Talk:Christopher Hitchens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Christopher Hitchens is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1 (From the article's creation to March 07)
/Archive 2 (Archive for discussions which do not focus on the article in question)
/Archive 3 (The alcohol debates)
/Archive 4 (Resolved issues, March 07 to date)

Contents

[edit] Does this sentence make sense?

"Hitchens regarded the employment of nuclear weapons as the compulsory enlistment of civilians in a war and, as such, a violation of individual sovereignty.[citation needed]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.203.254 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be deployment not employment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.57.97 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Wall Street Journal...•˚˚

I disagree that Christopher Hitchens's work has appeared regularly'Bold text' in Wall Street Journal. perhaps it should say appears in a diversified set of newspapers and journals including Wall Street Journal? He is not a regular type w.r.t. WSJ. That stuff needs better wording? do you people think so? Chreader (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚

You left a note on my talk page about tagging this article with weasel words, but you apparently didn't link it to your page. No. 1: That is not particularly helpful. No. 2: I don't think I did tag it. No. 3: The article is nonetheless chock full of them, especially in the "opinions" section. There are lots of "Hitchens thinks" and "what Hitchens sees as", which meets the definition of weasel words. There are also lots of unreferenced statements. So, while I did not make the complaint, I agree with it. Treybien 12:03 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

Couldn't find the Ref2 file, but here's an interivew

Ok, that may have been true... but now it is "way" too... um... not extensive... I used to check this page for good links to his work, and while there were a bunch of links that only went to a single piece of his, there were two links that pointed to sites that had updated links to his work... Hitchens Web and Hitchens Zone I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.159.93 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EL section

The external links sections is way too extensive. See WP:EL for some guidelines and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture of Hitchens

Could someone find a better picture of Christopher Hitchens to have on his main page? I much preferred the picture that was on last year, which, I believe, was one of his professional head shots. I'm sure the only problem with this is getting the file accepted by Wikipedia's copyright policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle Leo (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Got an image off flickr. It's still fairly bad, but better than it was IMHO. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's much better than the previous picture. --Uncle Leo 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The new picture is significantly better than the previous. In that other picture, Hitch looked like he had just run the quarter mile after drinking half-a-pint of Scotch. He looked awful. ---Cathal 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antitheism and Catholicism not neutral

In my view, the Antitheism section is biased. It places far too much weight on one religion only (Catholicism), when he has attacked all religions. It contains several paragraphs of quoted criticism and calls him a bigot twice (contrast this with the single sentence under "honours"). Nothing in the section puts his side, or the side of secularism or unreligion in general. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he has been attacked for being anti-Catholic more so than being attacked for being specifically anti-any other religion (this is OR). I'll try to trim it down though. JoshuaZ 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a crack at it myself. I rewrote the lead to make it clear that he attacks all religions, but has most often spoken about Judeo-Christian ones. I kept Donohue's accusation but trimmed it down, as it doesn't seem expansive enough for a sub-section. dharmabum 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This version has stood for a couple days (outside of a revert by a clear vandal), and I'm of the opinion it's quite neutral and non-committal. I'm a fan of Hitchens in general, but also raised Catholic and don't always agree with him, and I do think he sometimes is a little hard on the Catholic church. I don't want to remove the tag myself, as it was mostly my revision and would prefer someone completely uninterested in both Hitchens and Catholicism to to remove it. I'd just like to point out that NPOV tags, when left too long, can generate more problems than solutions. dharmabum 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good youtube clip [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffBurdges (talk • contribs)

His position is anti-theism, or pro-reason. I agree, it suggests too much of the importance of Catholicism to suggest it worthy of particular vitrol on his part. 70.178.154.145 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Good for what? Can you explain the possible relevance? And, would you please discuss the matter here on the talk page before you delete large sections of the text? The section you deleted was accurate and referenced. I have restored it. Please give a good reason here before you delete it again. Thanks. ---Cathal 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I never deleted anything, I merged the religion sections, you re-created now duplicate text. There was a legitimate critisism that the Anti-theism section was biased against the subject. It was clear that merging the religion part of the personal section would largely solve this. And there was no obvious reason to keep that particular text in personal since it concerned opinions that he talks about professionally. The youtube clip shows his opinions in context and helps banace the anti-catholic accusations. You should re-delete that Religion subsection in personal. It's not really personal, the referencing code appears slightly broken, and the same text now appears elsewhere in the article. JeffBurdges 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
well, I suppose it is reasonable to say what a persons religion in in their personal section.  :) But the referencing code still seems broken. And it's still needed elsewhere for balance. JeffBurdges 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Opium use

