Talk:Christopher Hitchens

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.

Older Comments (House Cleaning)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blood Class and Empire

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

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

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

Henry Kissinger

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

Some missing material here

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

New section on his political journey

...which I have substituted for this paragraph:

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

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

Hitchens' support for Bush

User:Ellsworth inserted the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really encyclopaedic content, but...

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

...can't stop...

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

Proposal for British labour movement article

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

POV text deleted from article

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

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

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

Islamophobes page

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

"Libertarian"

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

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

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

Kade 04:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Literary criticism

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

George Galloway

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

Quote from the Guardian website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confusion over Iraq

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

Hitchens says This Article is "Inaccurate"

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

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

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

curtains 05:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finkelstein

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

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

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

Well enough known to bother you?

Relationship with the bottle

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

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

Recent Anon edits

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

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

Diana quote

I've deleted this inserted piece of drivel:

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

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

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

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

Official Policy: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"

The following was removed:

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup

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

To 65.92.136.114 - Quit masquerading as an NPOV'ing crusader

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

ENOUGH OF THE HORSESHIT.

Kade 02:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Recommending this article be used to define Hitchens political views

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

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

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

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

Rebuttals not encyclopedia content

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

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

Hitchens debate with Scott Ritter

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

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

Alcoholism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

Jewish ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

continuity of views

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

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

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

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

Edward Said

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

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

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

Hitchens on Lateline, Feb 13th 2006

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

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

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

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

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

American?

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

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

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

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

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

Two books on Orwell

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

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

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

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

"Trumpet Blowing" edit

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

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

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

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

Recent edits - 05/05/06

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

Discussion page cleanup

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

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

Recent edits - POV Pretext - 05/06/06

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The Blowjobs sub-section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relationship with Peter Hitchens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton

Did he really call clinton a rapist?

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

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

Key Arguments

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

Cindy Sheehan

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

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)

