Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Re: Criticism.

The amount of critiques listed here is absolutely ridiculous, and out of proportion for a encyclopedic entry.70.28.111.45 10:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you though I rarely agree with Hitchens these days, but if you want to see the "crticism" flaw in action on Wikipedia, take a look at Chomsky's page.

The Marx-Trotsky-Michael Moore connection.(?)

"(Hitchens') affection for Trotsky remains strong, and he says that his political and historical view of the world is still shaped by Marxist categories. In June 2004, Hitchens wrote an attack on Michael Moore in a review of Moore's latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11 [7]." -- IMHO quite an odd segue, that. To the best of my knowledge Michael Moore is not and has never been a member of the Communist Party (nor a Marxist or Trotskyist). If somebody does have some imformation to justify this Marxist-Trotskyist-Moorist linkage here, please cite! In the meantime, I'm trying to re-arrange this info for greater rhetorical logic. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2004 US presidential election, yes?

"Despite his many articles supporting the US invasion of Iraq, Hitchens made a brief return to The Nation just before the US presidential election and wrote that he was "slightly" for George W. Bush; shortly afterwards, Slate polled its staff on their positions on the candidates and mistakenly printed Hitchens' vote as pro-Kerry." -- One assumes that that would be the 2004 US presidential election, right? If so, it would be very simple (and helpful to some readers) to say so. Thanks. -- 201.50.248.179 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Daily Show interview

I think this article should mention his interview on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, which by one account "went on for twenty to thirty minutes alone" due to Hitchens and Stewart debating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.169.6 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Hitchens new book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a bestseller (ranked #3 in amazon.com sales, awaiting new york times rankings this sunday, should be very high). Should mention of it be made in the little blurb/introduction thing at the top? It will quickly become one of his most widely read and known works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.25.4 (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Regarding this book, the title on the book cover is as follows: "god is not Great". There has been a lack on consistency on this point in the article, with various changes and reversions muddying up the issue. A consensus needs to be reached, in accord with policy, on how to show the title, both in this article, and elsewhere on Wikipedia. I would like to hear some other opinions on this matter. Thanks. ---Cathal 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The opinion has now been expressed that the article about this book should be moved to god is not Great in keeping with the book's actual title. Any thoughts or opinions? ---Cathal 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One only needs to look inside the book, namely the page with information about the publisher, Library of Congress catalogue, etc., to see that the book's title is grammatically correct. There's a difference between the design of the cover, where really the words can be put in any way whatsoever, and the actual title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.175.73 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. The title as it is shown on the cover is in keeping with Hitchens' opinion within the book: the lowercase "g" in "god" is intentional, having the intent on knocking god down a peg, so to speak. ---Cathal 18:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the lowercase "g" is intentional - nonetheless, the title of the book is 'God Is Not Great'. Hitchens is not an idiot (for the most part, that is) and understands that "god" is capitalized in the title because it is the title of a book, not because of monotheistic traditions capitalizing the word in all situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.146.59 (talk • contribs)

Once again, I disagree. The first word in a title, whether it is a noun, an article, or whathaveyou, is not necessarily capitalized. Inasmuch as it is not capitalized on the book cover, I have to believe, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Hitchens wanted it that way, and that the article should reflect this accurately. Hence, the lowercase letters. ---Cathal 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case, whether you agree or not is irrelevant. If Hitchens had wanted "god" to be lowercase in the title, it would be; but, as I noted above, if you look in the official cataloguing of the book, it is not. Notice as well that your logic does not explain why "is" and "not" would be lowercase, unless you use the system whereby only the first word of a title (along with any formal nouns) are capitalized.

I notice as well, my feeble-minded pea-brain, that you like to put a period at the end of the title. Perhaps you've mistaken a small grain of dust on your copy of the book for a period. The way in which the list is written should be consistent. If you want periods between the title, the publishing company, and so on, then do it. Don't use it for one particular instance. Have you heard of proofreading, have you read Strunk and White's 'Elements of Style', have you looked at a real book in your life? And also, piss-ant-brain, your using "sic" contradicts what you've said here.

Wait a minute... Did you really just call me (or Cathal) "piss-ant-brain?" I'm sure Strunk and White saved such a phrase for their most constructive criticism. In the end, Anon., none of us are in the mood for a pissing contest, but I will point out that sic is used by editors and journalists to indicate both typos and "author's intent." There is no contradiction. As for the period, well, I too am outraged--outraged--that Cathal and I inserted a period where a coma should have been. For shame, for shame. As for your question regarding proofreading, look at our edits on this page. We've spent quite a bit of time copy editing this article, adding citations for existing facts and incorporating new data which we believe to be pertinent. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 17:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

While you may think you have a point regarding the use of "sic", you don't, because neither of you have responded to the basic fact that in the book itself the title is 'God is not great: how religion poisons everything.' Well, well, well... not the author's intent after all. Or, rather, we don't know the author's intent exactly, except that we can assume he at least approved the clever design, where you mistakenly think the be-all, end-all version of the title rests, but that he also officially made the title as above. You can write it as such, with only the first word capitalized. Or you can use the method I prefer, but either way you must consistently use one method. There is one already in use on this page. My corrections follow the past examples. I don't know if your friends of the designers or work for them, but your zealousness with regard to their titling is a bit odd, and not exactly becoming of self-styled encylopedists. I think E. B. White appreciated creativity and good writing, and the pitiful guardians of a Web site have neither. Maybe you could start with some k.d. lang or e.e. cummings.

"Or, rather, we don't know the author's intent exactly." Indeed. And, as a "pitiful guardian," I will continue to support the consensus until I see the author in question state the name of said book within one of his own articles (as such, I would not consider a book review written by someone else or an interview submitted by a different journalist to be the end all be all answer to this dispute). At that point, we will have a resolution. Until then, I think it's safe to say that the side that has not resorted to childish name calling, which does not hide behind a series of anonymous IP addresses and which has the demonstrable support of a variety of editors is, indeed, worthy of support. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, and again I must say, despite your thin skin, that this "consensus" you speak of (which is apparently you and your friend) is idiotic and, with this recent post of yours, hypocritical in many ways. You both have stated that you do know what Hitchens's intention is. Yet now you admit you don't at least. Maybe you friend still does. You've quoted me out of context also, as I make clear that to the extent to which we do know the author's intention, we know his intention was for the book to be called 'God Is Not Great' (or 'God is not great'; again the difference in these cases is not a factor, so long as one is consistent). The use of a clever design, which as your friend has pointed out hints at a refusal to capitalize "god" as is commonly done in some monotheistic traditions, does not take precedence here. You are wrong. Simple. The long tradition slaved over by librarians and archivists is correct. Indeed, this Wikipedia you are so emotionally fraught over is a pale imitation of what exists in the real world. It is a pale imitation in part because of pathetic loons like yourself.

If you've actually read the book, then you should understand that Hitchens does not particularly care for--let alone blindly submit to--"tradition" (regardless of whether or not innumerable librarians, archivists and literate witch doctors have "slaved over it" for time immemorial).

• Actually, he does. This is a simplistic reading of the book on your part. Indeed, compared to countless other important intellectuals and writers, Hitchens is quite the traditionalist, and has a strong interest in the perserverance of those institutions he supports.

Really? How many pre-Enlightenment institutions (excepting museums) does Hitchens profess his admiration for? Which age old customs does Hitchens adhere to? Given his age, Hitchens, like many of us, may feel some sort of nostalgia for card catalogs, but there is little reason to believe that said nostalgia would prevent him from employing a title which flies in the face of any modern "tradition" (I would have preferred to say system, but I'll work with your words) which has been "slaved over."

Furthermore, a number of other users have reverted your edits, including an administrator who has the 46th highest number of edits on wikipedia. (By the way, neither the admin nor Cathal/Theoldanarchist are my "friends," but, as they both tend to understand the fact that both associates and opponents tend to respond well to civility, I have no choice but to assume that they are both good people.)

• 46th highest number of edits... well well, certainly something to be proud of. Maybe one of those days you punks will do something worthwhile with your life.

Less "something to be proud of," and more of a rebuttal to your statement that there were only two people who do not agree with you. Speaking of which, why aren't you fighting this battle over on the god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything page? Our edits are in line with the title of that article, which, needless to say, starts with a lower case "g." If you really want to put an end to this cycle of reverts, that is where you are going to have to start.

I have explicitly stated that, when I see the author use the title in an article, I will cite it and support his text.

• I'd say that, given the validity of the point I've made about the cataloguing of the book, that in addition Slate's having the book as "God Is Not Great" is enough, since they published exclusive excerpts and Hitchens writes for them regularly. I'm sure you'll find a way to weasle out of this one too. Yes, yes, I'm sure it's just not enough. Any one who has a book published or has done anything creative is certainly like a God to degenerates like yourself. You must wait for him to speak to you from on-high!

It's not enough for me to move the book article from "god is not Great..." to "God is not Great." As long as the article is at the lowercase "g" location, you will face opposition from editors across the board, as well as bots which hunt for typos in hyperlinks. The problem is, you haven't bothered to argue your stance over on that page, possibly due to the fact that a number of other users have already debated and settled on a position which you believe has been certifiably disproved. And that's not my problem.

Until then, I'm going to stand by my assumption, because: a) I find it aesthetically pleasing;

• Needless to say, this point is irrevelant.