I have deleted this allegation once again. An "extraordinary claim" of this sort requires, by Wikipedia standards, "extraordinary sources." If you can find another, and more reliable source, feel free to put it back. ---Cathal 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we put in something about how he hates everything? I just read his NYtimes review of the last Harry Potter book, and man he just seems like a patently unhappy guy. Or maybe he is just one of those folks who stays happy by bringing all the things that make other people happy down. Either way, I think he possesses a good mind and has never put it to good use for the benefit of society. Frankly, he disgusts me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.33.178.95 (talk • contribs)
I feel your pain, but no; see WP:NPOV. --Allen 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone who has to struggle every single day of his life with alcoholic hangover must be "a patently unhappy guy". I think he is a pig, but I share some of his pain: to live with someone like him is horrible. 201.29.178.246 23:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should all read his book Letters to a Young Contrarion. That should give you an idea as to Hitchens' outlook on life. As for his drinking, well... many of the worlds greatest and most influential people were avid users of some form of drug. User:Aequitas12345

' many of the worlds greatest ... people were avid users of some form of drug.'

Many of the world's most repellant people too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.202.32 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External ref

There was a good interview in The Times recently that I briefly tried to add to the wrong ref list and couldn't find 'ref 2' - does someone want to add it?

'Man v God' - (The Times) interview in response to Hitchens' book 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'

There's a wiki page for the book so you may want to change the Amazon link. Miamomimi 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents?

I seem to recall that this talk page had a table of contents at the top. What happened to it? ---Cathal 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where it went, I'll see if I can track down a template. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
It's back. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
However, after forcing the creation of a TOC, it has, on its own accord, created four false sections (i.e., the do not, and have not, appeared on this page): 1 Requests; 2 Clean-Up; 3 To Expand; and 4 Translate to English. I don't know what that's about, but... a slightly screwed up TOC is better than no TOC at all... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC))
I went back through the history for the past week, and find no indication of its having been deleted, unless I simply missed it. I am glad that it is back, as it amkes page navigation so much easier. Strange, though, as you say, that these false headings now exist for sections that do not. ---Cathal 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Catholic

Who keeps tryng to make him come off as anti-catholic by burrying all the other anti-religious comments he makes? They just keep disapearing from his antitheism section. JeffBurdges 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter

Can we add some time frame regarding his feud with his brother, when it started, and when it was resolved?M. Frederick 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The time frame can be found in Peter Hitchens' article here Miamomimi 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-Leaning Thinkers and the Euston Manifesto