alcohol and BLP

The Juan Cole quote was removed because some readers believe using a blog to substantiate the claim that Hitchens has been criticized for his alcohol consumption is a violation of BLP. I disagree but there are plenty of other sources from which to support this claim; and there is little question that it is both notable and verifiable. I am restoring the claim along with different sources to support it, but I am also including Hitchens' own defense of his condition. I am also notably not including overly negative representations of Hitchens' zealous consumption of alcohol, although this one is particularly notable. csloat 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question for Crockspot regarding the Counterpunch citation. How does it contravene BLP to substantiate the claim that Hitchens' drinking causes some to question his credibility with a Counterpunch article? Agreed, Counterpunch is a blatantly partisan source, but for this sort of claim it seems totally reasonable (in fact, even the Cole blog is a reasonable source for that particular claim). It demonstrates that Cockburn -- a widely known and well-respected (in some quarters) source, whose ongoing conflict with Hitchens is extremely well known and has been commented on in WP:RS's -- questions Hitchens' credibility. The WP:RS guidelines do not ban all such sources. Are you seriously suggesting that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for the specific claim that Cockburn questions Hitchens' credibility? csloat 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read your own arguments agianst the inclusion of Frontpage Magazine, which you describe as partisan, as source for criticism of Juan Cole. I'm sure you see how those arguments are just as valid here, even though the subject of this BLP is someone you ddon't particularly like. Isarig 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do like Hitch, despite his buffoonery, and none of my comments about him are meant to be judgemental (as for the alcohol thing, I'm certainly no teetotaler myself). I agree Frontpage is partisan, but I don't see how it's relevant here -- as I noted above, I think Counterpunch is partisan as well. But we're not using Counterpunch to substantiate a claim that Hitchens is wrong about something; we are using it to substantiate the claim that certain people (in particular, Hitchens' political opponents) question his credibility. It doesn't matter much - I have no interest in pursuing it further. csloat 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I trust we will not see anymore of these BLP vioaltions from you here. Isarig 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please get off the high horse, Isarig. There have been no BLP violations, as you are well aware, and I have responded to your baseless accusations. Your immature wikilawyering is really not necessary. csloat 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The BLP violation warnings on your Talk page were placed by numerous editors. I suggest you heed your own advice and not pursue this any further. Isarig 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbed the section due to BLP. Aside from it being a violation of undue weight and not adhering to NPOV as it injects criticisms of his ideas based on his drinking, there is also the problem of the cites. Sloat has already violated BLP here, and has recently been caught misrepresenting offline citations here, therefore, anything he wishes to add on this subject will need to be easily confirmed as accurate by other editors. <<-armon->> 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) BTW that also includes the Vanity Fair cite I've stubbed it to. <<-armon->> 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. There is no undue weight problem here; Hitchens' use of alcohol is notorious and is frequently commented on in all forms of media. I bent over backwards to make the paragraph more than fair to Hitchens and in fact give him plenty of room for his own explanation. There was no BLP violation that I added to this article, as you know well, and your claim that I have been "caught misrepresenting offline citations" is a flat out lie. In fact, you should read WP:POT on that matter, since you were caught lying about your own edit summaries on that page! csloat 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lie, the evidence is on the page. If you want to insert this stuff, you'll need to use online cites which can be checked. <<-armon->> 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not in any way shown me to have misrepresented anything. The cites I used can easily be checked, Armon. Use a library. csloat 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Armon never lied about his edit summaries, at the very most he made an honest mistake. The fact that you keep bringing this up all over Wikipedia to tar another editor is misleading, petty, and dishonorable. Please note that this is not your classroom where you make all the rules and have all the power; you need to respect guidlines. Your snarky retort does not make up for the fact that you fail to apply BLP evenly to those you admire and those you don't. Elizmr 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An honest mistake? four times in two days he made the same "honest mistake," characterizing a complete deletion of sourced and relevant material as a minor change. Totally misleading and he was temporarily blocked for it. And I don't "keep bringing this up all over wikipedia"; I only brought it up here in response to a new lie from Armon, the claim that *I* misrepresented offline sources, which I did not. Finally, I'll thank you to never mention my classroom again. And lay off the BLP nonsense; as is generally agreed at this point, there never was a BLP violation here. csloat 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a fact check. The block you agitated for, and are referring to here, was withdrawn by the blocking admin. <<-armon->> 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I said "temporarily." And I never "agitated for" the block; in fact, my comments to the admin who imposed the block were about finding a way to mediate the dispute between myself and Isarig (not you), and the block was his idea. My idea was that both Isarig and I accept restrictions on our own editing; I did not "agitate" for anything having to do with you. csloat 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk: Sloat, you gave a false tally of the opinions expressed in an article to another editor which only you had in front of you -until I found it in the web archives. You've also misrepresented ON-line sources as well in a effort to pov-push. One example which springs to mind is on the Weekly Standard article were you presented an aside in a hit-piece on, ironically, Christopher Hitchens, as a critique of the magazine. This was only corrected because other editors could easily check the cite. I'm not going to the library over every cite you present, and the burden of proof in on you for your edits. <<-armon->> 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also copied from your talk: No I didn't. I wasn't "tallying" anything except when Isarig demanded it, and my tally was accurate. You were counting sources that were not relevant except as WP:OR. I never misrepresented online or offline sources of which I am aware, and your nitpicking about my "tally" does not in any way change that basic fact. The Cole vs. Weekly Standard item you cite is in no way a misrepresentation; there was simply a difference of opinion about whether the criticism was notable or accurate (it is accurate; I'm undecided about its notability, but your arguments on that page are not convincing to me). In either case, stating that I was "caught misrepresenting sources" -- online or offline -- is a ridiculous personal attack that you are unable to support with any evidence. csloat 06:04, 7 March 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)

Relevance?

I am moving this section from the talk page to here to encourage discussion. It seems to me the entire section is well-sourced by reliable sources. So the question is: to what extent is it relevant to the article? How much space should be spent on it? It does seem to me to be quite long, to the point where it could honestly be mistaken as undue weight POV. CMummert · talk 04:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of alcohol

A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output."

In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." Noting that his doctor expressed amazement at his alcohol consumption, Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker."

Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. Christopher Reed in the London Observer observed that "Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. It would be a drag for Henry Kissinger to live to a hundred and Christopher to keel over next year." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's 0.12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."

