bell fan club and rants about it in his Mail blog. While Bell is long dead the women who complained is alive and deserves respect. I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell. It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory.Charles (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)'

If 'Charles' cares to look, he will see that my personal link with the sign-on 'Clockback' has been confirmed by me according to Wikipedia protocols. There is no need to raise any question about the matter. My involvement in the Bell case is wholly disinterested. I have never met George Bell, am not related to him, I am not paid by him or his family. I took up this case because it seemed to me that an injustice had been done. I don't wish to boast, but merely offer this comparison for an example. Would Emile Zola have been disqualified from any role in the Wikipedia entry on the Dreyfus case, had there been a Wikipedia at the time, especially if he had intervened ( as I have done) cautiously and with referenced fact to back up my edits? ? Please note the hostile and pejorative use of the derisive term 'rants' to describe my writings about the subject. I also note his derisive use of the term 'George Bell fan club' to describe a group which includes Frank Field MP, Lord Lexden, several prominent churchmen and women, and a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, a distinguished QC and a retired judge. It has attracted support from both left and right, and from different wings of the C of E, including from the Very Revd Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Revd Giles Fraser. It is quite nonpartisan.

How 'Charles' can portray himself as a disinterested or impartial editor while behaving in this fashion (or how his claims to be such can be accepted ) I have no idea. I remain amused that this behaviour goes unnoticed and unrebuked, whereas my actions get me blocked *indefinitely*. This behaviour by'Charles' is of a piece with his abusive and ad hominem use of the term 'loudmouths' and his insulting use of the term 'whitewash' to describe efforts to clear the name of an unjustly pilloried person. I am not a single-issue editor, as it happens, but I do have a special and close interest in the Bell case, and ( as most of my fellow-campaigners for justice for Bishop Bell are even older and fustier and unskilled in the use of computers than I am), it has fallen to me to try to get the entry to try to reflect the considerable efforts of that campaign, and indeed its success, in overcoming the original mistaken and unjust presumption of guilt. I have always been very careful in doing so, because I understand that some people might think my intervention improper. I have only ever done so when it was clear to me that important changes needed to be made, and that nobody else would do them if I did not. I have explained myself fully on the Talk page and always been open to compromise.

'Charles' informs us: 'I have modified Kingsindian's rewrite slightly so that it does not look as if the Carlisle review is a vindication of Bell'. He then asserts:'It is not, being entirely neutral and criticising the church's treatment of both the complainant and Bell's memory'. This causes me to doubt if 'Charles' has read the Carlile report, or, as I have done, spoken to Lord Carlile about it. He cannot even spell its author's name correctly. It is a devastating rebuke to the church and the Sussex Police, and a demolition of the case against George Bell. It still amazes me that it forms such a small part of the Wikipedia entry, and that there was not, until I recently added it, even a direct link to it there. Lord Carlile said to me on the record at his press conference that he would not, were he a prosecutor in the case, have expected to secure a conviction of Bell on the evidence which he has seen (and he has seen it all). As Lord Carlile was specifically prevented, by his terms of reference, from ruling directly on the issue, this was as close as he could come to it. Charles says 'the women who complained is alive and deserves respect'. Why does he say this? I know of no occasion on which I have not shown respect to the claimant. I have never doubted that her accusation was sincere, and have never uttered a pejorative word about her, nor sought to insert anything uncomplimentary to her in the entry. Nor would I. Nor would any member of the group seeking justice for Bishop Bell. So what is the purpose of this sentence in this intervention by 'Charles'? This is about the Church, and the police, and those parts of the media which were beguiled by them, and always has been. Surely an alert and fair editor would be aware of this? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd better respond to the various claims of 'conflict of interest' now being added on to the Kangaroo charges against me. I am probably the only living person in a position to know my father's actual function aboard HMS Jamaica in December 1943, and so perhaps nobody else could have removed the rather embarrassing claim (which my father and my brother would have hated) that my late father was in command of that fine cruiser at the time. As far as I can remember it was Captain Hughes-Hallett RN.  The mistake arose from a misunderstanding of the Naval Rank 'Commander', which does not mean 'Commander of a Ship' (though some Commanders do command ships) . But if this is to be damned as 'conflict of interest', where are we? Nobody without such a 'COI' could have corrected this mistake. Should it then have been left uncorrected? Bizarre. I don't believe any such rule can be, or is consistently applied. As for my supposed crime in writing:' "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco', every word in it is absolutely true. But the qualification is only necessary because of the insistence by 'Charles' - who utterly refused to discuss the matter and who is emerging in this discussion as a thoroughly partisan and POV person on the subject of George Bell (would a topic ban be appropriate, do we think?), in retaining the pointless section on the non-calling of the police. One could likewise write, of this current dispute  that the United Nations Security Council were not called in. But anyone who understood or knew anything about anything would not write that, and any editor of any sense would remove it. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a topic ban be appropriate for 'Charles/ CharlesDrakeW' ?