This paragraph may be slightly suspect. For a start, calling Julie Burchill a left-leaning 'thinker' is rather dubious if highly amusing, you'd struggle to find many people who would regard Julie as a thinker, she's an absurd newspaper columnist and a bigot who spends her time spewing out bile against famous celebrities and various other individuals and nations, races, etc, whom she has a problem with. She claimed to still be a Communist (a Stalinist, no less) while declaring her support for Thatcherism, and she claimed this wasn't a contradiction. She isn't an intellectual by any stretch and isn't considered as such, she's a just a provocative newspaper columnist, if she is to be regarded as a 'thinker', then so should Carole Malone, Tony Parsons, Brian Reade, etc, and nobody in their right mind would describe those people as thinkers. It would be better if the paragraph describes these writers as left-leaning 'commentators' rather then thinkers, 'thinkers' implies intellectuals and calling Julie a 'thinker' is laughable, and I'm not entirely sure some of the people on the list would regard themselves as intellectuals as such. Besides, if I remember rightly, I read somewhere that Julie Burchill was added to the Euston Manifesto by a blogger as a joke, until recently anybody could be added to the Euston signatories by anyone, hence Dafyd Duck (ie. Daffy Duck) is in there, and numerous other fake names, I'm 99% certain that I read that a blogger has admitted to adding Burchill's name himself. Additionally, including Francis Wheen may be slightly dubious also. Wheen is a Euston signatory, but that does not automatically imply support of the Iraq War (one or two signatories do not support it, I believe) and the only statement by Wheen I have seen on the subject was when specifically asked whether he was in favour of the war and he replied "Maybe, sort of, perhaps just a little". That's hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the Iraq War, and listing him here as a supporter of the war with no qualifications or details of his views is possibly a serious misrepresentation of Wheen. Unless there is a realible source somewhere where he states plainly that he actually supports the war rather than supporting it "perhaps just a little", his name shouldn't be on there. MarkB79 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, having checked the Euston website, Burchill is supposed to have signed the manifesto with the following message: "Because I believe in democracy for all - not just for white people, as the opponents of the war in Iraq appear to." Now if Burchill actually wrote that, and she honestly believes that opponents of the Iraq war are motivated by racism, she's an even bigger idiot that I previously imagined but she almost certainly did not write it, even she does not possess the hypocrisy or the gall to say that, unless she's deliberately out to wind people up and shock as usual, but excelling herself on this occasion. It's almost certainly a joke, she's well known for her many openly racist statements about Arabs over the years, most notably celebrating the deaths of Lebanonese civilians in the early 80's and calling them "just smelly Arabs, of no importance". The message is almost certainly a knowing joke added by somebody all too familiar with Burchill's history of anti-Arab racism. Unless somebody has a reliable source stating that Burchill did actually sign the manifesto (in person, on its launch perhaps like Cohen, Aaronovitch and so on), her name should be removed, as I say I am certain that I read months back that a blogger who had added various spoof names to the manifesto had confessed to adding Burchill's name, I'm even more convinced that her signature is fradulent now after reading her supposed message. As for the rest of the supposed signatories, they include Buzz Lappin (ie. Bugs Bunny), Dafyd Mallard (ie. Daffy Duck, not quite as obvious then as I suggested above), Ern Malley (the infamous Australian literary hoax), and Miles Davis, apparently. I hadn't noticed Miles had signed up previously. Nobody should really be using the online list of signatories as a reliable source for Wikipedia, anybody can add virtually any name they like to it. MarkB79 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well having done some more research it seems Burchill is a Euston signatory and does apparently think anybody who opposes the Iraq war is a racist (unlike people like Burchill who call civilian casualties "smelly arabs of no importance", I presume), so I underestimated her capacity for absurdity and hypocrisy. Regardless, she isn't a 'thinker', and unless people have strong evidence otherwise, Wheen has not declared himself to be a firm supporter of the Iraq war, so I would like to make those changes if no one objects. MarkB79 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What Burchill is referring to is that liberals, by opposing the Iraq war, are (in her view) effectively saying they are willing for Iraqis to live under a dictatorship - when they (the white liberals) would not accept that for themselves - and so she is arguing that white liberals are taking a racist position. Its a deliberate provocation, but that is her stock in trade. cheers Gavin 155.136.80.163 12:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand the point that Burchill is making and know only too well her infantile habit of saying things for shock value and to be provocative. But her 'argument' here is ridiculously simple-minded and an absurd and revolting smear against any number of people who thought the issue through carefully and opposed the war on Iraq for quite genuine reasons (and bear in mind that Burchill's argument could be turned around and used against her - might it not be her who has a racist disregard for the multitude of lives lost and ruined by the invasion?). Here we have allegations of anti-Arab racism made against anti-war commentators for supposedly seeking to deny Arabs democracy made by a woman who regards dead Arab civilians as "smelly" and of "no importance" and who calls that well known Democrat Joseph Stalin her hero and says she still approves of Soviet communism (and none of this is her idea of being provocative for the sake of it - she is an open anti-Arab racist and she has written at length of her admiration for Stalinism). If you were suggesting that much of what Burchill writes is purely for shock value and not to be taken seriously then I'd agree, but these are seemingly serious defamatory comments about a very serious issue which demonstrate probably the most absurd and profound hypocrisy I've ever encountered. How a racist Stalinist qualifies as a suitable member of the Euston group is mystifying. MarkB79 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a lot of text to write over a minor point. If it's simply about this sentence, "This informal grouping includes Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Norman Geras, Julie Burchill, and Michael Ignatieff (see Euston Manifesto).[citation needed]", then I think it could just be removed because it's uncited and not particularly important. Either that, or list the others referred to in the cites I just gave. <<-armon->> 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is an awful lot of text and I apologise for that, I didn't intend to turn the talk page into a debate about Julie Burchill, but I initially thought I should clearly justify the changes I made (removing Wheen and changing the wording of that paragraph, which was POV and slightly silly calling Burchill a "thinker"). I'm not concerned if you remove the sentence but I think it does actually serve some purpose in that it gives an example of Hitchens present 'comrades' and his current line of thinking but it's not all that important. I didn't add the citation tag, those people on there are Euston signatories but nobody has bothered sourcing it. If it stays, Burchill should probably be removed entirely and replaced with some vaguely important intellectual or political commentator. However feel free to remove it entirely if you wish. MarkB79 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK well the Euston Manifesto looks notable and deserves a mention, but I guess the question is why these particular signatories. Are they generally considered the "core group"? <<-armon->> 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who should really be thought of as the "core group" but there were five individuals who launched the Euston Manifesto and if I remember rightly, Nick Cohen and Norman Geras (who are mentioned in that paragraph on here) were among them. I forget the others (it certainly wasn't Aaronovitch or Burchill). A quick look at the Euston Manifesto website should provide the facts, I don't really have the time to look at it now but will do so when I get the chance if nobody else does so beforehand. There may however be other high-profile signatories who may be closely involved in the group and might be worthy of mention. I removed Francis Wheen because, as I said above, he may be a Euston signatory but he has sat on the fence regarding the Iraq War. Burchill, frankly, is not worthy of mention at all, she's a bigoted gossip columnist, not a serious political commentator. MarkB79 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Any objection to using the "liberal hawks" described in the cites I gave? Pretty sure that leaves Burchill out anyway ;) <<-armon->> 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection the use of "liberal hawks", since "liberal" is how the Eustonites describe themselves, it's more accurate than "socialist" for instance. They do identify themsleves as "liberal" and "left". However it should probably be made clear that this is a British group which Hitchens associates with - Americans can sign the manifesto and some Americans have (though only members of the public I think), American neo-cons have generally refused to sign it. William Kristol for instance applauded the manifesto but refused to sign it himself because he did not agree with the liberal ideology in the document, such as commitments to the welfare state and so on. As for Burchill, she regards herself as liberal even though she also says she's a Stalinist, just as back in the 80's she said they was no contradiction in her supporting Thatcherism while still being a Stalinist communist. These are some of the reasons why I say she isn't a serious political commentator and she shouldn't really be there! MarkB79 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic New Stateman's article