I don't see how it can be undue weight -- very little of this is actually critical of Hitchens; much of it is from Hitchens himself and his wife. I think it is quite notable, since it is one of the first things that comes up in most discussions of Hitchens. It is something he is well known for and it is something that is frequently mentioned -- see the following google links for example:

• 119,000 hits
• 136,000 hits
• 143,000 hits
• 119,000 hits
• 9100 hits
• 256 hits

Galloway's comments alone garner some 56,900 hits. Of course, google hits are just used here as a general indication of notability; the fact is that Hitchens has been publicly accused of alcohol abuse many times by very notable sources and he has himself publicly flaunted his drinking. It is a fundamental part of who Hitchens is as a media figure, as a writer, and as a general character. Frankly, it's a basic part of his charm. csloat 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Charm" -pull the other one. You've ranted insults about him here here and here among others, and for some reason, you seem to have a whole lot of offline oppo on the same subject as your ad homs. <<-armon->> 10:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's true I think his sensationalism borders on the cartoonish, but I've hardly "ranted insults" at him. It's also true that I've mentioned his drinking before, but as I said, I'm certainly no teetotaler myself. I never said I don't find him charming; only that I find it absurd to think that his position in the debate you're citing has much merit. I do think Hitchens can be charming (and I'd certainly have a drink with him myself!) Can you please stop taking every post I make as an opportunity to make a backhanded accusation of bad faith and worse? csloat 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't care if you're a drinker, you aren't notable. You've been blocked for one of the insults I cited which was lifted because, and only because, too much time had passed. <<-armon->> 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was notable. "Because and only because"? Talk about misrepresentation; did you just miss this part? "it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur". And, in fact, since we now know that both Hitchens and his wife use the same word to describe him, it is even clearer that the block was inappropriate. But that's really not the issue here, now, is it? csloat 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree. - Merzbow 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 3 paragraphs on a subject with 5 independent mainstream media sources could be construed as undue weight -- enough people have talked about this for this to be considered notable. JulesH 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This assumes they state what is claimed they do. <<-armon->> 08:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked them all, and they do. csloat 08:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough -obviously. On the one hand you use google hits as evidence of notability, yet on the other, won't provide RS cites which are online. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution cite is particularly suspect -as it's dubious that he self-identifies as an alcoholic. <<-armon->> 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But I have assured you of what the article says. Are you saying that I am a liar? If so, you need evidence (and it is surely just a library away). I have the article in front of me and that is what it says. (Just to be clear, I'm not sure what you mean by "he self-identifies," but he does refer to himself as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." Why is this so hard to believe? Your implication that I would just make this up seems to be a vicious personal attack here, and it is totally unwarranted.) csloat 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that because you've lied about offline sources in the past, and that even with online sources, you engage in quote mining and "spin", that your "word" is not therefore good enough. This is the problem you create for yourself. <<-armon->> 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never lied about offline sources in the past. You have yet to provide a single instance of lying. All you have offered is a single instance of a difference of opinion, and I have shown clearly that you were incorrect in that instance. csloat 10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff, here's the article you were talking about. Others can judge for themselves. <<-armon->> 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And your complaint is what exactly? It was stupid of me to get sucked into Isarig's game and describe this like a sports match, agreed, but I see no lies there. Perhaps we have a difference of interpretation at best. csloat 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to AGF, which means assuming that the references are correct. It seems to me that just the first two paragraphs would be enough to give the reader a good sense of what is going on. Including the third paragraph seems petty to me. Also, I'm not sure that either of the two quotes in the third paragraph is really "criticism". CMummert · talk 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Hitchens' use of alcoohol is publicly well known, and self-acknowledged, so it is fine to have a short paragraph about this, citing reliable sources. I think the NPR summary offered by Armon is a very good compromise here. What we cannot have in a WP:BLP is editorial comment alleging that becuase of this use of alcohol his opinions are questionable, sourced to either self-publshed partisan blogs by his politcal opponents (like Juan Cole) or to exteremist, muck-racking partisan rags published by his political opponents (such as Counterpunch). Isarig 17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