I feel it is now necessary to address the behaviour of 'Charles', and were I not blocked, I would do so. I have noted here 1: His refusal to engage with me on the Talk pages except to allege COI against me. 2. His repeated use of pejorative and hostile terminology directed at me and my associates ' loudmouth', 'whitewash', 'rant' and ''Bishop Bell fan club'. I think this amounts to a clear declaration of hostile bias on the subject under discussion.made worse, in my view, by the fact that (unlike me) his real identity is not declared and we cannot know what his interest in the issue may be, whereas mine is quite open and undisguised. . Those who are so anxious to condemn me (in some cases plainly because I work for the Mail on Sunday and because of who I am rather than because of what I have said or done) are now aware of the behaviour of 'Charles' and cannot therefore ignore it. By their own standards, is this really acceptable? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A novel approach
Have you tried admitting you were wrong? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How would you know whether I was or not? You just presume it without examining the facts. And why shouldn't you, as there's no justice or due process in this procedure, you may do what you want without consequence. i don't even know who you are.   I doubt you could even give an accurate account of the dispute, if you were asked to do so without access to the files.  Like other wikicrats you have assumed I am in the wrong without studying the facts at all, because you dont have to justify your decision to any higher authority.  Have *you* tried considering the possibility that you might be mistaken? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Mate I'm not in charge here, I didn't make any decision to block, I have no powers whatsoever. Consider it advice, it's not about whether or not you are correct about George Bell, they just don't want people making edits that have to be reverted. There are certainly other ways of getting disinterested parties to assist in an editing compromise. Common sense, logged in as Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then, they shoulkd so something about personally abusive openly partial editors who obdurately revert reasonable edits, and refuse to discuss the matter or  or compromise. Then people wont feel the need to commit such dreadful sins as to write truthful satirical qualifications into the article, because, unamended (and I had tried to amend it) it was a very silly article. It remains the case, however, that the edits were absolutely true and factual. I still cannot see why they caused such maidenly outrage, like a Victorian great aunt fleeing from a mouse, emitting shrieks as she does so. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Community review
Hi, Clockback! Can you confirm that you've read my comments at User talk:Kingsindian and understand the implications of letting the community review the block? As I've said there, you have the right to re-appeal this block to a new administrator as many times as you want, and you should not mistake this block for a permanent one. All that is required for an indefinite block to be overturned is a suitable unblock request. The guide to appealing blocks literally tells you how to submit a successful unblock request on Wikipedia&mdash;block appeals are not something that are arbitrarily reviewed based on mere whims. We're willing to work with you here, but there are certain boxes we need to tick when reviewing any unblock request. This process is quite clearly spelled out in the guide. Virtually no user who does as the guide instructs will remain blocked. So, you are not being kicked off of Wikipedia. You just need to address the concerns that led to the block, and again, just see the guide for specifics.