Of course it is, I made this three part statement in the interest of full disclosure. I've never been as strong an advocate of the title in question as several other users (on this page and the god is not Great page), and, indeed, did not even enter the debate until you decided to try to win the argument by calling a person, and I quote, "piss-ant-brain." User generated content depends on consensus, and, if you bother to gather up a laundry list of links with state the title in the form you support, and petition for an article change on the "god is not Great" page, you may get somewhere. If you can restrain your anger.

b) a number of other users agree with me;

• Again, irrevelant.

and, c) I know for certain that publishers, and not authors, submit books to the Library of Congress (you may or may not remember the fact that you cited the LoC catalogue). Hitchens probably doesn't give a good god damn about any of this, and, if I wasn't involved in a number of other elements of this biography, I wouldn't give a good god damn either.

• The author isn't involved in the design either, usually. They approve it. Just as they approved the library-cataloguing. Doesn't matter. What matters with encyclopedias, libraries, etc. is CONSISTENCY. I have tried to make the list of Hitchens's books consistent with a particular system of writing formal titles of books/art-works etc. using the method that was already in place.

"What matters with encyclopedias, libraries, etc. is CONSISTENCY." Yes, but there are always exceptions to the rule. We may be wrong that this book is one of them. We will not know for sure until Hitchens states the title within one of his own works (be it an article, a preface to the second edition, etc). If you would like to see things change before such a reference is made, pack up your bags and take them to the god is not Great page. When that page is moved, the hyperlinks will be edited here...

• BTW, if the design of the cover and title is so aesthetically appealing, why don't you have the word, "great," larger than the rest of the title, as it is on the cover and the spin? Again, CONSISTENCY: you and the others who support your position lack it, and as such are supporting a minor little error in Wikipedia.

"Again, CONSISTENCY" On the contrary, that is impossible to do when titling a page. The current form is consistent with the spine of the text. If you have a problem with that, again, take it to the article in question.

In the end, if you want to start winning battles, you should come out of the (anonymous IP) shadows and find a way to restrain your overwhelming disdain for individuals who are unwilling to capitulate to you and your own baseless (yes, baseless... neither of us has any idea what Hitchens lobbied for) assumptions. If you can find a Hitchens article in which he states the name of his book, cite it here and I will engage you. Otherwise, I am done. Anyone who has lived long enough knows that life's to short to waste on fruitless debates with bitter people. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

• Battles, eh? I liked Storm and Stress better....

• You seem particularly upset about me not having some sort of alias. Why is your moniker less anonymous exactly? I don't know you, you don't know me. If you're so incredibly angry about my disdain, I don't think the Internet is a good place for you, for the sake of your psychological well-being. Maybe try the local faith-based charity organization. You can help retarded kids eat apple sauce maybe.

"I don't think the Internet is a good place for you." It's a good place for anyone, but those of us who do not have turrets syndrome do like to call out other people when they adopt an attitude on the Internet that they would never get away with in real life. And, yes, everyone here is anonymous, but people who are clearly hiding behind a variety of IP addresses are typically vandals If that is what you want to be associated with, that's certainly your right.

• I'm sure all those Alice Coltrane records you've tried to get all the through makes you feel very old and experienced. Try some Evan Parker solo records next, pretty boy.

On the contrary. I find them quite refreshing.

• But seriously now... I've responded to your demands and pointed out the Slate example. That seems to be the only thing to point to for now. I'm not interested in some "edit war" as you louts call it. As I come across errors in Wikipedia, I take advantage of the system as it exists and correct them. I'm doing exactly what the authors ask. Have a nice life.

Again, wikipedians are going to continue to revert your edits to the title of this book for as long as the title of the book's page starts with a lowercase g. Win the battle over there, you'll win the war. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

On the particular page for the book, the title as you note is 'god is not Great' but on the discussion page for that page, the title is 'God is not Great'. There hasn't been much discussion there either, so both of the points you made - about some sort of consensus and the discussion about it - are moot. And the rest of your points are illogical, if not incomprehensible.

But a few responses.... institutions are not merely tangible things. The English language perhaps? Which itself as a tradition interacts considerably with the institutions I was speaking of.

Again, you're projecting your own anger onto me. Your anger at me, and at Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you'd devote so much time and effort toward something you think is susceptible to "vandals" and is such on purpose. I have no qualms about it. If the sytem does not enforce the rules you speak of, they do not exist.

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)

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)

Interview

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

• Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So we're in agreement that this sort of nonsense has no bearing whatsoever and should most definitely not be included?User:Aequitas12345

Yes. It is a salutary reminder that the subject matter is a living person, and a controversial one at that. There is always all sorts of this bullshit being put in.AleXd (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

That's nonsense. You might as well say that GW BUSH is known for his anti-analism because he called a journalist he didn't like an asshole. Using a word that is generally construed as an insult or smear to refer to an opponent does not make you "anti" anything. You want to say that the notorious crypto-fascist Lyndon Larouche is known for his antifascism too? He's been calling people who he doesn't like fascists for years! 24.47.154.230 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that Hitchens has written on actual fascism, as in early 20th century Europe, and its evils in many sources. When he derides Islamic fascists he explains why he qualifies them as such and why fascism is evil. Also, in his book on Orwell, and elsewhere, he praises Orwell for fighting fascism when it counted. He's also written about Nazi Germany in (at least) Love, Poverty, and War, especially in the essays on David Irving and Winston Churchill. The people arguing against this clearly have NO familiarity with Hitchens' writings or opinions, and just want to make him look as bad as possible, including trying to ignore his repeated repudiations of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

For tenant, read tenet. The Real Walrus (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The meaning is clear. As for "og", I am uncertain. The Real Walrus (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

And an article about Hitchens should include viewpoints of which other persons? The Real Walrus (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (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)

It's important to seek out the people who his argues against on each particular isssue. "Criticism" of the pejorative kind isn't especially helpful. It's also harder to track down specific arguments and books that refute him. I imagine some of the editors are readers of hithens so naturally will have read more by him. Definitely something to watch. --AleXd (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (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)

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)

• • Boteach weasled out of it. Hitchens e-mailed him for the book order, and Boteach basically said "I think the source is wrong (not proving that it was), I demand a new one", when in fact the wager was that Hitchens had a source for his claim, not that Hitchens could go back in time and prove the source was 100% correct. You can almost never prove history is 100% correct.JJJ999 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is a citation available as it has been recorded but from memory I believe he left his first wife when she was pregnant with their second child. He didn't pop back after the fact to get her pregnant again. You could Google, I'm sure you'd find it. Mimi ^(yack) 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree. A good source on that is the CSPAN 3 hour interview available on youtube where he talks about his Mother's suicide more in-depth than I've seen him deal with it elsewhere.D-rew (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also available at his website buildupthatwall.com under the videos section.D-rew (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not NPOV

I have restored the POV tag/ The article only presents Hitchens views and not views on Hitchens. For an article to be written in NPOV, it should present all significant viewpoints about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Christopher Hitchens, and his views on certain other subjects are relevant to an article about him. Contrary viewpoints on these secondary subjects (e.g. the morality of military intervention or the value of religion) are not directly germane to the primary subject of, again, Christopher Hitchens, though notable debates (e.g. with Chomsky and Galloway) of course are. I hope you can see the distinction. Contrary arguments on these secondary subjects belong in their relevant articles, not here unless directed at Hitchens personally, and I believe you are wholly mistaken to claim that all of Hitchens' views need to be balanced here by contrary views to achieve NPOV. But perhaps your repeated comments are meant to suggest that we need "all significant viewpoints" on the primary subject of Christopher Hitchens. Well, we have Alexander Cockburn's pithy comment, as well as others accusing him of being anti-Catholic, a drunk, etc. What other significant views on the subject of Christopher Hitchens (and not on the secondary subjects) do you require? CAVincent (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It requires viewpoints of others, not just Hitchens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try this again. The comment above is not clear as to your meaning. Do you think this article needs A) the viewpoints of others on the subjects where Hitchens' views are expressed? Or B) the viewpoints of others on the subject of Hitchens himself? In either case, can you be more clear as to WHY you believe this and WHAT you think needs to be added?

I see you again restored the POV tag with the edit summary "There is nothng in this aticle about Hitchens that is sourced to other sources than the person himself". This is incorrect - there are many citations not directly sourced to Hitchens. And there is nothing wrong with any of the citations that are directly sourced to him that I am aware of - if the article says "Hitchens says X" and links to an instance where Hitchens does in fact say X, this is a good thing not a bad one.

Unless you can both explain and support your position more clearly, I'm going to be taking the POV tag back off shortly.CAVincent (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag or not, my point is that the article needs to include viewpoints on Hitchens, rather than just Hitchens' viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work Vincent. Jossi has abandoned consensus and is just being negative for the sake of it. Propose removal of tag until real and substantive objections are given.JJJ999 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Reference 76 is dated September 4, 2001 which of course is incorrect since it deals with the 9/11 attacks. I believe the correct date is 9/24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.96.87 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens on the practice of proclaiming Sainthood?

