Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Older Comments (House Cleaning)

Broadside is completely wrong. Yes, it should have been "bulwark". But please explain how it is supposedly incorrect. Bulwark = defence/means of security Broadside = all guns blazing attack, erm...if that's all Trotskyism was to Stalinism and capitalism, it's up to you....

Am I the only one who'd like to know what "three major publications offered rebuttals" to Hitchens' critique of Michael Moore?

He has also been taking aim at leading radicals, such as Noam Chomsky, whom he accuses of being soft on what he calls "Islamofascism".

Have you ever seen a credible attribution of the phrase "Islamofascism" to him? I dspent far too long trying to track down the source: my impression is that he has consistently used the term theocratic fascism instead. ---- Charles Stewart 08:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And another thing... Hitchens may not call himself a neoconservative, but he sure spends a lot of time them.

More Hitchens trivia to include (I can't be bothered right now, but maybe I can get round to it in a day or two):

• His former Trotskyism, and his continued defence of Trotsky
• His attack on Isaiah Berlin
• His friendship with Edward Said and Salman Rushdie
• His support for Ahmed Chalabi
• His writings on Oscar Wilde
• His attacks on JFK

Also should put up a bibliography. ---- Charles Stewart 08:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to his article in Slate denouncing Fahrenheit 9/11 -- seems only fair since there were already two links denouncing his denunciation. Greyfedora 04:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blood Class and Empire

This is a volume of essays that was published a long time ago. Maybe mid-80's? It shouldn't be at the top of CH's list of recent works. The 2004 manifestation is merely a reprint.

I think that is right, but the 1990 edition was called Blood, Class and Empire -- can we confirm that they are indeed the same volume? ---- Charles Stewart 07:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 2004 book is a reprint of the 1990 volume with a new introduction. Philip Cross 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Could anyone familiar with Hitchen's work head over to Talk:Henry Kissinger and help set up a NPOV text (including evidence and arguments) on Hitchen's war crime accusations against Kissinger. It already sparked a revert war, and I don't think that we'll get anywhere without evidence, to back up the points either of the editors are trying to make. Your help would be greatly appreciated. --- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Some missing material here

I think Hitchens' writings on literature should be included here. He's quite a formidable man of letters and his book reviews are models of the form. He's also very justly praised for his prose style, which is extremely economical, tough-minded and mordantly funny.

New section on his political journey

...which I have substituted for this paragraph:

Though once regarded as a stalwart member of the Anglo-American left, Hitchens has recently made ferocious attacks on those leftists whom he regards as "soft on fascism". He has also been taking aim at leading radicals, such as Noam Chomsky. His support of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq led to a cutting of his remaining ties with the radical left and to his resignation from his post as a long-time columnist for the left-wing magazine The Nation. Hitchens has recently been linked to the American neoconservative movement, and claims to be a supporter of many of their beliefs. At the same time, he does not accept the label himself, and professes to be still fairly "left" in certain social and economic matters. Because of his unpredictable and unsual mixture of political views, Hitchens has said that he no longer believes he can catagorize himself as a member of any one movement or ideology.

I think it's an improvement, but it needs work. ---- Charles Stewart 23:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitchens' support for Bush

User:Ellsworth inserted the following:

However, when Slate polled its staff on their positions on the candidates, Hitchens declared himself to be "neutral". In his first Slate column after the election, he again expressed his agreement with Bush on the Iraq/war on terror issues.

in the Where he stands now section. Hitchens has explained what happened: he wrote a heavily irony laden piece on the two candidates which ended up saying he was a single-issue voter on the war against terror. This was meant to be support for Bush, but the Slate editorial assistant misdecoded the point and put him down as a Kerry supporter (not neutral). Hitchens' explained this in an article, IIRC for a The Nation one-off. You can find it from the Enteract page. I'm reversing the above edit. ---- Charles Stewart 00:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to the Nation article as a footnote-link...Hitchens does seem to prefer Bush, doesn't he? However a note to the Slate staff poll article recites that Hitchens told the editor he was neutral. I'll look it up when I have the time... Ellsworth 00:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I said was from memory, so I could be mistakended, but I have the idea I read the story from at least two authoritative sources (an article and an interview). Maybe I check as well. ---- BUSH SUCKS BIG BALLS.Charles Stewart 01:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kewl. Ellsworth 21:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is what Hitchens said about his "endorsement" in the presidential election, and it contains a note from Slate editors about the error in the staff poll article, which you can also link to from Hitchens's column. Ellsworth 14:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, and I was wrong. It was the Slate article you cited, and this Johann Hari interview; from the Slate article:

If I could choose the person whose attitude toward the immediate foe was nearest to mine, I would pick Bush (and Blair). But if I departed from the strictly subjective, and then considered the ways in which this administration has bitched things up, and further imagined what might happen to a Democratic incumbent who was compelled to get real, I could see a case the other way. You can even read what I said in Slate last week.

...I misread as saying the single issue put Bush ahead. There's no tension in Hitchens' position, though, with he "expressed his agreement with Bush on the Iraq/war on terror issues", so I guess that should stay out of the article. I'll reincorporate the other part of what you wrote. The Johann Hari interview is well worth reading, btw. ---- Charles Stewart 16:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not really encyclopaedic content, but...

Have you seen the ghastly report by Michael J. Totten on his evening with CH? I couldn't resist, umm, diary coverage. ---- Charles Stewart 10:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...can't stop...

There's more (scroll to the last point). Hitch seems to be having a few, umm, hiccups, in the way he approaches his audience. ---- Charles Stewart 08:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for British labour movement article

I put up a proposal on the Talk: Labour party (UK) page that is relevant to this article. ---- Charles Stewart 09:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV text deleted from article

User:Bryanjrod added the following text, which was rved by User:68.75.43.75:

Hitchens is also known for his controversial views regarding the Holocaust. According to the David Wyman Institute, "Hitchens has adopted a line found in the writings of Holocaust deniers, claiming it is "now undisputed" that "there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald"." Link to article: [1]

It is clearly POV, and inadequately courced. I replicate the text here for future reference. --- Charles Stewart 18:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islamophobes page

Just to be clear, I had nothing to do with requesting this page. It should be deleted. User LevelCheck seems to be playing a joke because he didn't like my vote for deleting Category:Islamofascists.--csloat 20:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Libertarian"

Is this true? I mean, in terms of his thinking and views on economics, is he really a libertarian? It was my impression that he retains strongly left-of-center views on these things, self-classified "ex-Trotskyist" or not. I think I'm gonna check up on this and maybe update the page. Anyone have any backing for the "libertarian" label, or should we maybe just change it to "civil-libertarian" or something? Mcsweet 01:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's not a libertarian. He's broken with the left, but his political views seem to best fit the term "liberal interventionist", and he's been rude about isolationist arguments agianst the war in Iraq advanced by libertarians. --- Charles Stewart 08:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found some backing.....I make no endorsement of the source, though. It's an affiliate of Rotten.com http://www.nndb.com/people/624/000050474/

Kade 04:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That site betrays a fairly loose grasp of political terms by calling Hitchens an "agent provocateur," so I would hesitate to rely upon its bare assertions. Hitchens does discuss his interest in "the libertarian worldview" and the possibility of fusing left and libertarian in this post-9/11 Reason interview. Squib 06:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Hitchens is still very much in favor of a gentle sort of Democratically Socialist society, as long as it doesn't slip into isolationism. Everything I've read from him has been really harsh on fiscal conservatives..I.E. Reagan. I mean, if he simply based his votes on interventionism, Reagan would rank up there at the top of the list, and his funding of Mujahadeen would warrant much praise from Hitchens. Kade 19:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Literary criticism

Not one complete sentence of the article as it stands now is devoted to Hitchens' literary criticism, although it probably constitutes about 1/3 of what he has written, is the reason he has a professorship, and is rather good; instead he comes across as a purely politically engaged figure. I've been meaning to tackle this imbalance for a while, but have been putting it off. I'd be grateful if someone else started the ball rolling... --- Charles Stewart 20:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway

Still a bit of a newbie so not sure if this is something that might be interesting to include: May 17th, George Galloway was approached by C.H.. George then proceeded to say: "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay..." See the videoclip here: (about 30s in).