Here is a historical article of Christopher Hitchens which aptly demonstrates his tendency for independent thinking: ( http://www.newstatesman.com/200707050056 ). It was just republished by the New Stateman because of its historical interest. --CGM1980 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In a piece written for The New Statesman in 1976, Hitchens appeared to praise Saddam Hussein as "perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser." He went on to add: "The Kurds now have a very attenuated version of autonomy, and former members of the Barzani armed forces are being moved to the South. At least, however, Iraq constitutionally recognises that she is a partly Kurdish state, which is more than Iran or Turkey do. Further tests for the regime lie ahead. The quarrel with Syria, which involves differences over Ba’athist ideology as well as a dispute over Syrian damming of the Euphrates river, has now extended to the Lebanon, where Syrian troops have attacked newspapers and buildings controlled by Iraqi-sympathising Palestinians. Relations with Iran are still far from cordial. In response to requests for criticism in the party press, some demands were raised for a constituent assembly, and other complaints voiced about the tightness of the regime. All these remain to be acted on, and as the situation grows more complicated Saddam Hussain will rise more clearly to the top. Make a note of the name. Iraq has been strengthened internally by the construction of a ‘strategic pipeline’ which connects the Gulf to the northern fields for the first time. She has been strengthened externally by her support for revolutionary causes and by the resources she can deploy. It may not be electrification plus Soviet power, but the combination of oil and ‘Arab socialism’ is hardly less powerful."[2]

I removed the section as such additions are controversial and potentially libelous. I want to do some independent checking of the source. Per the biographies of living persons policy, please do not reinsert this until it is properly vetted. VanTucky (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By reading the comments, it seems the newspaper is against the war in Iraq, and therefore likely to insult supporters of the war as it isnt what I would call a good newspaper by the looks of this. Is there a link to the actual arcived article?10max01 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The above meets the requirements of BLP as the New Statesman (see its Wikipedia article) is a reputable source and the information is completely sourced to that reputable source. I am going to re-add a version of the above unless someone can say specifically why, in citing BLP policy directly, why it is inappropriate. VanTucky's claims that it isn't "properly vetted" are completely out of place as the information is published in a reputable source, the same source that published the original piece. --CGM1980 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As to the BLP issue, I am sternly reminding CGM that this is a very strict policy, and re-adding controversial information (whether cited or not) before consensus on its appropriateness is reached is way out of line.
It seems that Hitchens does not in fact, have "a more admiring view of the Iraqi dictator" in the article. This is an inappropriate usage of what constitutes a political hit on Hitchens. What he does say is that it is a younger, more powerful, more oil-rich nation than it was before and that it will emerge as a new Arab powerhouse state. But he doesn't "admire" Saddam or his regime, and in fact takes time to point out that part of the reason it is so successful is because it completely crushed Kurdish opposition or any other kind of legitimate political opposition. I quoth,