Has Christopher Hitchens commented in writing on the Catholic practice of declaring people "saints" based on miracles that are claimed after the death of the prospective saint? An example would the current case on the discussion page of Father Damien at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle Murray (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens and the literary scene

The "Hitchens and the literary scene" section is pretty dubious, as has been pointed out at least once above. All it says is that Tom Wolfe may or may not have modeled a character on him and that Gore Vidal used to admire him. This is just trivia, and as two writers don't constitute "the literary scene" (whatever that might mean) doesn't really tell the reader much. I suppose his relationship to Martin Amis, Rushdie etc could be added but even then I'm not sure it is notable or informative. Any thoughts before I remove this section again? CAVincent (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It should really be expanded rather than cut. At present the article does not touch on his admiration for the New York Intellectuals and Lionel Trilling; quite significant given their similar political trajectories. His friendship with Salman Rushdie is worth noting in the passage on The Satanic Verses, but there is a problem with identifying the controversy over the novel as the start of his differences with the left. This seems to be a recycling of his retrospective viewpoint on the issue as fact. I am not sure how it played out on the American left twenty years ago, but on the UK left those who were critical of Rushdie, like say Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and John Berger (admittedly resident on the European mainland) were in a small minority. Philip Cross (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit strange sounding alright. Although I think the two lines there should be incorporated elsewhere and the seciton scrapped.AleXd (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens is now American

I am going to again revert JV-CDX's edit referring to Hitchens as English in the intro. He is certainly not American in the same way Madonna is British (the example JV-CDX gives) due to citizenship via marriage (marriage to a US citizen provides legal residence but not citizenship AFAIK). Hitchens is a naturalized American citizen, having gone through the lengthy process to obtain citizenship. He has also lived in the US for decades. I think at this point he is better identified as an "English-born American" than as an Englishman who also happens to hold US citizenship. Note that "English-born American" does indeed mean dual citizenship unless some action is taken to revoke British citizenship. At the very least, such a significant change to the article's intro is going to need some discussion and defense here on the talk page. CAVincent (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. I see JV-CDX has added a citation supposedly establishing that he is English. I am going to remove this too as what it establishes is simply that he was English-born, as the article previously noted.

Hi, to say Hitchens is an English Born American is implying that he is not a British citizen, which he is. Jerry Springer would be an example of an English born American, as while he was born in London his parents emigrated to the states when he was three. Hitchens recieved his US citizenship at the age of 58. Antony Hopkins is another example of a Brit who has American citizenship, Churchill also had American citizenship. Because someone is a citizen of a country doesn't change their nationality of birth, it simply gives them rights and obligations of the country that they are a citizen of. The source I cited -" But why does this insolently charismatic, upper middle-class Englishman seem to attract, and repel, so many people? " This is a third party independent source and meets wiki guidelines for acceptability. It seems misleading to me to have the introduction as it is.

Respectfully JV-CDX (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think "English-born American" implies that he isn't also British, but on re-reading the citation and taking into account that he became American at 58, I think you have the better argument than I. I'm going to revert myself back to your version. CAVincent (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad we could reach an agreement. Regards, JV-CDX (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just following up with additional support for JV-CDX's argument for introducing Hitchens as English in the first line. Per WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph, "Nationality - In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Hitchens was notable long before acquiring American citizenship, and is still primarily identified as English as supported by the citation. Additionally, the phrase English American denotes American citizenship with English ancestry, which isn't quite right here. CAVincent (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Before the revert war starts afresh - it is my position that:

1) A citizen of the United States, who resides in the United States is an American.

2) An American of English ancestry or origin is an English American

3) An American of foreign birth who purposefully and soberly acquired US citizenship through the naturalization process has quite clearly demonstrated his/her desire to be accepted and regarded as an American

4) An American who took the dramatic step of taking the Oath of Citizenship on the steps of the Jefferson Monument is quite clearly very serious about the gravity of taking on the identity of an American

Christopher Hitchens is quite clearly and demonstrably an American. He has renounced his British citizenship he has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

|Watch this YouTube clip. Forward it to 1:40, watch until 2:22. Note the pin on his lapel. Ignoring the accent, tell me if you hear an Englishman speaking or an American. Windyjarhead (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source that he has renounced British citizenship? I have not heard this claim made before, and would find it greatly surprising if it were true. I don't know British citizenship laws, but in the reverse case (i.e. an American acquiring British citizenship), the US government would neither require nor assume that American citizenship was renounced. Indeed, the US government would consider such a person to have dual citizenship unless they were very explicit about their intent to lose American citizenship. I'm not denying he is an American, just suggesting that he remains English as well, and that in the first line of the intro it is best to stick with the nationality with which he is most notably associated. CAVincent (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i do have a reliable source, and it's already cited in the article. He is a naturalized US citizen, right? That means he took the Oath of Citizenship. The oath is unambiguous:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen . . . "

Do you have any citation showing that he is "most notably associated" with being English? (BTW, what a completely subjective notion.) Windyjarhead (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

British_Citizenship#Loss_of_British_nationality and British_Citizenship#Dual_nationality_and_dual_citizenship suggest that Hitchens would indeed continue to retain British citizenship without extraordinary effort to renounce it. And American_citizenship#Dual_citizenship suggests that the Supreme Court assures us that merely taking the Oath of Citizenship, with the word "renounce" and all, does not have the effect of eliminating his British Citizenship which he is free to retain. Your case has merit only if you can provide evidence that Hitchens took the extraordinary steps necessary to be solely an American. As for "most notably associated", yes that is a tricky one. I can cite this magazine bio (formerly cited in the article, I didn't notice someone recently removed it) in which he is identified as an Englishman despite being written a year after gaining American citizenship. Also, for 58 of his 60 years he was solely British, and I again refer you to the Manual of Style guideline I quoted above viz. citizenship when the subject first became notable. Your case seems to rely on a recent oath; you will need something stronger to be convincing. CAVincent (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My case does not rely on an oath or on any nuances of citizenship law. My case lies on how Christopher Hitchens identifies himself.

In the YouTube clip I posted above, Hitchens ridicules the British state, monarchy and the Church of England:

". . . whereas if I was (sic) in Europe, er my country of birth, in England the Queen is the Head of the Church as well as Head of the State. You have to pay for both. Um, and when she dies her slobbering weak-chinned dauphin of a son will be the Head of the Church of England, and he wants to convert to Islam in meantime. This is what you get when you found a church on the family values of Henry VIII."

He goes on the explicitly align himself with the United States, especially the Revolutionary Founders of the United States.

"We are very lucky in this country. We have a better tradition. We have Jefferson, we have Thomas Paine, we have the First Amendment, we have the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. (sic) We are the only country in the world that says, 'The state can't back religion.' We should appreciate it more."

He's practically singing Yankee Doodle. This man has chosen his identity. Wikipedia should respect it. (Muhammad Ali first became champion as Cassius Clay. Istanbul first became notable as Constantinople. Qualcomm Stadium was built as Jack Murphy Stadium. Zimbabwe declared independence as Rhodesia. Arnold Schwarzenegger became notable as an Austrian bodybuilder, not the Governor of California. . . . and Christopher Hitchens is now an American.) Windyjarhead (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your reference to Wikipedia's MOS, it may be useful to quote the relevant text here:

Nationality – In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable

I draw your attention to the introductory clause, "In the normal case" - I would argue that Christopher Hitchens is not the normal case.

I would also draw your attention to the word "or" in "or was a citizen when the person became notable". I read this MOS entry as an either/or guideline, not one where one usage or the other is preferable. (ie. either current citizenship or citizenship at commencement of notability)

Look at the article on Bobby Fischer, another one who is not "the normal case." He is expressly identified as Icelandic (!) though he only held that citizenship for less than 3 of the 64 years he lived.

If we were to use recognized citizenship as our yardstick, Ghandi was British when he became notable. So was George Washington. And Eamon de Valera. (or was he American? this gets confusing!) And Robert Mugabe. Windyjarhead (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens may identify himself as an American. However, absolutely nothing you have presented convincingly demonstrates that he does not also identify himself as English. I tried looking a little through his recent writing in British publications and noted from June, 2008 this Open letter to outgoing President George Bush wherein Hitchens writes "When you were first elected, our Prime Minister Tony Blair came to Camp David and you found you used the same brand of toothpaste. There wasn't a great deal more overlap with our politics than that." The usage of "we" which you bolded above is no more indicative than his usage of "our" when writing from a British perspective for a chiefly British audience.

You claim that in the YouTube clip "Hitchens ridicules the British state, monarchy and the Church of England". He in no way ridicules the British state in the clip (as if Britons who do so might not remain British). And if one ever sees Hitchens pass up a good chance to ridicule the monarchy and the Church, then one might worry that the Pod People had gotten to him. And in a similar vein, his praise for Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. is of a piece with his work long before his American citizenship, and merely identifies a strain of American thought which he is championing. I fail to hear the strains of Yankee Doodle.

Also, I really must protest this logic: "This man has chosen his identity. Wikipedia should respect it." Wikipedia (like society) is under no obligation to defer solely to how an individual wishes to identify themselves or be presented. Would Tookie Williams be best identified as an author of children's books?

I concede your parsing of the MOS may be preferable; I obviously read it to prefer nationality at time of notability, (at least when the period of notability is of considerable longer duration with the original). But the Bobby Fischer article is interesting. It does not currently identify him as Icelandic as you suggest, but deftly sidesteps the issue with "Born an American, late in life he took Icelandic citizenship."

But I've said enough. I won't try to claim a consensus unless someone besides myself protests the current English American identification in the lede, but if there are no better points for your side, I'll try to edit for some compromise in a few days.CAVincent (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few points of response and then on to my proposals for compromise.

-Indeed, Hitchens is still, and always will be English. This is acknowledged by the phrase "English American."

-If invoking Jefferson as a contrast to the Monarchy doesn't send "Yankee Doodle" wafting through your mind, then you and I must read the early history of the United States quite differently from one another.

-The British monarch is the constitutional sovereign. Mocking the monarchy is mocking the state. (see Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, et cetera.)

-Point taken on Tookie Williams, but the analogy is weak. (but so was my Cassius Clay analogy, to be fair.)