? I don't think any of the text in the three paragraphs we're discussing fits the description you're giving: it's all sourced to well known, mainstream media outlets. I just don't see why this comment even applies. Can we restrict the comments to the actual content we're discussing, not some kind of strawman version of it? JulesH 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a strawman at all - it is the original version that the POV-pushing editor who inserted this issue to begin with wanted (and apparently still wants, and sees nothing wrong with). I am making clear that this shoudl not be tolerated in a WP:BLP Isarig 19:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Jules must not have seen the most objectionable version. <<-armon->> 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, we are talking about the version in the box -- the only change I am recommending is the inclusion of the deleted material from Galloway; otherwise I am ok with this. So assuming I am the "pov-pushing editor" Isarig is referring to in his personal attack, let me state publicly that I would support the above version with the inclusion of the Galloway quote (which is also from WP:RS). csloat 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph includes Hitchens' and his wife's defenses of his drinking, as well as Reed's explanation of why his drinking is an issue. The Reed sentence constitutes the "criticism" as such (rather lukewarm, as it is) while the Hitchens and Blue quotes offer his response to the criticism. I don't think it would be fair to Hitchens to censor these notable responses. csloat 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, one sentence that apparently was deleted appears to be important: "When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink."" Galloway's rather public attacks on Hitchens are quite notable -- they were repeated in many WP:RS's -- and, even though they are mentioned elsewhere on this page, this particular quote emphasizes that the thrust of Galloway's criticism was Hitchens' drinking. It comes back to the claim that Isarig was consistently removing, that Hitchens' alcohol use is considered by some to have clouded his judgement or undermined the validity of his opinions. Frankly, I don't see how this point is controversial for anyone. csloat 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no opposition to having the article mention alcohol use. The second sentence of the third paragraph does not seem like any sort of criticism, to my ear; it seems like a compliment, in fact. The rest of the paragraph does not sound like a defense, frankly, it sounds like something that a typical person would be embarrassed to learn they had said, which is why I don't think it is necessary to repeat it here. The goal isn't to include every possible reliable source; we must use editorial judgement, which is different than censorship. CMummert · talk 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning alcohol use is not the issue, in fact, I provided the NPR cite myself. The issues are a) quote mining to assert that the guy is an alcoholic, b) an undue amount of focus on this issue (How many ways do we need to state that he drinks and smokes a lot?) c) giving credence to ad hominem attacks by implying that it "clouds his judgment" rather than noting ad homs for what they are, and d) despite using google to claim notability, the use of offline sources by an editor who has a bad track record in this regard. The cites will therefore need to be fact checked by others before they are included. <<-armon->> 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

a) Nobody is quote mining. And nobody is suggesting Wikipedia should "call the guy an alcoholic"; only that we should accurately report what has been said. He has freely referred to himself that way (though it is quite obvious that it has a different meaning to him than to someone in AA, for example), so I don't see the point of pretending that he hasn't. (b) As for undue, check the google hits above -- this is an extremely commonly noticed and commented upon aspect of who he is as a public figure. It is no more undue than a paragraph on heroin in William S. Burroughs would be. Hitchens is rather proud of the fact that he drinks heavily, and I don't see why we should create false shame about it. (c) you are welcome to your opinion that this is an ad hominem, but that's not relevant here. It is notable criticism that has been made by notable figures. Find another WP:RS mentioning that these are ad hominems (and I don't totally disagree with your opinion on that), and I'll be more than happy to support the inclusion of such citations. (d) this argument is a canard, as I have shown decisively. I will ask you again to please stop repeating it and please publicly apologize for your gross violation of WP:AGF. Thanks! csloat 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need three paragraphs on this issue? Do the three quotes introduce new ideas or do they restate the same? If they restate the same the repetitive bits should be trimmed or removed.

• Quote one: A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output."

--meaning: H drinks and smokes and writes a lot of stuff (theres a sense that he is functional despite drinking a lot in the phrase "pordigious literary output)

• Quote two:

In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." Noting that his doctor expressed amazement at his alcohol consumption, Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." meaning: this perhaps gives a humerous quantitation of how much Hitchens drinks and shows that he feels he can be functional despite how much he drinks--not all that much added meaning IMO

• Quote three:

Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. Christopher Reed in the London Observer observed that "Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. It would be a drag for Henry Kissinger to live to a hundred and Christopher to keel over next year." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's 0.12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."

Meaning: This quote brings into question whether or not H is an alcoholic (master or servant), but then goes on to suggest that he is functional despite the problem. Then there is some editorializing about the relative merits of Kissenger vs. Hitchens (which is irrelevant), then more humorous quantitation from Hitchens (repetitive), and more of H's statements that he is functional despite the alcohol (repetitive). The intro sentence to this quote introduces an idea that the quote does not support--it is OR and should be struck.

