Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Criticism. 

message: "(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)
thread_title:  The Marx-Trotsky-Michael Moore connection.(?) 

message: "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)
thread_title:  2004 US presidential election, yes? 

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

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

message: Couldn't find the Ref2 file, but here's an interivew
*  Christopher Hitchens on The Hour
Ok, that may have been true... but now it is "way" too... um... not extensive... I used to check this page for good links to his work, and while there were a bunch of links that only went to a single piece of his, there were two links that pointed to sites that had updated links to his work... Hitchens Web and Hitchens Zone I believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.166.159.93 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview 

message: 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)
thread_title:  EL section 

message: Could someone find a better picture of Christopher Hitchens to have on his main page? I much preferred the picture that was on last year, which, I believe, was one of his professional head shots. I'm sure the only problem with this is getting the file accepted by Wikipedia's copyright policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle Leo (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got an image off flickr. It's still fairly bad, but better than it was IMHO. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's much better than the previous picture. --Uncle Leo 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new picture is significantly better than the previous.  In that other picture, Hitch looked like he had just run the quarter mile after drinking half-a-pint of Scotch.  He looked awful. ---Cathal 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better picture of Hitchens 

message: In my view, the Antitheism section is biased. It places far too much weight on one religion only (Catholicism), when he has attacked all religions. It contains several paragraphs of quoted criticism and calls him a bigot twice (contrast this with the single sentence under "honours"). Nothing in the section puts his side, or the side of secularism or unreligion in general. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he has been attacked for being anti-Catholic more so than being attacked for being specifically anti-any other religion (this is OR). I'll try to trim it down though. JoshuaZ 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text: His position is anti-theism, or pro-reason.  I agree, it suggests too much of the importance of Catholicism to suggest it worthy of particular vitrol on his part. 70.178.154.145 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: There was a good interview in The Times recently that I briefly tried to add to the wrong ref list and couldn't find 'ref 2' - does someone want to add it? 
'Man v God' - (The Times) interview in response to Hitchens' book 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'
There's a wiki page for the book so you may want to change the Amazon link. Miamomimi 10:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External ref 

message: I seem to recall that this talk page had a table of contents at the top.  What happened to it?  ---Cathal 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea where it went, I'll see if I can track down a template. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, after forcing the creation of a TOC, it has, on its own accord, created four false sections (i.e., the do not, and have not, appeared on this page): 1 Requests; 2 Clean-Up; 3 To Expand; and 4 Translate to English.  I don't know what that's about, but... a slightly screwed up TOC is better than no TOC at all... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back through the history for the past week, and find no indication of its having been deleted, unless I simply missed it.  I am glad that it is back, as it amkes page navigation so much easier.  Strange, though, as you say, that these false headings now exist for sections that do not. ---Cathal 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents? 