A compromise wording should acknowledge that he is both English and American. Obviously, I am satisfied with the current "English American". Some alternative proposals (picked from wikipedia articles of others with multiple or ambiguous nationality/identity) might be:

1) "British-born American" see Bob Hope, Jerry Springer, for the reverse, see Henry James

2) "English-American" see Craig Ferguson *note where the words "Scottish" and "American" link to in the Ferguson article

3) (avoid labels, explain the specifics in the article) see Rick Rescorla, Sergei Khrushchev, Bobby Fischer

4) (choose one label, mention the other nationality later) see Alberto Fujimori, T. S. Eliot, Terry Wogan - this is my least preferred method --Windyjarhead (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If Hitchens is to be called an American on here, surely John Lennon should be called an American on his page? Intro should read "John Lennon was an English born American singer songwriter". That's certainly not the case on his biog, and I doubt anyone would seriously suggest it. Bit inconsistent all this isn't it? 92.10.50.145 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon, to my knowledge, never identified himself as an American and was not a citizen of the United States. Christopher Hitchens, as I and others have demonstrated above, is a US citizen and regards himself as an American. I fail to see how the John Lennon example makes Hitchens' self-applied identity "inconsistent". --Windyjarhead (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that T.S. Eliot is now listed as "a poet" where he was previously "an English poet." Presumably, they are having a similar discussion on that page. Windyjarhead (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried an edit that moved the issue of nationality down a bit in the intro. Hopefully this also better places his adoption of American citizenship in context as well. (If we could get a good citation of him describing his reasons for taking US citizenship, that would be even better.) I'm going for something like the Fischer and (current) Elliot examples. Does this work? CAVincent (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am satisfied, especially because the info box identifies him as both British and American. Well done. --Windyjarhead (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the nationality that you self-identify as should determine what nationality you are. I would self-identify as a citizen of the world but my passport certainly doesn't indicate that. Hitchens was born in England to English parents and has lived the vast majority of his life in England. As far as I know all four of his grandparents are English so even from an ethnic standpoint he is English. Also, the idea that Hitchens criticism of the royal family is some kind of informal renunciation of his British citizenship is preposterous, if that was the case the British would be a nation of only thousands rather 60 million or so.

Oh dear, are we bringing this up again? I thought we had resolved it. Yes, of course he is English and British, that point has already been conceded. However, he is undeniably American as well, for the reasons that are stated above. Here he is on YouTube addressing his reasons for taking US citizenship. Both English and American - agreed? Windyjarhead (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

is it God or god who is not great?

I've requested a move of God Is Not Great to god is not Great with no pro or con arguments so far over the last 24 hours. If that page is moved, I think this article should also be revised to show the non-standard punctuation of the book title. If anyone has an opinion on changing it in this article, chiming in at Talk:God Is Not Great would be cool. My arguments are there and though I'm about 90% convinced to change to lower-case, I could perhaps be persuaded particularly if someone owning a UK edition could verify the punctuation of the title on the title page etc in it. CAVincent (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens on torture

Hitchens had an article in Vanity Fair last year where he consented to being waterboarded, and in the article he strongly condemned US use of torture. I personally think that the WP article is slghtly slanted towards painting him as a neocon; the VF article redresses the balance a little. Lexo (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I haven't been back to read it in context, but it sounds like it should be "Hitchens regarded the employment use of nuclear weapons as the compulsory enlistment unwilling involvement of civilians in a war and, as such, a violation of individual sovereignty.[citation needed]". Never use a big word when a little one will do. Bendav (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright vio ?

96.241.20.150 (2nd reversion, again removing copyvio material why do you persist, when there is the following notice on the page:

The information on which this page is based has been drawn from research on the Internet. For example, much use has been made of Wikipedia.org, to whom we are greatly indebted. Since the information recording process at Wikipedia is prone to changes in the data, please check at Wikipedia for current information.[3]

is this willful ignorance? pohick (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That page actually dates back to at least 2006 (although at a glance, the disputed content also dates back that far on Wikipedia, and is at a state of copyediting somewhere between the 2005 version of the article, and the present-day one).

It's not impossible that there's been inadvertent cross-pollination the other way, though - if 96.241.20.150 wants to raise any specific points, we should check the article history here to make sure that nothing's been copied. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fist fight in Beirut

IMO this story should be included http://michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/christopher-hit.php http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/christopher-hitchens-beirut-attack http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2009/02/hitchens_beaten_up_in_beirut_1.html

Hitchens defaced a poster for a political party while on the streets of Beirut, Lebanon that he claims (imo wrongly) to contain a swastika and was assaulted by several men, resulting in minor injuries.24.207.226.140 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He didn't claim it contained a swastika, so your opinion that he was wrong about claims he didn't make is pointless. The visual similarities of the symbol are intentional, and Hitchens' disgust with the emblem comes not from these visual similarities, but the ideological and practical ones between the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Nazis.Ninahexan (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

God is not great - movie?

He says so at the end. http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=1121355844 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.63.216 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed New Structure

As noted elsewhere the article is both long and unwieldly. Given the size of his ouevre, the nature and nuance of it and the evolution over time I reccomend this new structure. The current list of his opinions is too long, and not representative. Given the sheer number of subjects he has written about not all can be mentioned. Some effort to summate his position must be taken, but this must be based on some reliable, published third party.

Lead

Early Life and Education

Career (Write here about the publications he was writing for etc)

• England

• Emigration to United States

Work/Output/Views (What he has actually Written)

• Politics

i)Early Socialism ii)Move to the centre/Iraq War iii)(Possibly another sub-section here)

• Critque of Religion

• Literature

• Critques of Specific Individuals

• Influences

Awards and Accolades

Personal

• Family
• Alcohol
• Ethnic Identity
• Relationship with Brother
• US Citizenship

Bibliography

Filmography

References

External Links

AleXd (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

kudos, important to keep views to outline form here, with more in depth writing on his positions in articles on his written works (long overdue) pohick (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a rough re-organisation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AleXd/Sandbox

Many of the sections still need to be cleaned up or completely re-written, they have just grown as people add little bits, rather than form a polished perspective. There is also a need to make sure that the content is properly forked, the articles on his books are listed at the approiate places.--AleXd (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The sheer size and scope of this hs put me off doing it for a while, but I have split some of his political opinions to a new article and better oragnised some of the other material with links to main article. Please fix errors and generally improve. AleXd (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

good job, 1/3 size, corraling all the content onto the red works links will be tricky pohick - (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish law

What relevance is Jewish law here as a facet of accepted law ? Its in the first paragagh and therefore possible influential when summising a non-theist like Hitchins. Stating that his grandmother is Jewish should be enough. Otherwise it is over-playing it. Boils (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he himself (and we should largely accepted his own declaration of his religion) has stated something similar, along the lines of "To the extent that one believes the Jewish law, I am jewish by matrilineal descent." I'll look out for the reference. --AleXd (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that he would reference this, because according to this "jewish law" he is not jewish. Your mother has to be jewish, and his is not. So while he says he wouldn't deny the 1/16th jewish blood he has in him (why would he?), the bible and Nuremberg law does deny him status as a part of the jewish community. 24.207.226.224 (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow that train of thought, though: If, for you to be Jewish, you mother has to be Jewish, then it follows that his mother MUST have been Jewish if her mother was Jewish. If the line of mother's mother's mother's, etc., ends with a Jewish woman, then every woman down the line would be Jewish as well (assuming the matrilineal descent is what they actually go by).

"According to Hitchens, when his brother Peter Hitchens took his new bride to meet their maternal grandmother, Dodo, who was then in her 90s, 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.[11] His brother disputes that their family have significant Jewish ancestry, arguing them to be "only one 32nd Jewish".[11] thoughts- was his grandmother really named Dodo -shouldn't this be in Dodo's article and not in Christopher's -and in fairness shouldn't we include the religious affiliations of his other grandparents (also with some mildly amusing reminiscences)? Nitpyck (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

pro-life?

Footnote #39, reading only "Atheists" linking to http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240%7CBeliefwatch:Pro-life doesn't appear to have any info on Hitchens, some linkrot or something going on there. Шизомби (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many videos on Youtube of Hitchens referring to himself as pro-life (which on an unrelated note we cant use as a source due to copyright paranoia), which I'm sure we can find sources of somewhere. The one that we're using now is indeed either dead or broken. I'll see if I can fix it. Jacob Richardson (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not link rot so much as a poorly marked-up external link -- the pipe should have beed a space. I have fixed it. The link to a Newsweek Belief Watch column by Lisa Miller paints a considerably more nuanced position than our "Hitchens has defined himself as pro-life". The column does say, "When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative" but it goes on to report that he opposes overturning Roe v. Wade and supports the development of medical abortion techniques. I have updated the article to give a fuller picture. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On C-SPAN's Washington Journal in 2002 (YouTube video -- comment starts at 1:50) CH enigmatically said,

There are one or two subjects where I, actually, very occasionally wish there were less controversy. I know that sounds like a betrayal of everything that one stands for. One of these subjects is abortion and the other, well one of the others, would be gay marriage.