"In their different crusades, both Iraq and Iran take a distinctly unsentimental line on internal opposition. Ba’ath party spokesmen, when questioned about the lack of public dissent, will point to efforts made by the party press to stimulate criticism of revolutionary shortcomings. True enough, there are such efforts, but they fall rather short of permitting any organised opposition. The argument then moves to the claim, which is often made in Iraq, that the country is surrounded by enemies and attacked by imperialist intrigue. Somewhere in the collision between Baghdad and Teheran on this point, the Kurdish nationalists met a very painful end."

. So he isn't championing the regime, but warning people. VanTucky (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
BLP is not about controversial material, and it does not give you the ability to block material from an article just by consistently raising objections to it even if they are invalid. You said above that it needs to be properly vetted, but it was a reliable source. Please do not bully me, but rather let's as you begin below that comment to do, work on the content. You are free to clean up the wording, but outright removal is inappropriate as this is a content dispute rather than a BLP dispute. --CGM1980 20:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Users are directly admonished to immediately remove potentially libelous material and keep it out. Saying that Hitchens was a supporter of Saddam is certainly something libelous. It needs to be discussed before simply sticking it in again. I'm not bullying you, I'm objecting to what is possibly libelous content. It's not just having a source, it's having a reliable, independent source. Taking the editorializing about Hitchen's work from the New Statesman, an admittedly biased publication, is not reliable or neutral. VanTucky (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not libelous because first of all its true, and second he wasn't the only one to do it back then. You are making this into a bigger deal that it is. A bunch of back then thought it was cool to support Saddam. Also Runsfield meet with Saddam as well in the mid-1980s. Saddam, if you read your history books, didn't get absolutely horrible until the 1980s, and especially the late 1980s. Right now I don't see it saying he was a supporter and you are free to change the wording. There is no need to just revert war trying to remove it outright. Every publication has its biases, but we need to keep from editorializing and we need to stick closely to sources. I don't think the current version is really that great, context is missing, but it isn't a massive BLP violation either. --CGM1980 20:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is opinionated as you two both agree. Therefore, no matter how reliable the source is it doesnt matter, as either way you cannot say if he was for or against it, as it will be a POV.10max01 20:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We should stick close to sources as possible to capture his own views. It can be POV in presentation and then let's address that. --CGM1980 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could put something like according to The New Stateman, in 1976 he wrote an article supporting the regime.10max01 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits and additions that I feel give it a more balanced viewpoint. We don't take the New Statesman's word for it that it's more admiring, but we don't ignore his praise of the regime either. I'll be adding a more clear quote of his positive comments towards the regime. VanTucky (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, everyone seems to have missed the fact that the paper only printed selected portions ("Selected by Robert Taylor") that supported their point. This is such trash. VanTucky (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not miss that which is why I asked for a link to the exact article, archived. Your edits seem fine. Unfortunately for Christopher Hitchens, he wrote for them.10max01 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the section to the more appropriate "Opinions" section. VanTucky (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. I looked on google for the original article and could not find it. and forgot to sign my last post.10max01 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "defiantly pointed" -> just "pointed"

I removed the word "defiantly" in the description of Hitchens' stance concerning the quality of information leading up to the most recent Iraqi invasion. This term is loaded with too much connotation (petulant, insolent, recalcitrant, and rebellious are just a few of the synonyms listed on dictionary.com, all conjuring the image of a stubborn child) for an encyclopedic entry. I'm asserting here that it's a very mild case of noncompliance with the NPOV policy, but we should strive especially with controversial figures to stick to this policy. In other words, he may actually be defiantly pointing out these things, but rather than describe the action with colorful words, let's let the reader infer them based on a non-loaded description of the act itself. Severoon 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acerbic Wit

"He is noted for his acerbic wit" Who noted this? when and where? I'm sure there is a reference to be found to back it up, but someone will have to find it - shouldn't be too hard. Benson85 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Related to that, I'm not sure I agree - reading the Wiki page on it - that Hitchens is an iconoclast. In God Is Not Great he spends a large portion of his time praising the cultural value of religious structures; on a radio broadcast on the Daily Mayo, he noted that the Bible should be studied for artistic reasons, noting how important it was to English culture (You couldn't read Milton at all). He speaks in God Is Not Great of the horror he saw at the destruction of the buddha statues in the 90s and so on.