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

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

message: This paragraph may be slightly suspect. For a start, calling Julie Burchill a left-leaning 'thinker' is rather dubious if highly amusing, you'd struggle to find many people who would regard Julie as a thinker, she's an absurd newspaper columnist and a bigot who spends her time spewing out bile against famous celebrities and various other individuals and nations, races, etc, whom she has a problem with. She claimed to still be a Communist (a Stalinist, no less) while declaring her support for Thatcherism, and she claimed this wasn't a contradiction. She isn't an intellectual by any stretch and isn't considered as such, she's a just a provocative newspaper columnist, if she is to be regarded as a 'thinker', then so should Carole Malone, Tony Parsons, Brian Reade, etc, and nobody in their right mind would describe those people as thinkers. It would be better if the paragraph describes these writers as left-leaning 'commentators' rather then thinkers, 'thinkers' implies intellectuals and calling Julie a 'thinker' is laughable, and I'm not entirely sure some of the people on the list would regard themselves as intellectuals as such. Besides, if I remember rightly, I read somewhere that Julie Burchill was added to the Euston Manifesto by a blogger as a joke, until recently anybody could be added to the Euston signatories by anyone, hence Dafyd Duck (ie. Daffy Duck) is in there, and numerous other fake names, I'm 99% certain that I read that a blogger has admitted to adding Burchill's name himself. Additionally, including Francis Wheen may be slightly dubious also. Wheen is a Euston signatory, but that does not automatically imply support of the Iraq War (one or two signatories do not support it, I believe) and the only statement by Wheen I have seen on the subject was when specifically asked whether he was in favour of the war and he replied "Maybe, sort of, perhaps just a little". That's hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of the Iraq War, and listing him here as a supporter of the war with no qualifications or details of his views is possibly a serious misrepresentation of Wheen. Unless there is a realible source somewhere where he states plainly that he actually supports the war rather than supporting it "perhaps just a little", his name shouldn't be on there. MarkB79 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand the point that Burchill is making and know only too well her infantile habit of saying things for shock value and to be provocative. But her 'argument' here is ridiculously simple-minded and an absurd and revolting smear against any number of people who thought the issue through carefully and opposed the war on Iraq for quite genuine reasons (and bear in mind that Burchill's argument could be turned around and used against her - might it not be her who has a racist disregard for the multitude of lives lost and ruined by the invasion?). Here we have allegations of anti-Arab racism made against anti-war commentators for supposedly seeking to deny Arabs democracy made by a woman who regards dead Arab civilians as "smelly" and of "no importance" and who calls that well known Democrat Joseph Stalin her hero and says she still approves of Soviet communism (and none of this is her idea of being provocative for the sake of it - she is an open anti-Arab racist and she has written at length of her admiration for Stalinism). If you were suggesting that much of what Burchill writes is purely for shock value and not to be taken seriously then I'd agree, but these are seemingly serious defamatory comments about a very serious issue which demonstrate probably the most absurd and profound hypocrisy I've ever encountered. How a racist Stalinist qualifies as a suitable member of the Euston group is mystifying. MarkB79 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a lot of text to write over a minor point. If it's simply about this sentence, "This informal grouping includes Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, Norman Geras, Julie Burchill, and Michael Ignatieff (see Euston Manifesto).[citation needed]", then I think it could just be removed because it's uncited and not particularly important. Either that, or list the others referred to in the cites I just gave. <<-armon->> 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is an awful lot of text and I apologise for that, I didn't intend to turn the talk page into a debate about Julie Burchill, but I initially thought I should clearly justify the changes I made (removing Wheen and changing the wording of that paragraph, which was POV and slightly silly calling Burchill a "thinker"). I'm not concerned if you remove the sentence but I think it does actually serve some purpose in that it gives an example of Hitchens present 'comrades' and his current line of thinking but it's not all that important. I didn't add the citation tag, those people on there are Euston signatories but nobody has bothered sourcing it. If it stays, Burchill should probably be removed entirely and replaced with some vaguely important intellectual or political commentator. However feel free to remove it entirely if you wish. MarkB79 07:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well the Euston Manifesto looks notable and deserves a mention, but I guess the question is why these particular signatories. Are they generally considered the "core group"?  <<-armon->> 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who should really be thought of as the "core group" but there were five individuals who launched the Euston Manifesto and if I remember rightly, Nick Cohen and Norman Geras (who are mentioned in that paragraph on here) were among them. I forget the others (it certainly wasn't Aaronovitch or Burchill). A quick look at the Euston Manifesto website should provide the facts, I don't really have the time to look at it now but will do so when I get the chance if nobody else does so beforehand. There may however be other high-profile signatories who may be closely involved in the group and might be worthy of mention. I removed Francis Wheen because, as I said above, he may be a Euston signatory but he has sat on the fence regarding the Iraq War. Burchill, frankly, is not worthy of mention at all, she's a bigoted gossip columnist, not a serious political commentator. MarkB79 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objection to using the "liberal hawks" described in the cites I gave? Pretty sure that leaves Burchill out anyway ;) <<-armon->> 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection the use of "liberal hawks", since "liberal" is how the Eustonites describe themselves, it's more accurate than "socialist" for instance. They do identify themsleves as "liberal" and "left". However it should probably be made clear that this is a British group which Hitchens associates with - Americans can sign the manifesto and some Americans have (though only members of the public I think), American neo-cons have generally refused to sign it. William Kristol for instance applauded the manifesto but refused to sign it himself because he did not agree with the liberal ideology in the document, such as commitments to the welfare state and so on. As for Burchill, she regards herself as liberal even though she also says she's a Stalinist, just as back in the 80's she said they was no contradiction in her supporting Thatcherism while still being a Stalinist communist. These are some of the reasons why I say she isn't a serious political commentator and she shouldn't really be there! MarkB79 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-Leaning Thinkers and the Euston Manifesto 

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

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

message: Where do we get that Hitchens is known for anti-fascism?  He may be known for arguing that radical Islam is fascist, and for opposing radical Islam, but I think that's different from what most people mean by "anti-fascism", or active opposition to acknowledged fascists like Neo-Nazis.  --Allen 11:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, during the Dutch cartoon crisis, he did chant from the steps: "Solidarity with Denmark, death to fascism," and has routinely compared Islam to fascism. I am going to guess, given the rest of the terms he uses to describe Islam, that he doesn't mean it in this case as a compliment. --210.193.160.161 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's nonsense. You might as well say that GW BUSH is known for his anti-analism because he called a journalist he didn't like an asshole. Using a word that is generally construed as an insult or smear to refer to an opponent does not make you "anti" anything. You want to say that the notorious crypto-fascist Lyndon Larouche is known for his antifascism too? He's been calling people who he doesn't like fascists for years! 24.47.154.230 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Hitchens has written on actual fascism, as in early 20th century Europe, and its evils in many sources. When he derides Islamic fascists he explains why he qualifies them as such and why fascism is evil. Also, in his book on Orwell, and elsewhere, he praises Orwell for fighting fascism when it counted. He's also written about Nazi Germany in (at least) Love, Poverty, and War, especially in the essays on David Irving and Winston Churchill. The people arguing against this clearly have NO familiarity with Hitchens' writings or opinions, and just want to make him look as bad as possible, including trying to ignore his repeated repudiations of fascism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-fascism? 