There is currently a community consensus to endorse the block. When the community endorses a block, it is the community who becomes responsible for it, and it is considered a community ban outside of the jurisdiction of administrators, and you can only re-appeal the block to the community. Per standard practice, you usually have to wait a minimum of six months before the community will entertain another unblock request. The only thing standing in the way of this result is time. "Due consideration" is required, and in my assessment, not enough time has elapsed for this to be considered a "community block". If the discussion is reopened, it will likely be reclosed as a "community block", and your current ability to negotiate an unblock will be off the table. Note that the comments from your supporters who found out about the discussion are not taken into consideration, per WP:CANVASS. So, it is unlikely that another 24 hours will result in the consensus changing. I'd advise against it. However, if you understand the possibility that the community will endorse the block and you will be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community, I will reopen the discussion. S warm  ♠  07:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have read these comments and the above. What none of these self-appointed judges seems to grasp is that I believe in, and wish to submit the case to, due process, in which I am presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, rather than punished without anyone ever asking me to defend myself. I am under no moral obligation to accept the arbitrary verdicts of people who have not, as far as I can see, made any effort to study the matter. One was so anxious to condemn me that he became enraged that I had described, on my own wikipedia biography page, my own efforts to sabotage my own education, which is neither an unwarranted attack ( as he seemed to think), because I had done it to myself,, nor self-praise. I think it rather admirably objective, myself. Amusingly, when my would-be punishers *did* discover who I was, (not that this is in any way a secret, and in my view would have emerged within seconds had anyone made any proper attempt to study the matter) that they began a lengthy trawl through my record to look for other reasons to ban me, and the obligatory shocked mentions of 'The Mail'(horror!) began to appear. I do not believe that a proper consideration (rather than the instant, thought-free condemnation to which I have been subjected) would condemn me. I have been blocked (actually as a direct result of appealing for help) following a good faith attempt to break a logjam caused (in my view) by a hostile and badly-behaved editor (who has used terms such as 'loudmouth', 'whitewash' and 'rant' to describe me and my actions) and who has revealed a strong partisan hostility to the subject of the article under discussion (jeering at George Bell's serious and well-qualified defenders, ranging from The Revd Giles Fraser, a man of the non-establishment left, and a dissident Labour MP (Frank Field) to a Tory peer, none of them members of any establishment, as 'right wing and establishment commentators' (as if 'right-wing' were axiomatically bad, clearly marking him as partisan himself)  and as the 'George Bell Fan Club' and most recently insinuating untruly that they have been or are disrespectful to Bishop Bell's accuser). He has done this over a period of years without rebuke, basks in the glory of a platinum award for the quality of his editing and will, so far, emerge from this process untouched and still able to edit the page from which I am banned. He has most recently refused offers of compromise from me on the talk page by the subtle and courteous method of ignoring them. His only response was to accuse me of a non-existent conflict of interest. For unskilled computer users such as I am, Wikipedia is a maze, its processes arcane and hard to discover. If anyone thinks that I seriously expected the remarks about the fire brigade and Tesco to endure as part of the entry, he needs his sense of humour examined. I was satirising the nonsense in the entry so as to bring about a necessary revision. Even so, what I say is perfectly true. The police, in England, have no statutory role in the investigation of alleged crimes committed by the deceased. The complainant, as any one who reads the Carlile report can see, raised the matter in 1995 with the clear intention of making a civil claim against the Church of England. The police themselves have admitted, in response to my official complaint, that the C of E sought their involvement. This was clearly not for purposes of prosecution, as none was possible, but to add weight to their decision to presume George Bell's guilt, a presumption torn to shreds by the Carlile report. The entry did not reflect this truth, and actually obscured it. I had hoped others would fix this. they said they would, but didn't, so I stepped in, after two years of pleading had met with no response. If this gets me banned from Wikipedia forever, someone else will eventually do the work that I sought to do, and I will be shown to have been in the right. Why I should be banned for that, I have no idea. A fair trial, please. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, Wikipedia does not believe in punishment. Your statements appear to be a reaction to what you perceive as being punished, but that is not the case at all. If administration and/or the community believed you would no longer violate policy, you would be resumed allowed to edit. The blocking is completely a protective measure. The initial block was certainly excessive and highly contestable, and your woefully inadequate actions to appeal are great reason for Wikipedia to have some sort of public defender in place, particularly your Twitter actions urging effectively a fabrication of community consensus. Onetwothreeip, signed in as Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait until you find yourself unjustly and arbitrarily blocked before telling someone who has been arbitrarily and unjustly blocked that it is not a punishment. 'The butterfly upon the road preaches contentment to the toad'. As for 'policy' Anyone with half a wit to rub together, who actually bothers to study the matter (none of my judges has actually read the material, so far as I can see) can see that I was simply trying to unblock an impasse, caused by an obdurate editor uninterested in compromise( a common obstacle on Wikipedia),  and explicitly seeking the help of others to do so. It was my plea for help which caused me to be blocked. If I had been trying to make some stealthy illegitimate edits to the article, I would hardly have made such an appeal. The edits which are regarded with such maidenly horror were plainly light-hearted and satirical, and not intended to stand. I long ago declared here that the changes made by KingsIndian, though not ideal in my view, were an acceptable compromise which I have supported . My openly partial opponent, whose interest and involvement in the issue appears to be at least as great as mine, has not (we have no idea who he is and what his interest might be. whereas my involvement is at all times wholly transparent), he has not accepted them. He has shown this by continuing to make his own alterations , and remains free to make more, while I, being punished, am powerless to do so even if new information emerges about the case). He is the source of the problem. *Nothing* happens to him, while I am censored on Wikipedia as a whole and muzzled in any attempts at self-defence, being able to defend myself only in this small corner, where nobody who does not wish to read my words will ever see them. To the extent that my personal politics matter (which I suspect they do, to my attackers, quite a lot), I believe in punishment *after* due process. I am utterly opposed to it without such due process.