Quote from the Guardian website:

Before the hearing began, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in formed him. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away.

--BazDM 12:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hard to see how to integrate it into the article. Maybe a section on enemies CH has made... --- Charles Stewart 21:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Anybody have a link to the actual video of this exchange? I couldn't find it using the above link; is there a link to the video itself? I have watched the entire Galloway appearance at the senate on the video at the senate website but did not see this exchange take place. csloat 21:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think that I read somewhere that the exchange took place on the street outside of the Senate office building. --AStanhope 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it took place within the Senate chamber. In the video you can catch Hitchens and a bit of the insult then an observer chiming in with "are you going to answer his question?" --24.2.154.16 04:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep it, the way this whole George Galloway/Christopher Hitchens debate thing is turning out it could turn into a major sub-section of the entry. Kade 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for information but Chris Hitchens' little bro Peter took Galloway on the other night here but I can't get any details of the exchange, the NT merely said it was "very lively and stimulating" whatever that means! Miamomimi 16:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over Iraq

The Trotskyism paragraph says he opposed the invasion of Iraq but the one beneath says he strongly supported it. This needs clearing up.

Hitchens says This Article is "Inaccurate"

On Hitchens' web site, the link to this page is called "inaccurate Wikipedia entry for Hitchens". Anybody know why?

It would be a great learning experience if the actual subject of an Article decided to edit and take issue with particular descriptions of him. 1Winston 16:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you see? This is precisely the sort of joke Hitchens would find funny. Link to himself (something that could be perceived as vanity) and then call it inaccurate. Nevermind, it will never work if you have to explain it...

curtains 05:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That site is maintained by Peter Enteract. Peter linked to this page before, without any negative adjectives: I should think he's reacting to the inaccuracies that have been creeping into the article. A brief glance shows:

• Talking of Hitchens' criticism of the Bush administration as "rare": it is not;
• Reference to "Hitchens' alcoholism": alcoholism is a fairly well-defined medical condition, no evidence presented suggesting he has it;
• Calling him a contributing blogger at the Huffington Post: he responded in two messages to one of the bloggers there;
• Also I think a lot of the coverage is slanted: why does the trivial Golloway incident get so much coverage? Why aren't Hitchens' relationships with Cockburn&Finkelstein given the context to make sense of the remarks? Why nothing at all about Hitchens' literary criticism?

I don't often bother to fix the article, since I don't think the editorial tug-of-war is pulling the article in a good direction, and I'm putting my efforts elsewhere --- Charles Stewart 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that some here do not wish to acknowledge certain unpleasant things about their hero. The guy is an egocentric braggart whose real expertise is milking the media system for self-promotional gain. His first and only abiding interest in life is himself. He stabbed his friend Sid Blumenthal in the back to try to steal extra media time during the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. He only dared to pick a fight with his old friend Edward Said in the Atlantic Monthly when Said was literally on his death bed. He holds two sets of moral standards: one for himself and the other for everyone else. Years ago, for instance, he poked fun at Paul Johnson for being a drunk; when he himself evinces every sign of being a foul-mouthed drunk, well, that's nothing but proof of a virile, cosmopolitan, all-'round swell guy! The people who know him best; the people who have worked with him and seen the egotist in action know what he's all about.

Very well said. He's obviously a vular egotist! Dwain 23:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

    - And are you one of those people?  Proof?  Is Wikipedia a blog now?

• It is a pity that you cannot see through the man. The adoration a certain few feel for him reminds me of the plaudits heaped upon another pseudo-intellectual: George Will.

The man strikes me as a real dick. He's been described as drinking too much by different people, he seems to really get off on setting himself apart from the rest of "the left", etc. How long's it gonna be before he's one of those "pet liberals" like Chris Matthews?--Edward Wakelin 22:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• The line about "setting himself apart" is dead on, and it has to do with his life-mission, which is to promote himself as some "daring" and "original" and "provocative" intellectual. It's refreshing to see that so many have (finally?) caught on and seen the man for the poseur he is.

Might I remind you chuckleheads that this is the discussion page for an encyclopedia entry, not the DemocraticUnderground Forums? If you can find places where people have outright lied about Hitchens and portrayed him as a saint, please do tell. Otherwise, your harping on an incredibly acclaimed journalist is tantamount to the same kind of smear that Nixon-era conservatives wrote about Hunter S. Thompson. Kade 17:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Had you paid closer attention to the paragraphs above, you'd have seen that the chief complaint has been that "some here do not wish to acknowledge certain unpleasant things about their hero." Nowhere was it stated that the man's admirers have "portrayed him as a saint." I think the phrase "well-known for his iconoclasm" in the second paragraph of the main page should be deleted. He has always been very selective about the targets of his editorial abuse. He prefers to trash those who cannot do him any favors (e.g., Mother Teresa) while leaving alone those with the power to blacklist him. Your phrase "incredibly acclaimed journalist," by the way, is a wee bit solicitous: he is as well known for his alcoholism, for his foul mouth, for his one-sided smears of people, for his betrayal of old friends as he is for anything that he has ever written.

Care to sign your posts, so I know who I'm dealing with? Or do you compensate for your trolling nature by pretending to be an anonymous voice of reason? What I'm witnessing in this subsection of the talk page is NOT a healthy discussion of inaccuracies with the article, but simply a cacophony of people saying "This man is an asshole and does not deserve the praise people harp upon him". Enough with the circlejerk. Kade 03:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• The main dispute has thus far centered on the inclusion of articles that depict CH in an unflattering (though accurate) light. It has been the position of a few of us that truths should not be left out here just because they are ugly and unpleasant. Lastly, the substance of the comments should not be judged according to whether someone chooses to sign his name. Based on some of the paragraphs I've read here, I'm not sure I'd want to disclose personal information. I'm sorry if this displeases you.