Has anyone here seen this expanded upon in print? -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean has anyone seen his expanded view of abortion in print, in his book "god is not Great" pp. 220-22 Mr. Hitchens gives a good description of his view of the unborn and abortion. This is my take on the chapter: His materialist view is that an embryo, because of science and the sonogram, should be seen as a separate entity deserving of serious consideration and should not be seen as a "tumor" or "growth". So too should consideration be given to a person's right to control their reproductive organs. He also notes that abortion of an embryo or fetus, aka miscarriage, happens in nature and in some circumstances is more desireable than the live birth of a severely deformed child or one that would suffer before shortly dying. Mr. Hitchens also appears to believe that most people agonize over such a decision, even when it is in their best interest, making the decision a very personal one. Mr. Hitchens also writes about his strong feelings about the "immoral teachings" regarding reproduction, where contraception is described as the "moral equivalent of abortion" and every sperm and egg are "potential lives". He believes that these immoral teachings are actually counterproductive to "expressing a bias in favor of life" and that science and embryology are far better tools. Hope this helps. Nanmwls (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a fair summary. He is definitely a long standing opponent of abortion.Ktlynch (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Inbalance in wikipedia

I find it quite absurd that Hitchens' article is without any significant criticisms. The dude is anti-theist which means that he has attacked or criticized more than half the world, and he has certaintly been met and challenged dozens of times by authors, debaters, professors and preachers.

I understand the sensistivity to an article about a living person, but an encyclopedia is supposed to report the truth above everything else.

What makes this even more absurd is if you compare his page with Mother Teresa's page. In the introductory section criticisms are mentioned about her. I would be fine with her article having a Criticism section but to put criticism in her introductory section and then throughout the article as well is simply absurd. Especially since most people completely write off the criticisms and see them as irrelevant in comparision to the millions of people she has helped, and the many orginizations which have honored for her work, including the US government, the Catholic church, and the Nobel Prize community.

Yet Hitchens is in his very essence a controversial figure often calling controversy onto himself and yet one would not know it by reading this article. This only shows the bias of Wikipedia which is unfortunate since it has a unique opprutunity to be a presenter of truth to our youth who rely on it in this day of mass information.

If anything, the slant should be the other way around. Mother Teresa's article should have very little criticism, with at most the criticism being a mere sidenote to her world-wide praise. And Hitchens should be shown to be a highly criticized and polarizing figure who is rejected by most the world (being that a large percentage of the world is either Christian or Islamic and thus would in essence reject Hitchens' beliefs and lifework). Yet, instead we see quite the opposite presented in wiki whenever it comes to modern day religious vs. secular figures, there is never a doubt where wiki and its editors will fall on this. I guess blessed are the religious people since they have their own resources to inform them of the other side. At the least wiki should not claim to objective. Just promote the "encylopedia" as a secular, humanist, post-enlightment encyclopedia and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But to present wiki's spin on controversial issues as encyclopedic truth is simply deceptive. --Ic2705 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ic2705

Well, what would the criticism be? He doesn't believe in God. Does that about wrap it up? I'm sorry I don't mean to be flippant (well maybe I do a little) but the article spells out his views pretty clearly, and if people don't like them for the reasons you say they can decide that on their own, rather than be told by some talking head or columnist. I also note that the article refers to him as a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay" and a "neoconservative", both of which I think are criticisms. TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ic2705 might not be without a point. Although most discussion of Hitch's antitheism properly belongs under God is not Great, his alleged anti-Catholicism would be germane to the main article but mention seems to have been dropped in the recent cleanup. I'm not saying I agree he is anti-Catholic in particular as opposed to simply anti-religion, but it is a common enough charge that it probably warrants a line or two here. CAVincent (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

External external links

The external links section hasn't grown back to quite the size is was when criticized above, but it is big and growing. There is a tremendous amount of online material about, of, or by him, both in print and video (including the video from two dozen atheism debates as well a several dozen other debates, interviews, and presentations on topics ranging from atheism and art to free speech and war). A complete listing is clearly beyond the scope of Wikipedia, but is there some other wiki -- if not sister project, then perhaps a wikia project -- where it would be appropriate? -- ToE^T 04:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He married who?!!

Anybody want to tell me how this sentence: "Hitchens has a daughter, Antonia, with his wife Carol Blue, whom he married in 1991." doesn't imply that he's in an incestuous relationship? Whoever wrote it needs to refresh their understanding of the Non-Defining Relative Clause rule...KhProd1 (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Length

This article goes on and on; Hitchens may be important, but he's not that important, and I'd probably not support expanding the Cyprus subsection and some others that are now tagged for it. I've tagged the whole thing as too long for now.

With the end of the Bush administration, a lot of the elaborately debated stuff here has become kind of obsolete. It might be an idea for example to pull the entire lurch to the far right into one section, say 'Islam and the Middle East' rather than repeating the same pattern on every one of the Mideast or terrorism-related subheads we have now. It doesn't gain in the repetition, and arguably the older campaigning stuff, like the Kissinger book and activism, were more influential than his latter-day rumblings.Sartoresartus (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I see no reason for the tags to expand sections when Christophers books really should be expanded on thier own page, expansion seems out of place here as there is length enough. Any more length and it would make ones eyes water!

I hope you will forgive my saying HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHRISTOPHER. 60 today and looking good. Mimi ^(yack) 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention to the summary style, the scope of this bio is wide, so try and stay even and allow detail to go into various related articles, such as his books, etc.--Ktlynch (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitch identifies himself as being English, not British

The Hitch stated in July 2007 "I always say i'm English, not British" so while he carries dual British citizenship, he identifies himself as being English which is an important distinction (speaking from experience of being a British citizen identifying myself as English) as its seperate from the church, monarchy etc.JoshHoward77 (talk) 20:28, 05 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens is British in the sense he carries a British citizenship. I'm legally a British citizen, but regard myself as English. If I had a Wikipedia article, if this was noted would read "is an English...." Although the nationality section in the article's infobox should remain "British / American", Hitchens' identification as an Englishman should be taken into account. Jakeb (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So identifying as English separates one from Church of England but being British connects you. England and America two countries separated by a common language. Nitpyck (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

funny, i thought he meant he was against the Acts of Union 1707, and for Scottish independence, (also presumable Wales and Northern Ireland), and for England national football team. Pohick2 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was funny that the implication of being "English" was that it separated you from the Church of England, while being British connected you to said church, but not, apparently, the Church of Scotland...Not sure how he could be presumably "for Welsh independence" simply because he is against the Act of Union as there is no Act of Union joining Wales with Britain. Did you not note that Wales is not one of the kingdoms making up the United Kingdom and that the Welsh flag is not represented within the Union Flag?KhProd1 (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This Article Needs to Re-written

This article has great quotes, content, citations, etc.; but it is horribly written. There is no coherent article here. Just a string of disconnected subjects.Cadwallader (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Jakeb (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then re-write it. That's how Wikipedia works. Windyjarhead (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It was getting together a few months ago, but has fragmented again since people have added in various bits. The "On Ireland" section a best warrants a mention in the Political views article - it's hardly something he's championed in a big way. The Cockburn criticism is vulgar & indiscrimnate - better to integrate opposition on specific subjects as they are mentioned. Ktlynch (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets get to work then. Jakeb (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would emphaise for anyone seeing the tag that the content overall is good, but that it doesn't flow that well. In particular, I move that the "Hitchens and The Nation Staff" section be deleted entirely. Ktlynch (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's much of the article that needs to be rewritten and deleted entirely. Jakeb (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree, and I both request and recommend that edits and deletions of the scale that have been made recently be discussed here first. Neither of you has offered one single reason in keeping with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines for a substantial rewrite of the article. And Sir Richardson does not use edit summaries which is against policy. Please explain your edits and the reasons they were made. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe we should start by you guys saying what you dislike about the article now. TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the article is good. The rest of the article is generally highly inconsistent. Jakeb (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the general problem is that there is good material here, plus some not-so-good parts, but it comes off as disjointed rather than as a single, coherent article, which I expect reflects the way it has been edited in bits and pieces over time. While obviously it would be nice if someone could just do a massive copy edit to fix it in one fell swoop, Sir Richardson/Jakeb's choice to make a series of small edits has the advantage that specific changes of his can be objected to while allowing his overall improvement of the article to continue. I assume I'm not the only one watching. And as for the Hitchens and the Nation Staff section, anyone who was reading the Nation at the time can tell you his departure was lively. Unfortunately, this section has been edited over the years to be principally about Cindy Sheehan rather than the Nation. I agree that it is time to delete the section in whole, unless someone wants to recreate it from several years ago, when it was much better than today (if memory serves, I haven't gone to the archives).--CAVincent (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the expansion template from the "regarding specific individuals" subsection. There is a link to the main article, so no expansion should occur here, but at the main article. Much of what is in the "Hitchens and The Nation staff" section, especially anything about Cindy Sheehan, should be in that article. That section here should deal mainly with Hitchens' departure from that magazine, and his arguments that preceded and followed his departure.