Why is there no criticism of Hitchens offered here? What happened to links that are critical both of the person and of his views? Please, let us not get in the business of hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.252.4 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, it could be I'm tired and don't know what Iconoclasm actually means. It certainly sounds like 'the destruction of icons'.
I believe PZ Meyers has, at multiple times, referred to Hitchens as a witty man. He's also called him a beligerrent drunk, if I remember correctly. Alas, not in a position to check. --210.193.160.161 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

That Hitchens had social contacts with David Irving was not a new revelation; Hitchens described them in one of the essays reprinted in "Love, Poverty and War". Also, the social contacts as described constitute something less than "friendship." The deleted section needs to be overhauled in order to be merely accurate. Whether it's germane to the article is another question. St. Jimmy 17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anti-fascism?

Where do we get that Hitchens is known for anti-fascism? He may be known for arguing that radical Islam is fascist, and for opposing radical Islam, but I think that's different from what most people mean by "anti-fascism", or active opposition to acknowledged fascists like Neo-Nazis. --Allen 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, during the Dutch cartoon crisis, he did chant from the steps: "Solidarity with Denmark, death to fascism," and has routinely compared Islam to fascism. I am going to guess, given the rest of the terms he uses to describe Islam, that he doesn't mean it in this case as a compliment. --210.193.160.161 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views on Buddhism

Hitchens reportedly said in an interview in the last couple of days that since writing God is Not Great he has changed his views on Buddhism due to a conversation with Sam Harris, and he will extensively change whatever he previously wrote on the subject in his book when it is revised. I can't find this interview and having not read Hitchens' book I don't know what his original views were, nor do I know what his new point of view is. I would assume Hitchens would take a dim view of Buddhism in his book (although he may have had less objections to it than other religions bearing in mind it does not advocate belief in God) but Harris appears to have both praised and criticised different aspects of Buddhism, so it's not entirely obvious whether Harris will have given Hitchens a better or worse view of the religion. If someone knows the details of this and has a source, it might be worth giving it a brief mention in the article under anti-theism. Additionally it might be worth mentioning that Hitchens has also reportedly said that he will alter a passage on Jewish sexual relations in which he unwittingly gave credence to an anti-semitic myth. MarkB79 01:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To give you a rough summary, Hitchens' stance on Buddhism is that, like all other forms of religion, it has the core tenant of abdicating personal responsibility and societal responsibility, and simply forwarding all the important questions upward. Therefore, while it is one of the lesser forms of the poison, it nonetheless does the same thing.
He noted in an interview on the Daily Mayo that all religion is toxic at its fundamentals, but religions individually displayed different traits and were not necessarily all equal in their vices. He sends his daughter to a methodist school if I recall correctly, and his comparison was: "I'm not saying the society of friends is the same as the Mahdi Army."
In the book, he wrote much about eastern religiosity and Hinduism and so on, ("There is no Eastern Solution"), but I remember little about Buddhism as much as I remember details about the Dalai Lama being a real creep. I haven't the book on hand right now, or I'd check. --210.193.160.161 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a little look at 'God is Not Great' and it seems that Hitchens blames buddhism in general for the pro-war Nichiren factions in 1930s Japan. He also essentially calls the Dalai Lama a 'feudal lord' (true enough, in the past), though he mitigates this by praising some aspects of the Dalai Lama's character. Hitchens doesn't seem to have grasped too many Buddhist concepts, so if he has refined his views it's more likely that he's become more sympathetic to Buddhism. 81.129.46.56 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Hitchens' views on Buddhism sound more or less what I expected them to be, I was aware he has extensively criticised the Dalai Lama's rule of Tibet (bit surprised though that he has actually praised the current Lama personally, seems rather out of character for Hitchens). It seems to me more likely that Hitchens will have gained a more favourable view of Buddhism from talking to Harris, Harris' main criticism of the religion is of its more extreme supernatural claims (he says some Buddhist claims make the Virgin Birth sound plausible by comparison), and it's hard to imagine that Hitchens would not already have shared that view, even if he knows relatively little about them. Harris has suggested that unless some meaningful scientific evidence for any of the metaphysical claims of Buddhism comes to light (such as reincarnation) one should largely disregard them while arguing that the religion has a philosphy and practices (such as meditation, reflection on the nature of self and reality, etc.) that may be genuinely useful, healthy and enlightening (in contrast to Christianity and Islam, which Harris seems to dismiss as nothing but highly dangerous gibberish). Harris seems to feel that Buddhism has potential as some kind of athiest spirituality and his ideas could well appeal to Hitchens I suppose. Of course, I could be wrong, perhaps it's simply that Harris informed Hitchens of some of the stranger claims of Buddhism and has in fact given him a worse view of the religion, but this strikes me as unlikely, I think it's more probable that Hitchens may find Harris' idea of Buddhism having potential as a useful spiritual practice not requring any belief in God appealing. If I can find a source for this interview and discover exactly what it is that Hitchens has said I think it would be appropriate to make a brief mention in the article that he has altered his views on Buddhism, if only to inform readers who have read is book of this, since the passages in God Is Not Great apparently no longer represent Hitchens views on the matter. I've had no luck finding the interview so far however, so perhaps it might be easier to just wait until the revised edition of Hitchens' book comes out and see what he says. MarkB79 19:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. We've got to be able to cite it in any case. <<-armon->> 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I found that interview you guys are talking about http://www.powells.com/interviews/christopherhitchens.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelaughingman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. It actually seems from that interview that Hitchens hasn't substantially changed his views on Buddhism but seems to imply that he thinks he might do when he speaks to Harris again. That is not what was suggested on the blogs I read, which seem to have been rather misleading. Judging by that interview, I think it's better to wait for the updated version of Hitchens' book to come out before putting anything in the article about Hitchens' views on Buddhism. MarkB79 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV appearances