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So if you are unblocked, would you intend on making any more satirical edits which you did not intend for to stand? It's not that we didn't find it funny, I certainly found it an amusing comment, it's just not encyclopaedic. I wonder if you do want to continue editing or if this is for publicity. If the latter, I must inform you that this is far from the most dramatic and lengthy reaction to a blocking that I've seen. You can compare your experience to being held in remand indefinitely, but the aim is certainly not to punish. Onetwothreeip, logged in as Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I'll repeat what you seem not to have noticed. I have accepted KingsIndian's compromise. My rude, obdurate, openly biased opponent, whose petulant and inflexible behaviour caused this whole episode, has not and continues to insert his declared bias into the George Bell article. Yet I am the one being blocked and pursued with blackmailing demands ('Get your mind right or you'll stay blocked!!! Careful how you address us mighty ones - we can block you forever if we want to!!!') for self-abasement to which no self-respecting person would accede. If I again encounter obdurate, biased and insulting editors who refuse compromise and repeatedly revert legitimate changes, refuse to engage in discussion or even consider compromise and go unrestrained, and indeed garlanded with Platinum medals,by Wikipedia's in-house police force, who is to say what I might do to solve the problem? I appealed for help, and got blocked. I repeat. I appealed for help, and got blocked. You're not interested in doing anything about that, so I might just have to. It's plain that Wikipedia is not interested in helping occasional contributors navigate its complex processes, and sides instead with its own, however badly they behave. I'd prefer to continue editing, but if Wikipedia's self-selecting elite want to make fools of themselves with this sort of humourless heavy-handed censorship of good-faith contributors, I see no reason to take it lying down. If Wikipedia had a procedure for fair trial before blocking,  instead of a rush to judgement and arbitrary power without the slightest effort to ascertain or understand the problem (as here), and if it were not a closed club of pals who back each other against outsiders, then the problem wouldn't arise.  I can't even know your real name, but you can ban me! Even the People's Republic of China isn't so ludicrously unaccountable. I am simply not the wrongdoer in this case. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip, you can stop poking the bear here. Discuss at the WP:AN thread if you like. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm doing the opposite of poking, I can assure. I don't believe they are able to edit the AN page so I've asked them here in an attempt to clear the issues for them. Clockback is clearly not adept at Wikipedia's policies and principles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's the point, if you think you might make Tesco fire brigade edits in the future, that's all the reason they have to continue the block, to prevent that happening. There is no "case" or anything about George Bell, it's just whether or not you would make disruptive edits. It's not about sending someone to the naughty corner. Red China though, that's a good laugh. Onetwothreeip, logged in as Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweetie, you're just not listening. Just ask your Platinum-medal-bearing fellow Wikicrat 'Charles', would you, if he proposes to stop insulting other editors as 'loudmouths', accusing them of 'whitewash' and 'rants', adopting openly biased positions on the subject matter of the article he is editing, refusing to discuss compromises on the talk page, and repeatedly reverting legitimate edits without explanation. If he's going to stop doing that, then the danger of me making harmless satirical jokes in the article will be greatly reduced. If not, I really can't offer any such guarantee.  Do you see now, the utter unfairness of your approach? You pursue the one who acts mildly in self-defence, and leave untouched the one whose frankly indefensible actions actually caused the trouble. If you ignore this point *yet again* in your next message, you may consider this exchange closed. I haven't limitless time to waste on unresponsive pseudonymous persons. Peter Hitchens, logged in as  Clockback (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said I wasn't an administrator. I'm not pursuing you, I'm just explaining how this works. I thought an indefinite block was too much. I don't know what you want me to do about Charles but I'll say explicitly that I acknowledge what you have said. You could be entirely correct on everything you've said, it doesn't change the problem that you might be continuing to make the kind of edits you're reputed to have made if you weren't blocked. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Then so be it. The procedure is wholly unjust, and defies any concept of due process. It ought to be challenged. I was blocked indefinitely, an absurd over-reaction to a legitimate bit of mild mischief entirely explained and justified by the appalling behaviour of the unpunished 'Charles' and, since this happened, 'administrators' (I do wonder why)  have been combing the internet looking for reasons to justify this preposterously excessive action retroactively. The whole business is like Kafka without the jokes. Whatever your involvement, you can choose between po-faced humourless injustice or reasonable open-minded justice. Doesn't seem hard to me. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A response to a critic:. Here is one of the attacks on me on the review page by someone called Jytdog: 'Thanks for your response. The general issue, and then the specific one.