Once again, I ask for the critics to offer specific examples of problems with the article. I also reiterate my request that Sir Richardson provide an edit summary with every edit so that other editors may know, at a glance what he is doing. This is simply common courtesy. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I left some comments to this effect during the recent GA review.  Skomorokh, barbarian  04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We should be wary about grand claims to "entirely rewrite" the article, that could lead to alot of infightinig among editors, given the complex and controversial nature, even for a BLP, of the subject. I think the issues pointed out by Skomorokh in the GA review should be addressed first, he's made a fair comment on what needs to be improved. As for the overall structure I think there is Ireasonable rationale prosposed above in the "Propsoed new Structure" discussion. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

rather than deleting good sections that appear rambling (i.e. "regarding specific individuals" subsection) migrate those to a stand alone article, (rewrite there) and link here with outline. (devide and conquer) this process is started. Pohick2 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I think another problem is the messisness and scope of the subject, Hitchens y his nature has lots of disagreements, and writes profically on so many subjects, it's hard to summarise it all in one article. I think we need some agreed scheme before lots of work gets done. There is one proposed above, I thought that would work, dividing work and life. Are there any other proposals, or should be work under that schema?Ktlynch (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i think the "Hitchens and The Nations staff section, should really be a subsection under "regarding specific individuals". if it isn't worth a stand alone sub-article could it be merged into that sub-article Christopher Hitchens' critiques of specific individuals ? Pohick2 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that approach. His dispute with the Nation's Cockburn (and also publicly with their Katha Pollitt and Nation-contributor Noam Chomsky) are really about his break with the Left over the war-on-terror/Afghanistan/islamofascism/whatever, and is not about his critique of individuals, at least not in the same manner as Mother Theresa, Kissinger, etc. (At least, I'm pretty sure he doesn't want Cockburn tried as a war criminal.) Honestly, I think this section is, in hindsight of the last few years, not particularly noteworthy and would support it being removed entirely. --CAVincent (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help feeling that we should delete the political views section of this article, only using it to link to the main political views article. We really need to write a cohesive summarization of Hitchens' political views in this article, using the political views article for a more detailed and discussion of his political views and writing. Sir Richardson (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposition

We merge the now well written political views article with this one, which was broken off due to its originally unnecessarily large size that it is no longer, and delete the quotefarmed and pointless section on his dispute with The Nation staff. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deleting that Nation section (the points can easily be merged into the life part). Though I think a seperate political views article is neccessary given the huge scope of subject he writes about. Ktlynch (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If said articles were merged and said section was deleted, the article would be below the recommended maximum size. For now, I generally don't see the point of the political views section we have in this one. Its ambiguous of what is intends to summarize, compared to the main political views article itself. Sir Richardson (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hitchens and The Nation staff"...

Please do I have permission to delete the thing? Consensus has established it to be quotefarmed and pointless. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I strongly support its removal. In retrospect, I don't think his disputes with Cockburn or others at the Nation is particularly noteworthy, and furthermore the section as it exists is just a bunch of quotes without context that would mean nothing to a casual reader not already familiar with the disputes. --CAVincent (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section as it was was not encyclopedic. It's not obvious either that these exchanges are worth writing about in an encyclopedic way. Maybe if there was evidence that his relationship with Cockburn was particularly important? (The section said "Nation staff" but it was just Cockburn.) IsambardBrunel (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think the main point, that his departure from The Nation was contentious, can be made in a few sentences in the flow of the biography.Ktlynch (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Questioned Again

Having read thru the article, I do not question the facts, but the tone. The article gives every impression of being written by a publicist/PR aide. Perspectives are generally cited from the subject's POV (e.g., subject's fall-out and make-up with brother) and the inappropriate use of adjectives throughout suggests both preening and bias (e.g., "Hitchens is known for his ardent admiration of George Orwell, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, and also for his excoriating critiques of Mother Teresa, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Henry Kissinger, among others." Perhaps better written, "Known to be an admirer of..., Hitchens has also garnered attention for his strong ctiticisms of notable personages such as...."). The end result is not so much a biography as an advertisement. Barsook8 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've seen far worse on Wikpedia, but you do point out some problems :)

Please feel free to try and "neutralize" the tone of the stuff you mention above and anything else you think is a problem, if anyone disagrees they can bring it here for further discussion. TastyCakes (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't try to adjust it too much by simply changing the prose. What we need is to fish out responses to and reviews of Hitchens books, to put the otherside of the argument. I imagine many people who write this biography are readers of Mr Hitchens, so it's a natural bias that might emerge. Nevertheless, he has had many disputes in print, so it's not that hard to find opposition to him. I thing "advertisment" is a bit harsh - any biography must surely tell of some of his expressed positions on subjects - but it's a difficult bio and can always do with improvement. --Ktlynch (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens' Education - his title?

It would be good to know if Hitchens has a doctorate or other degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

Link #63 is broken 24.18.236.67 (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens beating the war drum on Iran

Hitchens faithfully cheerleaded the Iraq War and is on the same page with Iran. Here he is recently with the usual chestnuts about freedom of the Iranian people and WMDs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/christopher-hitchens-want_b_425026.html http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/quote-for-the-day-4.html This needs to be worked into the article.

Savagedjeff (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gay Fling

If someone wants to add this, feel free. I'm about to go to sleep but if no one has added it in, I'll do it tomorrow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255852/So-WERE-Tory-ministers-gay-flings-Christopher-Hitchens-Oxford.html

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be. I suppose this warrants him being included in bisexual and LGBT related categories then? Sir Richardson (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he should be categorised like that on such flimsy evidence. Hitchens has nothing to do with the LGBT movement. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He could very well be bisexual, I mean. There isn't enough context specifically as of yet, however. Sir Richardson (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. I would take those soundbites with a grain of salt, as the article points out too. In any case it might be overly detailed for this bio. The article also reminded me of something that I had meant to say to you: our earlier plans to overhaul the article should take on extra urgence given that his memoirs are coming out soon. The article will probably see a huge jump in traffic and more scrunity. I imagine my journalists will be re-printing information they've read here, so we need to be extra careful in the next few months. I've been working alot on two other articles recently but am ready to start again here, if you are...--Ktlynch (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. We will have a far greater resource of biographical information once Hitchens memoirs are released. I believe the best article we can model this one one would be Edward Said's. Sir Richardson (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

On the point about the GAy fling. I removed it because the article cited here is specluative. Also it is not notable who he had relations with at university. The commentary on his claim was distinctly questioning.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the piece from the Sunday Times entitled Christopher Hitchens' gay fling with Tories is a better source, and speaks about relationships occurring while Hitchens was an adult? I'll leave it for someone else to add to the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Has Hitchen's said much about LGBT rights? --DCX (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

See this link on the subject: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7043911.ece Though you may want to wait for the autobiography. Ed (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should Hitchens be exempt? It is an unspoken Wiki law that all articles about notable people assume that they are sexually inverted unless proven otherwise by citation.Lestrade (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Sexually inverted? Well Dr Freud, I don't know if you've heard, but nobody has used that term since the early 1950s. It's based upon old Freudian ideas about the Oedipal Complex and all that Reaction Formation junk. Try not to show your homophobia in public, Lestrade. It makes you look like a fool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.255.58 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

Link number 7, which is supposed to support the claim about his American citizenship, doesn't work.

/Jonte93 (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Wikipedia does not emphasize on ethnicity thus I will remove his ethnicity from the infobox.-- And Rew 18:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fight with" cancer

The section titled "Fight With Cancer" mentions that Hitchens doesn't consider himself to be "fighting with cancer." I changed the section title to "Cancer." HItchens doesn't get to decide section titles on his article, sure, but there's no good reason to keep the title as-is. Wackojacko1138 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A POV article

I've only read the lead section, and it already has a distinct leaning towards POV. And what about his defense of some Holocaust deniers such as David Irving? I think they certainly merit some mentioning in the article at least. In addition, as opposed to be an essay on its own, the lede, per WP:LEAD, should be a summary of the article and therefore citation-free. Last, the size of external links further gives the illusion that this is a fan article instead of a wikipedia article. --Artoasis (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

David irving is not a holocaust denier. The ledes on good articles don't need citations, people who want citations will read the end of them anyway. I don't think there's any problem with citations myself.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before, here. He's been convicted of Holocaust denial by two Western courts, among other things. Did you not read the previous discussion? Please desist from making obviously inaccurate statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, reliable journalism applies to Wikipedia articles. I am sure that if you consider evidence-based news reports you will find he has said that the holocaust is open to doubt, rather than a myth, as you seem to assert.I do not believe in the verdict of a British kangaroo court on Irving, and holocaust denial should not be mentioned in his wikipedia biography either.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition of Holocaust denial is a position that denies or undermines the existence or extent of Nazi Germany's systematic genocide through various methods, of millions of Jews, Poles, Romanis, the disabled and homosexuals, and other religious and political dissidents in Europe. Reliable sources therefore refer to David Irving as a Holocaust denier. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Neoconservative"

I'm removing the following line:

Hitchens's support for interventionism, employment of the term "Islamofascist" and his notable support for the Iraq War have caused his critics to label him a "neoconservative". Hitchens, however, refuses to embrace this designation, insisting that he is "not any kind of conservative".

Whoever accused him of being a "neoconservative" was either being careless or just didn't understand what the term means. Of course he's not a neoconservative. This quote of him denying a clearly inaccurate label ends up falsely coming across as confirmation that he's still a free-thinking ideological nonconformist. Now, if someone finds a quote of him denying being a neoliberal, it wouldn't be surprising, but it might be notable. --MQDuck (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources have (yes, most often critically) referred to Hitchens as a neoconservative. He himself denies being one, as "not any kind of conservative." Since 9/11 and the Iraq War, it has always been a fairly prominent accusation within his political discourse, so this is why it was in the lead. Personally, I don't completely object it not being there, but still, our personal opinions, if we write articles productively, aren't what is supposed to shape them. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reference that points Christopher Hitchens to neo-conservativism.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Lineage?