Believe me, no one wants you to disclose personal information. I think we'd all much prefer that you not do that. However, signing your posts (with an account name, or even just the IP address, by sticking in four tildes at the end of your comments) allows us to have a sense of who we are talking to at different moments, and how many people are involved in the conversation. Unless you prefer not to be associatiated with your own comments (even a pseudonymous association), then there's really no reason not to sign your remarks. It's standard Wikipedia etiquette. Babajobu 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that you signed off "Babajobu" does not add a whit of intelligence or sincerity to your remarks. Each comment should be judged on its merits; I suspect that those frequenting this discussion board will be able to tell which contributions are informative and insightful, and which are not. I would make a request of my own, however: could Kade and you recall that objects of prepositions belong to the objective case rather than to the nominative? (You should have written "allows us to have a sense of whom we are talking to...")

I encourage you to have a look at any American grammar book published within the past decade. You will find that "who" is now very much accepted for use in the objective case. In fact, "whom" is increasingly regarded as an example of "genteelism", or "hyperurbanism"...in other words, people who use it frequently are generally pretentious know-nothings. People who proselytize their pretentiousness by insisting that other people mimic their stilted, self-conscious language...well, they're usually also the type of people who refuse to sign their Wikipedia entries. A sad lot, they are. Babajobu 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• A sign of maturity is to acknowledge when you are in error. In everyday speech, it is considered pedantic to use "whom" as the objective-case pronoun, but in writing, the rule is still observed by sensitive users of the language. The rules of English grammar have not changed; perhaps society's standards have. By the way, is it possible for pretentiousness to be proselytized?!

The rules of English grammar have changed dramatically over time. See difference between "prescriptive" and "descriptive" grammar. Is it possible for pretentiousness to be proselytized? With you as state's exhibit A, I confidently assert that it is. Babajobu 08:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• The grammatical rule acknowledging "whom" to be the objective case pronoun (and thus the object of prepositions) has not changed, your wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. "I confidently assert that it is" is a hack's line (a Hitchens line, too); it is clear to anyone who knows anything about language that the phrase "proselytize your pretentiousness" makes no sense at all. Your continued attempts to save face are really amusing.

I don't have much interest in your judgment of what is or is not a "hack's line", considering you lack adequate confidence in your own arguments to claim them even with a pseudonym. Anyway, I've enjoyed talking to you...I've never before corresponded with someone who so earnestly aspired to schoolmarmishness and yet fell so laughably short of it. Bye, now. Babajobu 13:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Signing off with a name like "Babjobu" is hardly a demonstration of confidence. It's a pity that you are not mature enough to acknowledge an earlier solecism.

To the Anonymous, yet incredibly obnoxious troll of this page - The fact that you have not only claimed Babajobu as an ignoramus based solely on his username but also successfully derailed the focus of this page, which is supposed to be about Christopher Hitchens, into a discussion of "Yanks versus Brits" English reflects well upon your ability to deflect criticism. However, it also proves that you've got a gimmick going and are not interested in objective discourse. Kade 17:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• At no time did I ever call the Baba man an "ignoramus." I merely pointed out an ungrammatical usage in both his prose and yours.

He's not even a Brit, he's in Georgia. I would have let him off the hook for his insistence on pretentious, antiquated diction if he were a Brit. Anyway, I've made a bunch of changes to the main article over the past few days. I think it's improved, but it still needs work. Babajobu 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I'm Texan, there are only two languages I speak. American English, and Texan. Guess which one I use when I type? Kade 02:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you were using American English or Texan, both of them have jettisoned "whom" in all but a very few constructions. Occasionally you meet someone who uses it in the hope that it'll serve as a signifier of class and refinement. Our Georgian friend is one those people. Babajobu 03:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not from Georgia, and I don't live in Georgia now. You can't tell where somebody resides just by knowing where his ISP is headquartered. And again, you're wrong about "whom": the grammatical rule has not changed; only our collective standards have.

• Using "whom" correctly is hardly "antiquated diction." It was you who was in error, and you who refuses to own up to an embarrassing blunder. You'll be glad to know that your own "edit" of the article will be amply edited in turn.

That's fine, that's what we're all here for. Babajobu 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

-i've read the correspondence here, and i make it 3-0 to the Baba man. The troll therefore loses and has to do a forfeit. I suggest they are made to watch fahrenheit 9/11 ten times in a row as punishment.88.105.114.97 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-wow...talk about a circle jerk. It's obvious you're both incedibly pretentious wanks with nothing better to do.

Finkelstein

I took off the link to the Norm Finkelstein link, because someone apparently removed the link to the rebuttal. --- Artfuldodger 1:03 9 August 2005 {UTC}

• Perhaps you removed the link because Finkelstein's prose stings too much.

Gee, ya think? Norm the Finkelman being such a well known writer an all....88.105.126.225 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well enough known to bother you?

Relationship with the bottle

Hitchens has acknowledged a tolerance for alcohol, but I've not seen that he's been formally diagnosed. So I'll put in a purported before alcoholic in the article. Squib

• I think this whole alcoholism thing is a US vs GB issue - you know, like 'two nations separated by a common language'. What your average Brit considers a small drinking session is, to the average Yank, a booze soaked orgy of alcoholic excess. It's the puritan gene in the American psyche. Other points: - Yank beer is like piss compared to a Brit pint - the 21 year old age limit for drinking in many US states is a joke. i.e. To us Brits CH would not be considered an alcoholic. To most Americans any more than half a glass of wine and you're a 'piss-head'. this all POV of course, but hey, it's a free-wheelin' discussion!88.105.114.97 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Anon edits

Can the anonymous user who keeps deleting things please explain why? It's basically vandalism the way you're doing it. The anti-Hitchens items you want in are fine but you erase the other citations and then you add POV commentary to the entries. Am I the only one who is not comfortable with these changes?--csloat 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I share your concerns about the frequency with which items are deleted, but the only deletions I've noticed are those that present CH in an unflattering light. The great temptation of writers of encyclopedia entries is to avoid material that is either controversial or unpleasant.

Diana quote

I've deleted this inserted piece of drivel:

In 1999 Hitchens made a derogatory comment about Lady Diana less than a year after she died while on a cruise ship. He stated that Lady Di "has in common with a minefield the following: relatively easy to lay but extremely difficult, expensive, and dangerous to get rid of."

First, it's a joke, derogatory or otherwise, not merely "a comment". Second, Hitchens claims it was first used by someone else. Third, Diana did not die on "a cruise ship", but in a car crash in Paris. Fourth, 1999 is not "less than a year" after she died. She died in August 1997. The earliest reference I can find to the joke is from May 1998 - which would be "less than a year" (so what?). Fifth, she was not (since her marriage) "Lady Diana" but "Diana, Princess of Wales". Sixth, it seems to be an extremely insignificant and irrelevant thing to bung into a wikipedia entry. --Dannyno 21:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Right. A comment like this shouldn't appear in his WP article unless it created a furor, particularly if it's not original. --Tysto 13:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Funny though. 89.240.116.209 15:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Official Policy: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"

The following was removed:

"His disagreement with others on the left is that he trusts right-wing governments to defend these values by military force."

This sentence is overly simplistic and offensive to some members of Britain's largest political party, the Labour Party, which forms the current UK government, and of which Hitchens is a member, but which is NOT "RIGHT-WING"!

• I wasn't aware the 'labour party' still existed. I thought it had become "ye olde originale, thicke cut, improved formula 'new labour' party". It's just all so confusing.