The general point on COI: COI guideline says that -- with a few exceptions -- conflicted editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. I believe that this notion has fairly broad and deep consensus (there are very vocal dissenters, of course). There is good reason for this guidance and the consensus behind it. When conflicted editors edit directly, they tend to add bad content and tend to behave badly trying to retain it -- edit warring and making tendentious arguments to keep it. Accepting the restraints of the COI management system spares everybody that drama, grounded on an acknowledgement by everybody involved, that a conflict of interest is present, and needs management. As a last general matter: I acknowledge that there are cases of glaring COI editing. WP is shot through with garbage content along with good and like any human institution has flaws and hypocrisy in its administration along with good. But I am somewhat dismayed to see you, whom I respect, making an othershitexists argument. Now to the specifics: What I tried to emphasize in my vote, is that with Clockback we have someone who is a pundit in the real world who is a) treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms and not engaging with the mission of WP and the ways the community has developed to realize it and b) editing about themselves and the issues they punditize about in their RW platforms. The latter is where the formal COI is, but the former is the deeper problem, which the COI only exacerbates. The block log says Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures. In my view that aptly summarizes Clockback's entire career here in WP. It summarizes a) above, and b) above helps explain why Clockback behaves this way. Many people have a hard time seeing the mission clearly and engaging with it and the ways we realize it; conflict of interest makes it yet harder yet for people to clearly see what we do here (and hard to not see WP as a soapbox/platform for promotion). Someone whose real world occupation is writing their opinions will have a very hard time. We should not unblock Clockback until he shows some glimmer of self-awareness about how incorrect his approach to WP has been. (and btw, expressing self-awareness is not "grovelling"; that is, sadly, how many tendentious, indefinitely blocked editors frame this essential part of the community reconciliation process.) I'll add that I trust Guy's instincts a great deal. Not perfectly, and I have been on the wrong end of him shooting from the hip. But he has a great sense of whether somebody is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia or not, and understands that good faith is not a suicide pact. He indefs perhaps quicker than most admins. I have breathed a sigh of relief after many, many of his indefs. A question I will turn back to you: What evidence do you have that Clockback understands or even cares about a) our mission to create an encyclopedia with articles summarizing accepted knowledge, working in a community of pseudonymous editors, and b) the way the community realizes the mission -- namely by placing authority in reliable sources, not on the opinions or claimed expertise of any editor, and striving to summmarize those sources neutrally? Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)'

Well, where to begin? I appear now to be on trial for actions many years ago, and for my supposed attitude, though the actual block was my punishment for being foolish enough to ask formally for editorial help in a dispute with 'Charles' who still goes unrebuked for calling me a 'loudmouth', and accusing me of 'rants' 'whitewash' and equally unrebuked for repeatedly ignoring my talk page requests for discussion and his autocratic, unexplained reversions of my explained and well-justified changes, for which I had been arguing on the talk page for more than *two years*. I should have thought my long-stretched patience with him, and my readiness to compromise show clearly that I *do* try to abide by the encyclopaedic spirit. Instead of help I got an *indefinite* block, which cannot possibly, in my view, have followed proper consideration of a dispute that had actually been simmering for more than two years. Perhaps Judge Dredd here has a toothache or an ingrowing toenail, which make his temper short. The fact that I am a newspaper columnist ('someone who is a pundit in the real world')is alleged against me, thus : I am 'treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms '.On the first, I freely admit that many years ago, I foolishly attempted to edit the page on 'Attention Deficit Disorder;' so that it reflected the considerable disagreements on the subject and the grave scientific weakness of the case for 'ADD' and its treatment with amphetamines. I may, it is true, have lost patience from time to time. I have learned since then that entries on such issues (and even on less contentious matters too) have guardians who will not allow them to be altered and who have the barrack-room lawyer's close knowledge of the regulations which makes them impossible to fight without an army of supporters and limitless time. I have neither. I learned from this, mainly not to trust any Wikipedia entries on issues of current controversy. But also not to bother. To bring these ancient scuffles up as evidence in this case is plainly absurd. Likewise the ridiculous suggestions that I am seeking to advance my own cause in factual edits to my Wikipedia biography or my late brother's. Oh, honestly. Hilariously, before Judge Block realised who I was he was consumed with fury at me for having described *myself* as having 'sabotaged my own education', in the belief that this was a malicious, destructive edit. Well, he can't have it both ways. It *would* be a malicious edit if an anonymous person who was not me did it. But precisely because I did it, it cannot be. Doesn't this show, that by including material critical of myself in my own biography, that I am not self-seeking here?