The entry now reports Hitch and his brother are 1/32 Jewish, which makes no sense if, as Hitch makes clear in Hitch-22, his mother was fully Jewish so that Hitch and his brother are nominally half Jewish (leaving room for hitherto unrecognized Jewish forebears in their father's lineage and the possibilty for their mother's line to have non-Jewish forebears). The presence of this 1/32 attribution should be reconsidered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus7 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Jewish religious scholars had determined that if someone's mother is Jewish, then their children (at least at birth) are also Jewish. Is this incorrect? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is correct, if the mother is Jewish, her children are Jewish. The concern here is the total genetic composition of the Hitch's lineage. His mother was Jewish, but this is not to gainsay that she did not have non-Jewish ancestors; and similarly, whether or not Hitch's father's lineage might have included any overlooked Jewish ancestors. I know from researching my family tree that it includes Jewish forebears on both sides--probably as big a surprise to me as it was to Hitch and his brother. But given Yvonne's predominately Jewish family history and place of origin in a very Jewish population center near Breslau, the 1/32 fraction mentioned by Peter Hitchens is unreasonable without further explanation. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens arrived at the 1/32 figure because only one maternal grandmother of theirs is Jewish. Christopher has also clarified his "jewishness" by saying "if you believe the religous law of judaism". Since they were not raised as jews, and both have written books on religion their own testimony of their religion should probably be left in. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow Peter Hitchens' reasoning. We have been given no reason to doubt that Hitch's mother was fully Jewish with both father and mother having been Jews (ignoring the possiblity of gentile forebears in her lineage). Clearly, Yvonne's great-grandfather Nathan Blumenthal who emigrated from Germany/Poland in late 19th century was Jewish. Hitch's father was presumably fully gentile (ignoring the possibility of Jewish forebears in his lineage). These facts, absent more detailed information concerning unmentioned intermarriages in the parents' lines, would indicate that, to a first approximation, Hitch and his brother were 1/2 Jewish, not 1/32. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In this respect, it would be best to reword the sentence to something like, "his brother Peter once claimed he and Christopher to be only one-thirtysecond Jewish." You can always include and source the information with Hitch-22 yourself, which I don't have a copy of myself. Be bold. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, Peter Hitchens' 1/32 is closer to the true value than I had claimed and I apologize for my mistake which arose from a too quick first reading. I have not been able so far to find where Hitch refers to the 1/32 in Hitch-22, if, indeed, he does. However, at pp. 354-55, Hitch relates that his Jewish great-great grandfather Nathaniel Blumenthal, who emigrated to Liverpool from Prussia in late 19th century, married "out" and that his mother's mother married a Gentile who converted to Judaism. By my reckoning, these two acknowledged mixed unions (and Hitch does not claim his account of a full geneology) lead to Hitch and his brother Peter being 3/16 Jewish. If Peter's investigation of his family tree contains additional "out" marriages, then his value of 1/32 could be accurate. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this the first line in the body of article? He is 1/32 Jewish ethnically, and he has no association with the religion. Judaism being passed by the mother is only observed by Jewish tradition, and because he doesn't follow Jewish tradition it is an extremely unimportant part of his life. Tubbablub (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph about his Jewish lineage from the beginning of his "Early Life" section to the "Religion" section. It frankly looked bizarre being the beginning of the "Early Life" section, before anything else about him and his early years was mentioned. It's hardly such a central aspect of his life, and he didn't even know he was part Jewish until he was in his late 20s or 30s and his mother long dead, so in that sense it had no part of his early life anyway. I think the debate about it caused it to assume more importance in people's minds than it has in Hitchens' own mind and his own life.QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding "anti-catholicism" tags?

I find it difficult to understand why this page needs to have these tags added. They were removed. Please discuss if you would like to add them again. Rmosler | ● 18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to have an anti-catholic tag here IMO. PalindromeKitty (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He's a noted critic of all religions, you wouldn't add an anti-semitism tag on Hitlers bio, would you?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Look i think it is time to place a curren tevent tag on this article

Hitchen's cancer condition could quickly and vastly change; would a current event tag on this article be warranted?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No. It's extremely unseemly—making the possible progression of a disease appear to a spectator sport. The article is well-enough tended that any developments will be incorporated in a timely fashion. ^Bongo_matic 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You confuse unseemliness with wikipedian contributions to WP:BLP, not to mention you should read WP:TALK, it isn't nice to subjectify an attempt at making an article better. I merely don't want an obituary disaster, where someone writes an obituary, and enry and enough cynics see the article and try and huckster it up with misinformation.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to come across as pedantic, but couldn't every living person article as a whole technically be a current events story, based on the criteria that information could change drastically at any moment while they are alive? Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if something as deadly as cancer strikes someone, especially if they;ve admitted dying, is there any equivalent template which will stop people wirting obituaries prematruely, other than a current events tag? There must be some template. thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Current is for "those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day" - it's a warning to readers that the information may be in the process of being updated (or vandalised) while they're reading, and an alert to editors that any edits may overlap with the work of others. I don't see how it's relevant here, or what's meant by the danger of "people writing obituaries prematurely". --McGeddon (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the cross-eyed picture of Hitch for the article?

I like that a picture was chosen of him debating, but it seems the photographer has caught him cross-eyed. Surely there are better shots of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.250.32 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed

The detail of this article is Brilliant, and even more better (in my opinion) the word "English-American" is used which is just a cool word and makes a change.109.154.15.2 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Admiration of Marx

The previous edit included a claim that Hitchens admired Karl Marx, the article cited included a discussion of Hitchen's views on Marxism, but nowhere did it show he admired Marx as a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark567 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

criticism

A criticism section on this man's radical views is needed. 184.96.244.40 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This man is right, and he sounds the one to do it...! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of Hitchens's views have been challegned and this criticism should indeed be reported in this article. Rather than a crude rattle-bag of criticisms, we need to search out the contemporary arguments Hitchens had:when he advocated the war in Iraq who did he debate against in person or in print? This way ad hominen attacks are avoided and the context is better established. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, why would it be needed? He's not a politican, but he is a political commentator with political opinions and of course some people will disagree with those opinions. You need to add criticism sections to the pages of every single politican and editorial journalist in the world in that case. --213.112.21.83 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Why is Hitchens' bisexuality not mentioned at all in the article? He came out as Bisexual in 2010. http://www.rationalape.com/2010/03/christopher-hitchens-to-reveal-his.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.240.207 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Then you can include it in the article. (Although, of course, somebody's sexual orientation is a rather boring piece of information and shocks no-one outside the US) ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "come out" as bisexual. He said he had certain experiences in his boyhood. Read more carefully, it's already in the article. --Ktlynch (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then all's well. And you still don't just delete somebody else's post on a talk page. Big no-no on Wikipedia. ≡ CUSH ≡ 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But it is proper to redact statements on a Talk page that seem to serve no purpose other than spreading unsubstantiated rumors; such actions are in accord with policies regarding biographies of living persons. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

English vs. British

I've added a reference to his preference of being called English instead of British (and as a result, fixed a previously existing reference). Hopefully we can stop the edit-warring. Perhaps more appropriate would be to not change his self-described citizenship, but instead mention the qualification instead, as in:

Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is a self-described English-American author and journalist whose books...

But it is to be left as English-American regardless. GManNickG (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate more clearly between citizenship and national identity here. When Hitchens says he is English, that isn't his "self-described citizenship" but his self-described national identity. There is no such thing as English citizenship. He is a British citizen, which should be noted, but if he describes himself as English then that can also be mentioned. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, but are we to be "correct" according to politics or "correct" according to the person? How does this idea look (note the info box will stay the same as it is now)?:

Christopher Eric Hitchens (born 13 April 1949) is a British-American^[2] author and journalist whose books, essays, and journalistic career span more than four decades. ...

...

Though Hitchens retained his British citizenship, he became a United States citizen on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial on 13 April 2007, his 58th birthday. XYZ.^[2] His latest book, Hitch-22: A Memoir, was published in June 2010. ...

Where XYZ is a sentence or so explaining his preference of "English" over "British". Is this undue weight? GManNickG (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we're describing his citizenship, we'd surely have to say British since that's a factual issue and English citizenship doesn't exist. But that's not the point because he describes himself as "English", not as an "English citizen". So I don't think there's a problem with calling him English(-American) and noting that he has dual British and American citizenship. Whether we mention that he apparently prefers to describe himself as English rather than British probably depends on whether he's made this point in multiple interviews or articles. If he's only said it this once, I think it probably is undue weight to mention it. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, unless we can find more sources in which he insists on being called English, I think we should go for "British-American" in the introduction. There are plenty of sources that use that description of him. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to argue that English is really describing his ethnicity, and not nationality. I was basing this on the fact that there are other articles, for example about Aboriginal Australians, which may refer to the subject as "Aboriginal Australian" or "Indigenous Australian", even though Indigenous and Aboriginal are not nationalities, and refer to their ethnicity. In that case, I don't see the problem with "English-American".

That being said, I've started thinking that because "American" refers to his nationality, saying "English-American" may imply that he has only American citizenship. That make sense to anyone? I actually came here to support sticking with "English-American", but perhaps simply putting in a sentence which says "He refers to himself as "English-American"" would be enough? Anoldtreeok (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by national identity I really meant the same as what you call ethnicity. But I don't think we have a source in which he describes himself as an "English-American", do we? Cordless Larry (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So, any suggestions on what to do here? I can't find any more sources in which he insists on being called English, so perhaps we could go back to British-American in the introduction? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support going back to British-American. If others insist though I wouldn't have an issue with a sentence that says he refers to himself as English-American, so long as it's sourced of course. Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find other sources, either, so none saying "English-American" specifically. (I will say I think he'd refer to himself as English-American, though, given his statement). But because he doesn't seem to find it important enough to bring up on any other occasions, the source seems to be just a recitation of minor personal preference rather than an important wish to be noted in general. I agree correctness over his preference, then, is the right choice, unless a more direct "I would really rather be called English than British, please" source shows up. GManNickG (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC

Hitchens consistently refers to himself as English, no one anywhere calls himself "British". I hate to say it but I think it is an American idea. Ktlynch (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Plenty of people describe themselves as British. In fact, according to survey data, more English people describe themselves primarily as British than as English. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The simple solution is to just call him what he is: an American. Windyjarhead (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He is both an American and a British citizen. There are plenty of sources that refer to him as "British-American". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There's not really many direct hits there, most are wikis or wikipedia mirrors. English people are subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But those subjects refer to themselves as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish etc. Not "British". Ktlynch (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not true, at least in the case of English people, as I outline above. But the point isn't what "most people" refer to themselves as but what reliable sources refer to Hitchens as. See this news search for sources calling him "British-American". Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitch was fairly explicit in a 2007 interview: "I always say I'm English, not British." [4]. Identity is important here, not citizenship. To take just a few examples, Sean Connery and Ewan McGregor are described as "Scottish" not British in their respective bios. Paul McCartney and David Beckham are described as "English". Tom Jones and Catherine Zeta-Jones are "Welsh".