How odd, I cannot find any mention of Christopher Hitchens being called a popinjay in the Independent

Hence, I have deleted the obnoxious title in quotes given to Hitchens by whoever posted that link at the bottom of the page. If the Independent did in fact call him a popinjay, I didn't see it with a simple Ctrl+F check of the article. Kade 17:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm been fixing up the article, and I'm going to continue doing so. There is a lot of good material, but the edit wars have resulted in an extremely "bitty" article. Fortunately the edit-warring has not produced any absurd imbalances in content. But Wikipedia should have a more polished Christopher Hitchens article than this. Babajobu 13:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To 65.92.136.114 - Quit masquerading as an NPOV'ing crusader

You've re-labelled the words "Neoconservative" and "Liberal Hawk" to "Court Jester" and "Neocon Apologist" three fucking times. While I think the word "Liberal Hawk" might better be replaced by something more political science oriented, the word Neoconservative is definitely an accepted part of poli-sci nomenclature and you are not winning points by being an obnoxious asshole and trying to format this into an anti-Hitchens article.

ENOUGH OF THE HORSESHIT.

Kade 02:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Side note: "liberal hawk" isn't very poli sci-ish, but I just included it as an example of how he's characterized. I'd be open to a change, though, if you think it's warranted. Babajobu 03:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Recommending this article be used to define Hitchens political views

http://outsidethewhale.blogspot.com/2005/09/understanding-christopher-hitchens.html Kade 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Until recently, the Wikipedia article heaped plaudit after plaudit upon the man. It got to be quite embarrassing.

Well then, we can all be happy that it's now more balanced. Babajobu 09:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that, for such a controersial figure, this article is remarkably well-balanced. WBcoleman 02:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttals not encyclopedia content

There's a link to Blue Yonder with a 'rebuttal' to Hitchens' critique of Farenheit 911. I expected to find some hard-hitting facts there, but it's really a battle of viewpoints, disagreements, and alternate political views. Fine, whatever. But the real test comes down to this - someone's going to write a rebuttal to the rebuttal. It would be unfair not to link to that. Then somebody else is going to write a rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal. And the link growth could be geometric, not linear. So it becomes plainly clear that this kind of link is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article as it's either going to be unmanageable or unfair. That it may refelect certain contributors' viewpoints as a separate matter - no doubt this kind of material can be found linked off of HitchensWatch, a Google search, or something more appropriate.

I disagree. A rebuttal of a notable work by the subject is quite suitable to link to here. I wrote a rebuttal to that CH article myself on my own site. It was very weak work on CH's part--and I felt F911 was fairly awful. --Tysto 13:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitchens debate with Scott Ritter

Does anyone have any information about this? A link possibly.

Audio link: http://homepage.mac.com/musichall/podcasts/podcast050106-190948.mp4

Alcoholism?

The article seems awfully coy about Hitch's drinking. It mentions a "tendency to tipple" and a "penchant for drinking" and includes a nasty quote. Is there any objective public discussion of the degree to which CH is a drinker or how it affects his public appearances or credibility? I'm not sure I want every WP bio to include an analysis of the subject's vices (altho George W Bush has a whole section on substance abuse), but it seems relevant to CH's reputation. --Tysto 14:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I also dont get how his "drinking" problem affects his public reputation? He still seems to rip a hole in many of the opponents he meets on stage. To me it seems like a ploy to knock him off his horse. Its no different then when right wingers make fun of Michale Moore's weight.

In a 2005 appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Hitchens was visibly drunk and had obviously maintained this particular buzz for days. He was also drinking from a personal bottle that clearly contained hard liquor. I would say that a functional definition of an alcoholic is someone who drinks on camera at a live political talk show. Now, alcoholism isn't directly related to one's credibility, but he does invite the discussion by performing some of his work drunk. 207.229.185.50 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw this episode; it was the first time I had seen Hitchens and it definitely affected my opinion of him and his credibility. Obviously this is "original research" on my part, but the guy is obviously a drunkard and I found it suprising there wasn't more on it. Especially if he's writing essays about his alcoholism like the poster below mentions! --Frantik 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about the Sept. 23 episode, when Hitchens confronted George Galloway. At one point he added some booze to his mug, not making any attempt to hide it. The accusation that he was drunk is rubbish IMO, and your definition is dysfunctional - no one asked him to stop, so why should he have? - Mcasey666 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

his alcohol use is still noteworthy, is it not? --Frantik 15:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitchens wrote an essay in 2003 I believe that was a defense of his alcoholism. This is definitely part of public discussion; he is not just a drunk but an unapologetic drunk.--csloat 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't think which one you mean, unless it's "The Teetotal Effect" (Vanity Fair, August 2004, pp.122-126). The subject of the piece is George W. Bush, not Hitchens, who makes no mention of his own drinking, and doesn't attempt to "defend" his or anybody else's purported alcoholism. He DOES attack Alcoholics Anonymous as 'a quasi-cult that demands surrender to a "higher power."' But Hitchens' militant atheism is as familiar as his ability to summon mordant introductory block quotes from Tom Wolfe and Kingsley Amis. - Mcasey666 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

During his recent bout with Juan Cole alcoholism has been brought up. See [2]. "Hitchens does not know very much about Iraq, but this sort of silly error was owing to his judgment having been damaged by drink. People saw him swigging away in the hallway before he entered the hall. That is why the point about his drinking problem is not ad hominem. It is germane to his failing faculties and increasingly immoral behavior." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tothebarricades.tk (talk • contribs)

Diagnosis by Juan Cole, M.D. Look, of course it's ad hominem. Saying that someone is always wrong about Iraq because he drinks is just as stupid as saying that someone is always right because he's a teetotaller. - Mcasey666 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending Cole's rhetoric, I'm just saying we should remark on his alcoholism. --Tothebarricades 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see someone's been at it again. I'm sorry I guessed the wrong Vanity Fair piece last time, but I read "Living Proof" just now and those quotes are cherrypicked and misleading. Hitchens never "admits" to anything, and you do not have to be an alcoholic to heckle Juan Cole. All my above points still apply: play the ball, not the man. - Mcasey666 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

What exactly does this sentence mean, in common man English: " He stands unique among editorialists, as one of the few figures in which the position for which he opines, that party wishes he would favor the opposite." [unsigned]

• Say, that is a pretty terrible sentence... not to mention untrue. I would guess that most people would be very happy to know that CH was "opining" (jeez, I hate that word) for their position. --Tysto 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity

Since it has been changed a few times recently, I would note that the issue is mentioned on the Peter Hitchens page. It says that Peter believes he is about 1/32nd Jewish by ethnicity. Personally I'm not a fan of putting ethnic identifications into the opening sentence anyway. --JGGardiner 06:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Christopher doesn't identify as Jewish, either, that addition was basically vandalism from an IP. Christopher says their mother was born Jewish, Peter disagrees. Regardless, neither of them considers himself Jewish. Babajobu 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Although I do remember his initial article on the subject about his grandmother. He seemed to take some interest in his Jewish roots and I've noticed him mention it a few times since. But I doubt that he considers it his primarty identity. I don't think that he's the sort of person who would like to be identified by any sort of group identity actually. I'm not even sure that I'd have "British" up there myself in the first sentence. --JGGardiner 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens is a self-identified Jew. He insists he is Jewish:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,683899,00.html

It is self-revealing as far as it goes, but it covers only one small aspect of his life, the discovery of his Jewishness when he was 38. It happened when his brother Peter took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her nineties, and Dodo said, 'She's Jewish, isn't she?' and then announced: 'Well, I've got something to tell you. So are you.' She said that her real surname was Levin, not Lynn, and that her ancestors were Blumenthals from Poland.