I have a strong belief that most of the faults of the internet are caused by anonymity, and so never hide behind it. I decided, as far as I can recall, from the first that I would say exactly who I was on Wikipedia, as I do everywhere else. If I did not do this, most of the allegations of supposed COI could not be made, because nobody would know. But the implication, that I am so stupid that I cannot tell an encyclopaedia entry from a newspaper column, or vice versa, and that I think I could or should get away with interfering in entries which concern me in a way that suits my case, *while using my own name* is rather insulting. I am just not that thick. Actually almost all my edits on these sites have been tiny factual matters where editors have just git it wrong, and I know from direct personal knowledge that they have. I can't really see that this is a serious breach.

The George Bell case is, I agree, wholly different. My involvement in it is wholly disinterested, in that I am not a relative of, or a friend of George Bell, or in any way obligated to him personally. It is, however, true, that I have been prominent in a campaign to get justice for him in this case of alleged child abuse. When I say justice, I mean precisely that. If a proper fair tribunal finds him guilty as charged, I shall accept it. If it does not, and there has so far been no such tribunal, then I shall continue to demand that public bodies, newspapers etc treat him as if he is innocent of these charges, as is proper under English law. I understand perfectly that some people will view my involvement in the Wikipedia entry as questionable. That is why I have used the talk page to encourage others to make edits which I regard as essential if the George Bell page is to be accurate. For good or ill I am one of the people who is best-informed about it, and I do not see why i should kepe that knowledge udner a bushel, when i could sue it to ensure a more accurate entry. This would have been a lot easier in the absence of the abusive, unresponsive, uncompromising  and openly partisan editor 'Charles'( who as well as calling me a 'loudmouth', describing my work as 'rants', characterising my efforts to get justice for an unfairly condemned man as a 'whitewash', describing a nonpartisan campaign containing many powerless people. the Revd Giles Fraser,  and some other notable left-wingers as 'right-wing' and ' establishment'  sneered at a disinterested and highly serious group of people ranging from members of the Chichester cathedral congregation, a group of former choirboys at that cathedral, a former chaplain of George Bell (and decorated naval veteran of World War Two) who, though dying, yet gave testimony in his favour, the daughter of a victim of Hitler helped by Bell, several distinguished academics, a retired judge, a QC and a dissident Labour MP to the former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the Dean of Christ Church as 'The George Bell Fan Club'). I have been most restrained in my interventions. I wish others would take on the task, but most of those involved in the Bell campaign and so knowledgeable enough to do so, have even weaker computer skills than I do, many are even older, and it was left to me. The satirical edit for which I am condemned (though every word of it was true) was never intended to stand, but it was intended to break the deadlock caused by the obduracy of 'Charles'. So it did. But my formal appeal for help got me ....blocked. That'll encourage the others. Well and good, that was a risk I suppose I ran. But it was clearly a ludicrous and hasty over-reaction, and people should stop making up retrospective reasons for it. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Block review closed
I have closed the review of your block. It seems clear that the broader community as a whole endorses both the original block and the recent revocation of talk page access. As was discussed earlier, this means that this is now a community-imposed block and only a future community discussion can lift it, so your current UTRS appeal is going to be declined as invalid. You may still use UTRS to appeal the talk page revocation, but I would advise you to wait some time, at least six months, before doing so.

I would also advise you not to engage in canvassing in the future as this hurt rather than helped your appeal this time around. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)