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

message: What does this mean ? "Hitchens regarded the employment of nuclear weapons as the compulsory enlistment of civilians in a war and, as such, a violation of individual sovereignty"--Ezzex (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuclear Weapons do not discriminate between fighters and civilians. Unless the phrase is part of a direct quote, it should be reworded. MantisEars (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning is clear. As for "og", I am uncertain. The Real Walrus (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek og English wikipedia ? 

message: Does someone know how that challenge turned out, which side bought the 100 books or if it was silently dropped? --User:91.11.228.11 14:31, 20 April 2008 (GMT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
There is not enough info on his early career in the US. When did he join Vanity Fair, for example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.154.184 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens / Boteach debate: What happened to the 100 books challenge? 

message: "Hitchens has a daughter, Antonia, with his wife Carol Blue, whom he married in 1991. Hitchens has two children, Alexander and Sophia, by a previous marriage in 1981 to Eleni Meleagrou, a Greek Cypriot, whom Hitchens divorced in 1989 whilst she was pregnant with his first child.[citation needed]"
Does anyone have access to accurate information on his family? The current section is dubious. I doubt that divorced his first wife while she was pregnant, only to have another child with her either a year after or while he was married to his second wife.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a citation available as it has been recorded but from memory I believe he left his first wife when she was pregnant with their second child. He didn't pop back after the fact to get her pregnant again. You could Google, I'm sure you'd find it. Mimi (yack) 11:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Section 

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

message: I believe that this is a significant enough detail of his life that it should be added. Thought?--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A good source on that is the CSPAN 3 hour interview available on youtube where he talks about his Mother's suicide more in-depth than I've seen him deal with it elsewhere.D-rew (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The "Hitchens and the literary scene" section is pretty dubious, as has been pointed out at least once above. All it says is that Tom Wolfe may or may not have modeled a character on him and that Gore Vidal used to admire him. This is just trivia, and as two writers don't constitute "the literary scene" (whatever that might mean) doesn't really tell the reader much. I suppose his relationship to Martin Amis, Rushdie etc could be added but even then I'm not sure it is notable or informative. Any thoughts before I remove this section again? CAVincent (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should really be expanded rather than cut. At present the article does not touch on his admiration for the New York Intellectuals and  Lionel Trilling; quite significant given their similar political trajectories. His friendship with Salman Rushdie is worth noting in the passage on The Satanic Verses, but there is a problem with identifying the controversy over the novel as the start of his differences with the left. This seems to be a recycling of his retrospective viewpoint on the issue as fact. I am not sure how it played out on the American left twenty years ago, but on the UK left those who were critical of Rushdie, like say Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and John Berger (admittedly resident on the European mainland) were in a small minority. Philip Cross (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens and the literary scene 

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

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

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

message: IMO this story should be included
http://michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/christopher-hit.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/christopher-hitchens-beirut-attack
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2009/02/hitchens_beaten_up_in_beirut_1.html
Hitchens defaced a poster for a political party while on the streets of Beirut, Lebanon that he claims (imo wrongly) to contain a swastika and was assaulted by several men, resulting in minor injuries.24.207.226.140 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fist fight in Beirut 

message: He says so at the end.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=1121355844  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.63.216 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  God is not great -  movie? 

message: As noted elsewhere the article is both long and unwieldly. Given the size of his ouevre, the nature and nuance of it and the evolution over time I reccomend this new structure. The current list of his opinions is too long, and not representative. Given the sheer number of subjects he has written about not all can be mentioned. Some effort to summate his position must be taken, but this must be based on some reliable, published third party. 
Lead
Early Life and Education
Career (Write here about the publications he was writing for etc)
*England
*Emigration to United States 
Work/Output/Views (What he has actually Written)
*Politics
i)Early Socialism
ii)Move to the centre/Iraq War
iii)(Possibly another sub-section here)
*Critque of Religion
*Literature
*Critques of Specific Individuals
*Influences
Awards and Accolades
Personal
*Family
*Alcohol 
*Ethnic Identity
*Relationship with Brother
*US Citizenship
Bibliography
Filmography
References
External Links
AleXd (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: kudos, important to keep views to outline form here, with more in depth writing on his positions in articles on his written works (long overdue) pohick (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