Christopher was thrilled when Peter told him. By then he was living in Washington and most of his friends were Jewish. Moreover, he felt that he had somehow known all along. He remembers an odd dream in which he was on the deck of a ship and a group of men approached him and said they needed a 10th man to make up a minyan (Jewish prayer group) and he calmly strolled across the deck and joined them. He insists that he is Jewish - because Jewish descent goes through the mother - though Peter Hitchens, who has traced the family tree, says they are only one 32nd Jewish." 69.209.218.111 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Groovy. Maybe now you can start compiling a list of everyone is the media who is remotely Jewish, or has a Jewish sister-in-law. That would be real helpful in sorting them out. Can I assume this is now proof that Hitch is part of the Zionist conspiracy? -Bert 171.159.64.10 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, can we revert this? We shouldn't be cut and pasting from the guardian anyway. More to the point, completely irrelevant to his politics/position as a public figure. Unless 69.209 can tell us exactly why jewish ancestry is important, this should go. Wikeawade 16:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

continuity of views

The intro includes the following sentence, "Hitchens no longer considers himself a socialist, and maintains that his political views have changed significantly." of which I changed to two words read "Hitchens no longer considers himself a socialist, BUT maintains that his political views have NOT changed significantly." It was promptly reverted, so I thought I should add to the discussion. 1) I think Hitchens and others would maintain that his current stands are not in contradiction with past positions (or at least are a logical gradual evolution), e.g. his increasing frustration with pacifism during the 90s. 2) As the sentence stands, it is seemingly contradicted by the remainder of the paragraph.

Any support for my re-reverting? 171.159.64.10 04:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Bert

I agree with that. It is inconsistent with the part that follows. --JGGardiner 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'll do it. Babajobu 06:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Edward Said

There is an Israel-Palestine section (sentence) and a mention of his friendship with Edward Said but not their book Blaming the Victims. I haven't read it myself so I don't want to characterize it. Maybe someone else has? --JGGardiner 07:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blaming the Victims is an excellent collection of articles (and a couple essays), highlighting, as they put it, the "spurious scholarship" in relation to the Palestinian question. A few of the pieces set to challenging conventional wisdom on the matter, and the book is full of corrections, revisions and clarifications. It is by no means a collection of opinion pieces, but rather a genuine effort to redress common misconceptions about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The collection may irk those that support Israel's foreign policy (though the book is NOT anti-Israel, it is often critical of Israeli military endeavours) but the research presented is solid.Palenque 01:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• also: The Hitchens article included in it deals with the now debunked "broadcasts" encouraging Palestinians to flee. It's a good example of 90's Hitchens.

Hitchens on Lateline, Feb 13th 2006

Did anyone else catch Hitchens screaming abuse and making a fool of himself (and as Tony Jones said, the entire TV station) on Lateline on Feb 13th? It was hysterical for the viewing public, but I would imagine deeply embarrasing for Hitchens (who didn't realise he was live, he thought they were recording to tape)

There are many priceless moments. The one when Tony Jones tells Hitchens they're live across Australia, and his face drops, is a good one. There's also a moment

Lateline haven't posted a transcript yet (I don't know if they will, the interview never got beyond 2 questions because of the sound troubles they were having, which caused all the outbursts). If Lateline do make a transcript available (or if someone has a tape of it), it would make a good entry to the Hitchens page (I actually came here looking for any info on it)

Honestly that doesn't sound especially noteworthy to me. I think that his abrasive personality is pretty well known and well documented here. I don't think that I'd include that personally but someone else might want a line or two. --JGGardiner 20:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To say that he was 'screaming abuse' is unfair. He clearly wasn't abusing anyone.

American?

I seem to recall an article where Hitchens discusses becoming a naturalized US citizen post-9/11. If memory serves, it was in the Atlantic in 2005, but I'm afraid memory may not be serving today. Can anyone find/verify this? I could not with a half-hearted search, but surely a decision to become American rates as more interesting/relevant than his Jewish ancestry. (Is it just me, or are there wikipedians determined to document every Jew as such, even when it is utterly irrelevant?) - Bert 171.159.64.10 01:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point. Why all the blather on real or imagined Jewish blood and yet a mere line (in the books published section) on CH's Orwell scholarship? Take out the jew stuff (irrelevant) and let's have more on CH's acknowledged expertise on George Orwell. Please. Pretty please?88.105.114.97 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship? Idolatry with the hope of some of Orwell's moral steadfastness rubbing off on him.

Expertise? He is an Orwell groupie, not an Orwell scholar. Crick, yes. Hitch, no. Orwell's Victory is more a polemic than a study. Anyway....However, I do agree with reducing the guff speculating about his ancestry. 198.208.13.221 02:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. If writing two detailed, thoughtful and well-researched books on the subject, a number of literary essays concerning the subject, being positively peer-reviewed for these works and then defending or elucidating on them in a variety of respected media outlets means you cannot be regarded as a 'scholar' or an 'expert' on the subject then what the f*** do you have to do to be regarded as one? "Saints must always be adjudged guilty until absolutely proven innocent". - G. Orwell 88.105.115.219 00:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Two books on Orwell

Why Orwell Matters vs Crick? No contest. Is he also a "scholar" and "expert" on the Parthenon Marbles? 198.208.13.221 08:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a contest - I only assert that writing two, detailed, studies on the man (+ the essays and lit crit reviews) should, by any normal standards, accrue some degree of scholarship and expertise. And whether one of the books is a polemic or not it still counts as a study. I am sure you are right that Crick is the superior scholar in this matter but that is not the issue being discussed - non sequitur me old china.88.105.126.225 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair Enough. The two books are Orwell's Victory and ....?? But my other point still stands: Should we also consider him an expert on the Parthenon Marbles?? 198.208.13.221 07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to this Orwell issue. Why the emphasis on his Orwell "scholarship"? Per the anon posting above, surely to remain consistent, we should add his Parthenon Marble scholarship, his deep scholarly tomes (err, sorry, one tome) on the RC Church., etc etc. ??What do you think?? 138 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trumpet Blowing" edit

I notice that the latest edit from 138 see diff here removes almost all the praise from the "praise and criticism" section, leaving, well, just criticism.

And ironically for someone making an edit purporting to remove "overlong quotes", they've left the longest one in. Which just happens to be an abusive anti-Hitchens one.