• In summary, I'm not sure we need all three quotes in their entirely since they are largely repetitive. We certainly don't need a lead sentence for a third paragraph that is not supported by the actual quote. How about the first quote, and then a statement that Hitchens has humerously characterized his alcohol intakes as " to kill or stun the average mule" but maintains he is functional despite his heavy use of alcohol(ref to quote number 2), but that his drinking has been commented on by critics and other commentators(ref to quote number 3). I think this would be fair, less repetitive, more neutrally stated and would bring the emphasis to this point in the article more into balance with the rest of the aspects of Hitchens a bio article should cover. Elizmr 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Elizmr is twisting misconstruing things. It is not OR to say that Hitchens has been criticized for his extensive and public alcohol consumption. The well-known Galloway quote (conveniently left out of the above explanation) clearly substantiates the point (as does the Counterpunch article, and Cole's comments, among others). Hitchens should be allowed his own fair say on the issue which is why I include his comments and his wife's. It is certainly relevant that both refer to himself as an "alcoholic," though I don't see a problem with shortening the quotes a bit. I agree think that the NPR quote adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion and should probably be removed, or at least relegated to a footnote. The Reed quote sums up the issue - that there is concern that Hitchens has a real problem that affects his thinking. Certainly the Galloway, Cole, and Cockburn comments questioning his opinions and his thinking substantiate this. csloat 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, could you please agf for one nanosecond? I have made an attempt to tease out and discuss the paragraphs in the box at the start of this section and suggested an alternate version. Instead of replying to me in a like fashion, you make the ill faith assuming summary statemnt that I am "twisting things" and attack me for "conveniently" leaving something out (ie--suggesting ill intent). This is just the kind of non-productive disruptive stuff that I have been asking you to stop doing for a year now. It is so hard to edit with you because in order to work with you one has to put up with and get past this type of stuff constantly. After you do this, you say that you agree with me that the NPR quote adds nothing and should be removed or footnoted, while I have actually suggested that it is a good introductory and summary quote on the topic of his drinking. I'm not exactly sure what to do with that. Finally, here is the Reed quote: Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'.". Where does this say that there is a problem with H's thinking? Elizmr 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, look, I apologize if I seemed to be attacking your motives - I don't mean to; but I think your argument misconstrues things. As for the NPR quote, you said that it means "H drinks and smokes and writes a lot of stuff" which is of course repetitive with the other quotes; I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but I think that quote is repetitive and adds nothing (which was the criteria you laid out). As for the Reed quote, it says that the question is whether his drinking is a master or servant -- if his drinking is a "master," that indicates a problem that affects his thinking. Again, this is a common critique of Hitchens and I really don't see the need to waste a lot of time on it. csloat 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly makes Reed an expert, and a notable one, on what "masters" Hitchens? <<-armon->> 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? He doesn't claim to be. That's really not at issue here at all. csloat 09:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is if you want to include this the guy on the topic of Hitchens' drinking. See WP:NOT#IINFO <<-armon->> 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. csloat 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we'll remove Reed then. <<-armon->> 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Reed quote is useful, but I'm happy to look at alternatives. But your implication that a reporter must be an "expert" in something to make a valid claim is ludicrous. Can you suggest an alternative version of the above so we can move on? csloat 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As a trained academic, you must realize that one doesn't use three paragraphs when one sentence will do. I have compared the other quotes TO the NPR quote have have showed that THEY don't add much. The NPR quote also has the advantage of being more neutral sounding. Therefore, I am suggesting again that the NPR quote is the best summary quote for the section. As far as the Reed quote, I don't think you can really make the conclusion you are making, but if it is a common critique maybe you could you find a quote which lays it out more explicity than this one? I am also in agreement with Armon that if you are going to say that H's "thinking" is affected by alcohol---ie, if you are going to to discredit Hitchen's analyses on various matters with this sentence---you need to have a source who is really qualified to make that judgement. If you do not, you do have a BLP problem. Elizmr 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I've asked you before to stop referring to my occupation -- you do it in a way that comes across as a backhanded personal attack, and I have called you on it before. It really is a simple request. Second, the other quotes are far more useful than the NPR quote as I have shown. They come from reliable sources and show that Hitchens refers to himself in this way and that others have seen and recognized this as a portential problem. I think the Galloway quote really makes the point more clear since you find the Reed quote confusing. Finally I am not "going to discredit Hitchens' analysis" based on alcohol -- that is not for me to do or for Wikipedia to do. All that is being done here is making the statement that his public and heavy use of alcohol causes others to question Hitchens' opinions. In that matter, Reed, a reporter, is qualified to make the point, and the evidence from Galloway, Cole, and Cockburn all back up the point -- that Hitchens' opponents point to his alcohol use as a possible source of what they see as confused or incorrect thinking. I believe I have been very clear on this. If you have an alternative construction of the paragraphs above, offer it up and let's take a vote or something; there is no need to keep going back and forth on this argument. csloat 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker "because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem". He drinks, he says, "because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.
Citation: Oliver Burkeman, War of words, The Guardian, October 28 2006 -<<-armon->> 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good quote to me. Let's go with this one. Sloat? Elizmr 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)