I've blanked this because it was gossipy, appeared to suffer from WP:RECENT, and is sourced to primary sources (transcripts of the actual programs). I think what we need to find is some outside sources commenting on his TV appearances in order to establish which were actually notable. <<-armon->> 09:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton impeachment ignored?

Hitchens' main disagreements with the political Left started over the impeachment of Clinton. He was one of the few leftists or liberals to support the Republican Congress in the impeachment trial, going so far as testifying against Sidney Blumenthal (an action which arguably led to Alexander Cockburn's initial split). Hitchens' main argument at the time was that Clinton deserved to be impeached, though for the bombing of Sudan and other war-related issues rather than for the lying under oath; however the Republican impeachment was the only one likely to happen, and it led to the same outcome. The current article reduces all of his disagreement with the Left to an argument over Islam and September 11, when in fact Hitchens was already arguably moving away from the left in the late 90s for totally different reasons. If nobody is inclined to fix this, I will do it myself, but it will entail a substantial reformatting of the article (which is far too heavily focused on "Islamofascism" and such). Sxp151 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, however, the ultimate test for inclusion is whether reliable, published sources verify that this is his first "break with the left". Otherwise it would be original research. If you can find some reliable sources that call his position exactly that, then it might be good to add. VanTucky Talk 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are some articles on his break.
This is a short memoir-type article from a former friend. http://citypages.com/databank/24/1179/article11370.asp
This is from a socialist organization. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/hitc-f13.shtml
These are comments to the Nation about Hitchens from 1999. http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990315/letters
This is Alexander Cockburn's famous denunciation of Hitchens. http://www.counterpunch.org/snitch.html
This is Sidney Blumenthal's memoir-type article about the incident. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/09/blumenthal5/index.html?pn=1
Hope this helps. Sxp151 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek og English wikipedia ?

What does this mean ? "Hitchens regarded the employment of nuclear weapons as the compulsory enlistment of civilians in a war and, as such, a violation of individual sovereignty"--Ezzex (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons do not discriminate between fighters and civilians. Unless the phrase is part of a direct quote, it should be reworded. MantisEars (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An article on Hitchens or an article on what Hitchens says

This substantial article contains no viewpoints other than Hitchens himself. I have tagged the article accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV (my highlight): All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As it stands now the article only presents the subject's viewpoint, thus this is not an NPOV compliant article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is written from a neutral point of view. I think the tag should be removed. The views of other users are also important. Let's see what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Which point of view do you believe is being underrepresented, that Hitchens is a terrible person? I can see the need for criticism on an article about a book, or a movie, but a person? Unless you have a specific criticism, I feel the tag should be removed. MantisEars (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The article as it stands, includes only the views of Hitchens on others, but does not include the viewpoints of others on Hitchens. That is why the tag is there. Most, if not all biographies, describe both aspects for an NPOV presentation of the subject treated. Per WP:NPOV