Unless 138 replies to this with a good explanation why their edit isn't just simple bias, I'm reverting to the previous edit. --Paul Moloney 08:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm happy to yank the lot, praise and criticism. The links are relevant, but huge sections of quotations.....no. 138 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits - 05/05/06

I would like Jayjg to justify the very large amount of content he deleted in his recent edits. I saw a great deal of valuable information there, and he excised without explanation or, I feel, justification. --Charles 05:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion page cleanup

This entire discussion page is a mess, and is in desperate need of cleanup. Basic formatting has not been followed, numerous comments are not signed, and it is just not easy to read. This needs fixing. --Charles 05:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The DISCUSSION page needs work?? How about the entire article. This article, imo, is an embarassment to this project. IMO, the ENTIRE article should be NUKED and started over from scrach. What happened to having to provide sources and no original research?? Just the FIRST sentence is a JOKE. I went back to a version from 8/18/06 that was "better" in that it JUST provided the encyclopediatic(is that a word??)facts. WHY oh WHY does it seem that MORE is better lately in this project?? Lets stick to ONLY sourcable facts. --Tom 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ps sorry that my spelling sucks...

Recent edits - POV Pretext - 05/06/06

Some individuals have been deleting material under the false pretext of POV. The material concers controvery over Hitchens alleged anti-Catholic bigotry. Much of the material merely summarizes work by Hitchens which is alleged to be anti-Catholic. Since it is his own work and cites to his published material, the POV pretext is not well founded. If they want to edit it to make it more neutral that is fine but the wholesale deletion of this material is vandalism. The allegations of Hitchens' bigotry is broadly voiced and publicized, so neither is it original research. It has been noted by many critics, Catholic and otherwise. --Mamalujo 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism so quickly. Please remember, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.. --JGGardiner 19:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing Hitchens own work to prove "anti-Catholic bigotry" is the very essence of original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. As well, if you cannot write in a neutral way, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try to make your writing neutral. Finally, I point out that this is the same editor who first tried to remove any criticism by Hitchens of Mother Theresa from her article, then, when rebuffed, inserted massively POV text about Theresa in the article (referring, for example, to her "heroic virtue") while attempting to POV this article instead. Please read WP:BLP carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Heroic virtue" is not POV, it is a Catholic theological term of art and a requirement for beatification. See Catholic Encyclopedia "Beatification and Canonization" and "Heroic Virtue". --Mamalujo 04:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, see Wikipedia: Heroic virtue. Although that article could use some work. But I think that is perhaps a good example of how something might appear as vandalism because it is not something that you would write yourself. That's why it is a good idea to always assume good faith. --JGGardiner 04:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Blowjobs sub-section

I have removed this sub-section, for it is not, by any means, worth noting in a section which purportedly highlights the author's key points. A single article which generated little to no discussion off of the internet is not of encyclopedic value.--(Mingus ah um 21:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

I didn't particularly like the way that section was worded or its placement, but I think it is a notable sign of Hitchens' writing style, his humor, and his literary, umm, preoccupations. I'd like to see it reworded and put back in in a more reasonable manner.--csloat 22:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? Out of the hundreds of articles that Hitchens has written over the last thirty years, you believe that this one deserves to be mentioned in his encyclopedia entry? Do whatever you think should be done (after all, wiki's a collaboration), but please find another place within the article to talk about this. It should not be placed in a category which compares the author's view on blowjobs with his views on Trotsky, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. --(Mingus ah um 05:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I totally agree that it doesn't belong next to his opinions about Yugoslavia and such; I did think that was a strange place for it. But this sort of thing is an important aspect of who Hitchens is.--csloat 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed it either. In June 2004 Hitchens wrote in VF about James Joyce and handjobs (happy Bloomsday btw); this new piece dovetails with his December 2005 Atlantic Monthly essay on "Lolita"...I think whoever slotted "Blowjobs" into the article — in between "Trotsky" and "Nuclear Weapons" — captured something quintessentially Hitchens. He really enjoys shocking his readers, or at least defying their expectations. - Mcasey666 05:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A Biographical entry is supposed to inform its readers of the relevant facts about a specific public figure, not the somewhat controversial, almost trivial handful of articles that the individual in question may have written about--gasp!--oral sex. Quintessential Hitchens? Quite possibly, but, do remember, this is not a fan site. It's a bloody encyclopedia. If this page dedicates a paragraph to Hitchens' public stance on blowjobs, it may as well dedicate five hundred a piece to Trotsky, the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Arab/Israeli crises, militant Islam and the war in Iraq. --(Mingus ah um 09:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

All things considered when it comes to Hitchens, I'm not sure which he'd consider to be more important among the topics of Trotsky, the collapse of Yugoslavia, militant Islam, the war in Iraq and blowjobs. 204.69.40.7 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Hitchens caused a fuss when in a 2002 panel discussion on George Orwell Hitchens accused fellow panelist Vivian Gornick of "engag[ing] in languorous fellatio" of G.O. - Mcasey666 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that the blowjobs sub-section should be reinstated. I'll put it back now.

This is asinine. Seriously, this sub-section is the dumbest thing that I have ever seen entered on Wiki, and I am astounded that people are intent on reinstating it. Hitchens has dedicated hundreds of pages to the other topics in the key points section, but only a handful to fellatio. Sex has, for the most part, been avoided by Hitchens as a primary subject for one blatantly obvious reason: it's a trivial, extremely repetative and fairly boring subject for anyone who has once enjoyed or is currently enjoying enough action to sustain their desires. The reference cited above ("languorous fellatio") is only one of thousands of examples where this particular academic has taken poetic licence... But... Do what you have to do. No open source form of media will ever be taken seriously anyway... --(Mingus ah um 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

I concur with Mingus. If the section is reinstated it should be renamed suction as it so does - languorously. Never one to miss a point: --tickle me 07:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that the blow-jobs section should be put in - it is indicative of Hitchens character. We are describing a man remember, not a political movement.

Relationship with Peter Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is a militant atheist, extremely critical of religion, calling it the ultimate expression of human egotism and stupidity. Peter Hitchens appears to be strongly religious - he calls the theory of evolution a "mad religion", and refers to supporters of the theory like David Attenborough as "evolutionist Ayatollahs" or "evolutionist Fundamentalists".