What's the point in the argument? Some lame unionist statement that has no place here? The phrase "English-American" does the job, let's give it a rest. Windyjarhead (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the examples you give are of people referred to solely as "Scotish", "Welsh", and "English". In this case, their ethnicity is the only thing being referred to, so there's no confusion when referring to their "identity" as opposed to citizenship. As Hitchens isn't American by Ethnicity, the American part refers to his citizenship. "English-American" does mean an American citizen of English ethnicity, which implies he is a citizen only of the US. This wouldn't be a problem, if he didn't retain his British citizenship. It may "do the job", but it's still inaccurate and misleading, even if explained. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He is also a citizen of the European Union. I presume that nobody wants the reference "European American" to lead the article? His (residual) British citizenship is worth mentioning, but the facts remain that he is a US citizen who lives and works in the United States. He is an American, of English ethnicity. It is certainly not "inaccurate" to call him an English American. Terribly sorry if this sounds rude, but it really is that simple. Windyjarhead (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe inaccurate isn't the correct word, but it is still somewhat misleading. Saying "English-American" is like saying "He is an American citizen of English ethnicity", which implies he is solely an American citizen. That being said, however, I doubt the average person reading an article would read the line as pedantically as I am. Anoldtreeok (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - if you Americans have no objection than I am going to change the George W Bush page to describe him as a Texan politician, and the Barack Obama page to describe his as an Haiwaiian politician. Americans just do nto get the distintion between being British and being English, and I wish I knew why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno2010 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What total nonsense. Windyjarhead (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that wasn't very helpful. Windy, since you seem insistent on him being primarily American, can you provide any sources in which he is described as such? Cordless Larry (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Off-hand, here are three: [5][6][7] Windyjarhead (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, so in the first two he is talking about becoming American, but nowhere does he say that he regards himself as exclusively American. The third link redirected me towards some sort of fake anti-virus site, so I closed by browser. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a different tack, will help. I hope it is not in dispute that Christopher Hitchens:

1)Lives in the United States (and has for decades)

2)Works in the United States

3)Is a citizen of the United States

4)Votes in American elections

5)Pays American taxes

No, I would not say that he is "exclusively" American. I would say that, any other ethnicity or nationality aside, he is undeniably an American, and to suggest otherwise is simply fallacious. I know that this is a cultural difference, that British/English people will continue to regard him as British/English (and yes, I know what the distinction between British and English is). This is the reality of our globalized world. Sometimes people have multiple nationalities. (I am one of them.) It is entirely unremarkable for an American to be also "other". If the spectacle of Arnold Schwarzenegger's term as Governor of California hasn't demonstrated this, I don't know what will. Windyjarhead (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - he has multiple nationalities and the wording should reflect this. "British-American" does that well and is supported by reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, except that I would prefer to see "English-American" since it is Hitch's stated preference to be regarded as English rather than British.[8] and that the "wiki-precedent" seems to be to identify the nationality of prominent British people by referencing their constituent country. I don't think the nuances of British citizenship law or the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom need to be spelled out, any more than his status as an EU citizen needs to be. Windyjarhead (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, but then you're no longer talking about citizenship because there is no such think as English citizenship. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and Hitch's American-ness is more than a new passport. The citizenship affirms the identity, but does not create it. This man is English. This man is American. These are not mutually-exclusive ideas. (By the way, I think we may actually be having a productive Socratic dialogue, how rare on Wikipedia.) Windyjarhead (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I increasingly find myself unable to care what we describe him as! I started to participate in this discussion because I thought I could easily arbitrate it, but now I have no idea what the best option is. All I know is that the majority of sources call him "British-American" but that he prefers "English" to "British", and that "English-American" isn't really satisfactory! Cordless Larry (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I was with you up until the last point. I contend that English-American is satisfactory. If it helps, I am not aware of any "English" people who are not ipso facto "British". That is to say, "English" implies "British" - just as it implies "European" and "Human". The question is only where one should draw the line, what is the largest group with which it is useful to identify him. If there is doubt (and there clearly is) the subject's preference tips the scales for me. Windyjarhead (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm generally one to go with whatever someone self-identifies as, it's just that Hitchens hasn't (as far as I'm aware) identified as "English-American". Cordless Larry (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken, but he has identified as "English" and as "American". (Most recently as "American" might I add). I really wish somebody would ask him this question in an interview. I am not thrilled with the notion but perhaps "English and American" instead of "English-American" would be the best solution. Windyjarhead (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's best, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It goes against my argument to point this out, and maybe it is a Other stuff exists argument, but the page for Craig Ferguson states "Scottish-born, naturalized American television host", and he is both a British and American citizen. So if something like that (which I would argue has even more potential to mislead) is around and hasn't caused a fuss, I guess it could be said "English-American" is OK. His nationality is in the infobox either way. I guess my main problem with "English-American" is that how do you therefore distinguish between someone who has dual citizenship, and someone who is just an American of English ethnicity? Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Two points in response - (1) most biography articles on Americans don't overtly refer to their subjects' ethnicity or ancestry in the opening sentence. (ie. "Michelle Kwan is an American figure skater" not Michelle Kwan is a Chinese-American figure skater.) The fact that Hitch is specifically referred to as English-American indicates that there is some nuance to his national identity without being overly verbose. We wouldn't refer to George Washington as an English-American, though he certainly would qualify as such. As someone who immigrated to the US as an adult, Hitch's situation is different. (2) I don't think it's helpful or interesting to get into the minutia of his legal citizenship right off the bat (ie. English ethnicity, British and American citizenship). It distracts the reader from the focal point of that first sentence, which should be that he is an "author and journalist". To use a reductio ad absurdum argument, this sentence should not become: "Christopher Hitchens is a mammalian inhabitant of the planet Earth native to England; a citizen of the United States of America, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the European Union; licensed to operate motor vehicles, he is an author and journalist who writes in the English language." Clearly ridiculous? Let's keep it simple at the top and explain the details a bit further down in the article. Windyjarhead (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is by far the best suggestion yet. Drop any mention of his nationality from the first sentence and then just mention his citizenship further down, when discussing his personal life. Perfect. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually advocating that we should leave "English-American" in the first sentence (as it is an accurate and succinct description of his national identity) and that the task of spelling out his legal citizenship should be left for further down the article. Windyjarhead (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, in that case I misunderstood. I still think that removing mention of his nationality from the first sentence could be a good solution though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be. I think I'll have to "chew on" that idea for a while, and let some other editors add their input. (And might I suggest a return to the left margin?) Windyjarhead (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. To summarize: omit his nationality from the first sentence. (Leave the infobox as-is.) Later, mention his citizenship (as exists). The question is then, how should that be done? Should we mention his preference of 'English' at all, or is it just not a noteworthy fact? GManNickG (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps both his citizenship and identification as English could be put in the personal life section? I'm not sure if it merits its own sub-heading, but that's one possibility. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just two cents: What he sees himself to be is not the same as what he is. His preference should not be considered in the decision. Instead, what should be considered are: What the most reliable (I'm leaving this deliberately ambiguous) sources call him, and what other people are called in WP (higher weight given to those in FAs?) who are in similar circumstances of having emigrated as adults, still retain the original citizenship, in the modern world (as opposed to George Washington), and possibly with an emphasis on those who did this with the same countries as in Hitchens' case. That he makes a big deal of the distinction is possibly notable in the main article. -- Nczempin (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that sounds quite reasonable, Nczempin. Let me see if I can produce some examples (not all are perfect analogues, but they come close):

Henry Kissinger "German-born American"

Arnold Schwarzenegger "Austrian-American"

Arianna Huffington "Greek-American"

Rupert Murdoch "Australian-American"

Yoichiro Nambu "Japanese-born American"

Albert Einstein "German born" *GA

Sergei Khrushchev (side-steps the issue)

Craig Ferguson "Scottish-born, naturalized American"

Zbigniew Brzezinski "Polish American"

Yul Brynner "Russian-born American"

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar "Indian-born American"

Ève Curie "French American"

Celia Cruz (side-steps the issue)

Luigi Chinetti "Italian-born . . . who became an American citizen"

Columba Bush "Mexican-born American"

Zsa Zsa Gabor "Hungarian American"

Wayne Gretzky "Canadian American"

Joža Karas "Polish-born Czech-American" (that's a mouthful)

Zalmay Khalilzad "American"

Sadly, couldn't find any featured articles that fit the bill. Windyjarhead (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten, this example is much better than any other I mentioned above. Please see W. H. Auden for a similar situation. Windyjarhead (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)== English vs. British ==