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone who knows anything about Hitchens knows that there are a lot of well known people who disagree with him, including his brother. These views should be mentioned. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • Factual description about him, no POV issues. (I'm not discussing verification issues here, the lead e.g. could use more refs.)
  1. Education and early career
    • ditto
  2. International journalism
    • ditto
  3. Literary review
    • ditto
  4. Hitchens and the literary scene
    • What kind of non-section is this?
  5. Hitchens and The Nation staff
    • Both opnions about him, and his own. Equal coverage. No POV issues.
  6. Hitchens' opinions
    1. "Theocratic fascism" and early disagreements with the Left
      • Describes his opinion. Unless major players have criticised him for criticising islamic fascism, I see no POV issues.
    2. Political stances
      • Perhaps the opinions of people opposing him on the Iraq war or Kissinger are needed, but perhaps these are better left to the appropriate articles.
    3. Cyprus
      • No issues unless someone has opposed his views on Cyprus.
    4. Nuclear weapons
      • Section has worse problems.
    5. Vietnam
      • ditto
    6. Milošević and the demise of Yugoslavia
      • ditto
    7. Regarding civil liberties
      • I see no issues.
    8. Regarding specific individuals
      • (I skipped this section. POV issues here, if any, are better discussed on the subarticle.)
    9. Antitheism
      • Discusses both sides, for the most parts no issues. One minor issue exists, where this article takes one of his opponents' statements for factual, when in fact it isn't. (I will fix this shortly.)
    10. Mideast conflicts
      • "he has attracted many critics." Then we would expect them to be mentioned in the subsections, no?
      1. Israeli-Palestinian conflict
        • Only his own views are stated.
      2. Historic views on Saddam Hussein
        • ditto
      3. Post-9/11
        • Both sides are mentioned, I see no issues.
      4. American and British Intelligence before the 2003 Iraq War
        • Unless a factual rebuttal to his statements has been provided somewhere, I see no issues.
      5. Abu Ghraib and Haditha
        • This section needs more context and before this is provided, POV checking is not feasible.
  7. Honours
    • Factual, no issues.
  8. Personal
    1. Family
      • ditto
    2. Use of alcohol
      • Both sides mentioned, I see no issues.
    3. Ethnic identity
      • Fact is stated, and different interpretations. No issues.
    4. Relationship with brother, Peter Hitchens
      • Needs more references before POV checking is possible.
    5. US citizenship
      • No issues.
    6. Favorite writers
      • ditto
  9. Bibliography
    • ditto

Overall I think the article is pretty neutral, except perhaps the Middle-East part. Christopher Hitchens is a controversial figure and has many critics. Some of them are mentioned in the article, but not all critics, or their viewpoints, are notable enough to warrant inclusion, nor would they make the article more neutral. (The old "atheism leads to Hitler" springs to mind.) Under the motto "be specific or fix it" I will remove the tag. However, that doesn't mean the article is free of issues altogether. POV problems may exist in the Middle-East section; if this is the case you might want to re-add the tag there. The article also contains several sections that will need to be evaluated after they're expand enough to make doing so possible. Shinobu (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I tried to find some form of critique or rebuttal of his Iraq views, but after a few Google pages' worth of a lot of ad hominem and very little fact I got bored, so I will have to defer to others who are more intimately knowledgable about the subject. Shinobu (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens / Boteach debate: What happened to the 100 books challenge?

Does someone know how that challenge turned out, which side bought the 100 books or if it was silently dropped? --User:91.11.228.11 14:31, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

There is not enough info on his early career in the US. When did he join Vanity Fair, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.154.184 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Family Section

"Hitchens has a daughter, Antonia, with his wife Carol Blue, whom he married in 1991. Hitchens has two children, Alexander and Sophia, by a previous marriage in 1981 to Eleni Meleagrou, a Greek Cypriot, whom Hitchens divorced in 1989 whilst she was pregnant with his first child.[citation needed]"

Does anyone have access to accurate information on his family? The current section is dubious. I doubt that divorced his first wife while she was pregnant, only to have another child with her either a year after or while he was married to his second wife.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Palestine

Am I the only one who thinks that there is only a very tenuous connection there?--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His Mother Committed Suicide

I believe that this is a significant enough detail of his life that it should be added. Thought?--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)