Do these polar-opposite views warrant a mention?-195.93.21.3 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that the two of them have had at least one debate not that long ago. I'm not sure what the topics covered were. --JGGardiner 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I read elsewhere about this mention and felt it only right to comment on it. I cannot recall using the phrase 'mad religion' as attributed above, though I do think that Darwinism qualifies as a faith (unlike proper scientific theories it cannot be observed, and so cannot be tested, and remains, while plausible, a matter of conjecture. Like theists, its adherents choose to believe it because they prefer its moral and aesthetic implications to those of the rival faiths which - equally without conclusive evidence - suggest the existence of a designer). I mock propagandists for evolution as 'ayatollahs' and 'fundamentalists' because it turns against them the lazily dismissive expressions they use to describe those who are sceptical about their faith. Neither they nor I have any idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, or how it began. A little more modesty and tolerance - on both sides - would be a good thing. But the Darwinists do need to realise that their professed certainty is in fact open to question, and that many of the attacks they make on religious dogmatists apply equally to them. The debate to which you refer (though it was more of a conversation) was at the Hay Festival in summer 2005, and an account of it is on the website of the Guardian. We also had an earlier debate, around October 1999, in the Conway Hall in London. Recordings exist of this, as do accounts in various newspapers and magazines, notably the Daily Telegraph and the New Statesman. I am afraid it is beyond my competence to provide links to any of these. Perhaps an interested person, with the necessary skills, could do it. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're so incredibly misinformed I don't know where to begin. "Darwinism" only forms part of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and it is no more a religion than any other scientific theory like gravitation or electromagnetism. There are no atheistic implications to evolution, which is why most biologists in the US are Christians. It only sits in opposition to fundamentalist, literalist readings of ancient religious texts which can't, by any rational person, be considered scientific. Simply repeating ad nauseum that evolution is a faith is not only incorrect but laughable. Most importantly, your repeated contention that evolution has not been observed is patently untrue. The emergence of new species has been both witnessed in the wild (see peppered moth for one example) and induced through experiment. Large, complex vertebrate animals - chimpanzees, for example - take large periods of time in isolation to change significantly enough to form a new species - but smaller animals, such as fruit flies (e.g., the hawthorn fly), moths and so on are routinely seen to evolve. If you go to Google Scholar and type 'speciation,' you will find thousands of examples. Evolution is something that is constantly occurring around us. It accounts for how, every year, new strains of flu resistant to medication develop. Do you really think you're in any position - if you are, as you claim, Peter Hitchens - to say that virtually every qualified scientist in the field is incorrect, based on nothing more than a vague wish that they were? Do you have any better explanation for how we can trace the development of life from single-celled organisms three and a half billion years ago through their various stages of development in the geological strata to modern mammals, without ever finding, say, a domestic dog next to a dinosaur? Your brother, leaving aside his political opinions with which we both disagree, is ten times the intellect you are. JF Mephisto 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Mephisto,Why are you so enraged at my scepticism, and so petulant and rude with it? Am I in fact misinformed? Richard Dawkins himself, the great Pope of evolutionism, is not as certain as you are. On January 7 2005, in the Guardian newspaper of London, he responded to an invitation to state what he believed, but could not prove, thus :" I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe." Believe, but cannot prove. You make a common mistake among enthusiasts for evolutionary theory in mistaking adaptation within species for evolution, which, as you surely know, requires far more than a mere in-species adaptation to be a workable theory. The emergence of a new strain of flu simply does not confirm this majestic, ambitious theory. You compare evolutionary theory with gravitation and electromagnetism. This is not a good argument, since it works to the disadvantage of evolution. The theories of gravitation and electromagnetism can indisputably be observed, and can be used to make falsifiable predictions. Evolution has never been observed, and could not have been since nobody human was alive to observe it at the times it is supposed to have taken place. It cannot be used to predict, since the process - if it operates - is so slow that our civilisation is unlikely to survive long enough to record a single instance of it. I do not say that any scientist is incorrect. No scientist known to me claims that the theory of evolution is a proven fact. The fossil record is ambiguous and full of gaps, and at some stages shows rapid appearance and disappearance of species, which Darwinism rather rules out. Many are confident of its truth, but when pressed their confidence dissolves into misty phrases about 'overwhelming weight of opinion', the exact meaning of 'proof', etc etc. Well, it's either proved or it's not, and the truth cannot be decided by referendum or opinion poll. As to whether there are atheistic implications to evolution, I really don't see how there can't be (and nor can Professor Dawkins, who in my view quite rightly insists that the theory is quite incompatible with any form of theism). Hence the importance of this argument which is a small campaign on my part for freedom of thought and belief against false, pseudo-scientific prescriptivism. You believe what you prefer, and I'll believe what I prefer, the choice we've always had. You might be right. The universe might be a purposeless random chaos and life a meaningless struggle ending in darkness and silence. So might I be right. I very much hope I am right and you are wrong, because the moral and aesthetic implications of your belief seem so hideous to me. But neither of us has the faintest idea how the realm of nature took its present shape, so perhaps it would be as well if we could at least be polite.Peter Hitchens, logged on as Clockback 20:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Clockback - (and yes it really is Peter Hitchens folks) you're protesting that someone isn't being polite? "Oh boo hoo" that's one of your favourite retorts isn't it? Mephisto is a perfect gentleman compared to you. And yes Mephisto, I agree, Christopher is just awesome. "A little more modesty and tolerance - on both sides - would be a good thing" You first then. Miamomimi 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Hitchens, I’m sad to note that your intellectual integrity on the internet seems to be of equal footing with that in the Mail on Sunday. It surprises me that you managed to fit so many misinterpretations of quotes, banal insults and outright misunderstandings in the same block of text. I will, however, assume good faith and reply nonetheless. Firstly, Dawkins applies the word belief to his view that evolution alone is accountable for all instances of design in the universe – i.e., that produced by sentient, evolved creatures. He does not apply the word belief to the existence of the biological concept of evolution, which he considers factual. Acknowledging the existence of evolution does not demand Dawkin’s atheism – as Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, devout Catholic and campaigner against intelligent design will tell you. It also undermines your indignity at my supposed lack of politeness that you refer to him at the “great Pope of evolutionism.” Secondly, and I hesitate to point it out because it strikes me as sufficiently obvious as to not require it, adaptation “within a species” eventually leads to a new species when that change is enough to make breeding with the original population impossible. Your view of distinct and immutable species is incorrect – there are merely different populations of organisms who, given isolation from one another and a degree of time for genetic change, will have altered so much that they are distinct and no longer able to breed. That is what is informally called a species. This has been indisputably seen both in the wild, and induced in laboratory experiments. Like many people, and to some degree understandably, you seem to be unable to distinguish between evolution as a theory and evolution as a fact. In science, theories explain groups of facts – they never become “proven,” they simply become revised or abandoned as new facts come to light that they do not explain. It is a fact that over time organisms evolve into different organisms, and that all organisms share a common ancestry – this is proven not only by the fossil record, but also the entire field of genetics, and morphological similarities. The theory that explains these facts is what most people call the “theory of evolution” - the modern synthesis of natural selection, genetic drift, and so on. In this sense it is entirely the same as the theory of gravity: it is a fact that when you drop something it falls to the earth, and that the earth revolves around the sun – the theory that explains these facts is called gravity. For a much better explanation of these distinctions, I suggest you read “evolution as a theory and a fact” by the late eminent biologist Stephen Jay Gould, which you can find here and the Wikipedia article on scientific theories. Thirdly, you are entirely incorrect, as I have already pointed out, that evolution has not been observed – this process is called speciation, and has been observed thousands of times, as far back as the nineteenth century with the peppered moth and recently with the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Simply refusing to look at the evidence I have provided you of these observations is not sufficient for claiming to that the evidence does not exist, or is in some way faulty: ff you type ‘speciation’ into Google Scholar here, you’ll find hundreds more examples. In addition to that, it is a patent absurdity that evolution cannot be used to make any predictions. One major example of a prediction made on evolution, and that was borne out, was the contention that evolution implied the common ancestry – a claim made over a century ago. It is now possible to see through genetics that all animals do indeed share a common ancestor, and that those animals which we would expect to share a close ancestral relationship do so, such as chimpanzees and humans, which have around 99% similar DNA. Or do you think it’s a coincidence that these genetic similarities exist, in exactly the way that would be predicted by evolution? Fourthly, no scientist you know ‘’would’’ claim that the theory of evolution is a proven fact, because that would mean that he had failed in his very basic use of scientific terminology. Theories and facts are separate things in science, and one cannot become the other – please read this Wikipedia article on scientific theories. It is nonetheless an absolute fact that evolution exists, and that the theory explaining it is that of the modern synthesis (a part of which is natural selection). Fifthly, and on the issue the supposed atheistic implications of evolution, I happen to agree. I personally think that evolution removes the need assume the existence of a god because of the previous lack of explanations for our existence. However, I’m fully aware that is only my opinion, and that there is an entire field of theology and philosophy concerning theistic evolution. Many scientists and theologians consider faith and evolution to be perfectly compatible, amongst them both the Catholic and Anglican Churches. I salute any campaign for freedom of thought, but I believe you’re rather misguided when you attempt to apply that term to the misperception that there is some sort of scientific conspiracy to prescribe atheism based on only one philosophical minority view of the implications of evolution. You’re quite correct that we are both entitled to our opinions, and I defend your right to hold yours without reservation – but I would point out that our right to our opinions does not also entitle us to the right for others to consider them correct. You are wrong, Mr Hitchens, and not even in a particularly sophisticated way – all your objections to evolution have been dealt with decades past by much greater minds than mine. While I accept the existence of evolution, and quite separately happen to be an atheist, I do not see existence as purposeless, random and without moral structure. Rather I see evolution as random only in the sense of the random nature of genetic mutations – the principle of natural selection which guides evolution based on those genetic mutations is about as ordered a thing as you can get (those mutations which are beneficial survive, those which aren’t don’t). I also believe that what you call morality – respect for others, not committing murder or rape or any manner of other heinous crimes, etc. –is derived from the simple fact that, like other social species, we have evolved to exist in a way in which acting “morally” is to individual and group benefit. If you are familiar with game theory, you will know that cooperation (i.e., morality in this sense) is almost always the best strategy for personal gain. I also believe that this understanding of morality is more firmly rooted in our biology, and not subject to the vagaries of religious belief, which as we all know can be a fickle thing. Besides which, even assuming that evolution does imply atheism (which it doesn’t), and that evolution didn’t provide for anything which you would call morality (which it does), that wouldn’t make its existence any less factual. Finding the facts unpleasant is no sort of argument against them, something which I’d expect a seasoned anti-relativist such as yourself to understand. While it’s true that we can never know everything about how our present existence came to be, it is false that we know nothing. It is universally accepted within the qualified scientific community that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old, having to come into existence with the Big Bang; that the earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago, and that humans in their current form (homo sapiens) have existed for around 200,000 years, having evolved from earlier types of human, the earliest of which is believed to have existed around 5 million years ago, and descended from the same organism which went on to produce chimpanzees and bonobos. Please see the history of earth, human evolution, and evolution articles. I hope that all this was of sufficient politeness for you Mr Hitchens, and that you might extend our cordiality to your columns in the Mail on Sunday, which rival Ann Coulter for their shrillness and vindictiveness. JF Mephisto 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A few remarks. The case of the peppered moth is clearly one of adaptation. The moth did not cease to be a moth. It did not even cease to be the type of moth it already was. I should have thought that a designed universe would be bound to contain creatures with the facility to adapt within reasonable limits. As I said before, the grandiose claims of evolutionary theory cannot be sustained by such examples. Plausible and attractive as it is, it remains unobserved. In the vast diatribe above you also seem to have ignored the simple point about the fossil record, which - as you must know - appears to show the sudden appearance and disappearance of species, contrary to evolutionist orthodoxy, and is in any case full of rather unhelpful gaps. To know WHEN the universe came into existence is not to know how it did so and phrases such as "universally accepted within the qualified scientific community" are of no value in establishing fact. Nor is the opinion of a "vast majority". The truth cannot be established by a vote. Many ideas have been universally accepted at many times, which are now derided as false in the light of subsequent discoveries. Conformism, or the majority opinion of the time, are not an argument for anything, or Galileo would have been wrong and the Pope right. If there is one thing that we can learn from the history of science, it is that orthodoxies rarely survive for long. Please, believe what you wish to believe, but resist the temptation to tell me that your fervent faith in random chaos is a proven fact, whereas mine in an ordered universe is false. Frankly, if you really believe what you profess you believe, I can't see why on earth my opinions (or anything else much) should matter to you anyway. Above all, I cannot understand why it should make you so very cross if you are so very sure. In my experience such anger usually results from an opponent expressing a doubt that the angry person himself shares, but wishes to suppress. Perhaps you could give examples of my alleged shrillness and vindictiveness. I am, it is true, often derisive in my column about powerful people, who can look after themselves, and which I think is an essential part of the journalist's duty. But I don't support unhinged idealistic wars or the destruction of liberty in the name of 'homeland security' or 'wars against terror', a suggestion you contrive to imply (especially to any American readers of this who have heard of her but not of me) by the comparison with Ms Coulter. If Professor Dawkins means what you say he means, then he should say so himself. Given an opportunity to state what he believed but could not prove, he said exactly what I quote him as saying. You may regard my reference to him as a 'Pope' of evolution as in some way insulting, but it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable comparison. Mr Dawkins is plainly fiercely hostile towards religion and its adherents and has made it his business to wage a verbal war against them fiercer by far than any modern Christian leader would dare to wage against atheists or atheism. I cannot help you if you regard the word 'Pope' as some sort of expletive. I do not use it in this way, though I am not a Roman Catholic. I have also referred to Mr Dawkins as an 'Ayatollah'. I should point out that the comparison is intended to be humorous, even mocking. But Mr Dawkins, who has guaranteed access to the media of the Western world, is I think well-placed to defend himself against such squibs. In your statement about what we know about the origins of the Earth, you move from the age of the Earth itself, which I believe can be established by verifiable tests, to unverifiable assertions about the origin of human life which is not in the same class of knowledge. Also, as I understand it, evolutionists have now retreated from the 'primordial soup' theory of the origin of life which they originally maintained, and have instead adopted a more cautious and questioning position, taht is to say, they have conceded that they actually don't know what they used to say they did know. Good for them. Let us see more of this. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback 16:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clinton

Did he really call clinton a rapist?

Good question, I know Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly did. Look it up on google or yahoo if you want to know. User:Green01 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

He did: "Then the big white whale, Clinton. What about someone who is a war criminal, a taker of bribes from foreign dictatorships, almost certainly a rapist (plausibly accused, anyway, by three believable women, of rape), executed a black man who was so mentally retarded that he was unable to plead or to understand the charges -- "You're against all that, right?" But you're for it when it's someone who you think is a "New Democrat."" Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, Taking on the Icons, paragraph 4, page 4, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Elberg/Hitchens/hitchens-con4.html

Key Arguments

I'd like to ask if we should add a Noam Chomsky section in the Key Arguments part of the article, since he has been blasting Chomsky quite a bit since 12 September 2001. User:Green01 11:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC).

Cindy Sheehan

I'm a little confused. The paragraph concerning his criticisms of Sheehan first says that Hitchens commented on "the fact" that Sheehan made certain comments on nightline, then calls the comments "alleged". Which is it? Does someone have a link to an official transcript of the nightline interview? Edders 11:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)