message: Footnote #39, reading only "Atheists" linking to http://www.newsweek.com/id/171240|Beliefwatch:Pro-life doesn't appear to have any info on Hitchens, some linkrot or something going on there. Шизомби (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean has anyone seen his expanded view of abortion in print, in his book "god is not Great" pp. 220-22 Mr. Hitchens gives a good description of his view of the unborn and abortion.  This is my take on the chapter: His materialist view is that an embryo, because of science and the sonogram, should be seen as a separate entity deserving of serious consideration and should not be seen as a "tumor" or "growth".  So too should consideration be given to a person's right to control their reproductive organs.  He also notes that abortion of an embryo or fetus, aka miscarriage, happens in nature and in some circumstances is more desireable than the live birth of a severely deformed child or one that would suffer before shortly dying.  Mr. Hitchens also appears to believe that most people agonize over such a decision, even when it is in their best interest, making the decision a very personal one.  Mr. Hitchens also writes about his strong feelings about the "immoral teachings" regarding reproduction, where contraception is described as the "moral equivalent of abortion" and every sperm and egg are "potential lives". He believes that these immoral teachings are actually counterproductive to "expressing a bias in favor of life" and that science and embryology are far better tools.  Hope this helps. Nanmwls (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a fair summary. He is definitely a long standing opponent of abortion.Ktlynch (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-life? 

message: I find it quite absurd that Hitchens' article is without any significant criticisms. The dude is anti-theist which means that he has attacked or criticized more than half the world, and he has certaintly been met and challenged dozens of times by authors, debaters, professors and preachers. 
I understand the sensistivity to an article about a living person, but an encyclopedia is supposed to report the truth above everything else. 
What makes this even more absurd is if you compare his page with Mother Teresa's page. In the introductory section criticisms are mentioned about her. I would be fine with her article having a Criticism section but to put criticism in her introductory section and then throughout the article as well is simply absurd. Especially since most people completely write off the criticisms and see them as irrelevant in comparision to the millions of people she has helped, and the many orginizations which have honored for her work, including the US government, the Catholic church, and the Nobel Prize community. 
Yet Hitchens is in his very essence a controversial figure often calling controversy onto himself and yet one would not know it by reading this article. This only shows the bias of Wikipedia which is unfortunate since it has a unique opprutunity to be a presenter of truth to our youth who rely on it in this day of mass information. 
If anything, the slant should be the other way around. Mother Teresa's article should have very little criticism, with at most the criticism being a mere sidenote to her world-wide praise. And Hitchens should be shown to be a highly criticized and polarizing figure who is rejected by most the world (being that a large percentage of the world is either Christian or Islamic and thus would in essence reject Hitchens' beliefs and lifework). Yet, instead we see quite the opposite presented in wiki whenever it comes to modern day religious vs. secular figures, there is never a doubt where wiki and its editors will fall on this. I guess blessed are the  religious people since they have their own resources to inform them of the other side. At the least wiki should not claim to objective. Just promote the "encylopedia" as a secular, humanist, post-enlightment encyclopedia and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But to present wiki's spin on controversial issues as encyclopedic truth is simply deceptive.  --Ic2705 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what would the criticism be?  He doesn't believe in God.  Does that about wrap it up?  I'm sorry I don't mean to be flippant (well maybe I do a little) but the article spells out his views pretty clearly, and if people don't like them for the reasons you say they can decide that on their own, rather than be told by some talking head or columnist.  I also note that the article refers to him as a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay" and a "neoconservative", both of which I think are criticisms.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Ic2705 might not be without a point. Although most discussion of Hitch's antitheism properly belongs under God is not Great, his alleged anti-Catholicism would be germane to the main article but mention seems to have been dropped in the recent cleanup. I'm not saying I agree he is anti-Catholic in particular as opposed to simply anti-religion, but it is a common enough charge that it probably warrants a line or two here. CAVincent (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inbalance in wikipedia 

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

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

message: This article goes on and on; Hitchens may be important, but he's not that important, and I'd probably not support expanding the Cyprus subsection and some others that are now tagged for it. I've tagged the whole thing as too long for now. 
With the end of the Bush administration, a lot of the elaborately debated stuff here has become kind of obsolete. It might be an idea for example to pull the entire lurch to the far right into one section, say 'Islam and the Middle East' rather than repeating the same pattern on every one of the Mideast or terrorism-related subheads we have now. It doesn't gain in the repetition, and arguably the older campaigning stuff, like the Kissinger book and activism, were more influential than his latter-day rumblings.Sartoresartus (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I see no reason for the tags to expand sections when Christophers books really should be expanded on thier own page, expansion seems out of place here as there is length enough. Any more length and it would make ones eyes water!
I hope you will forgive my saying HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHRISTOPHER. 60 today and looking good. Mimi (yack) 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pay attention to  the summary style, the scope of this bio is wide, so try and stay even and allow detail to go into various related articles, such as his books, etc.--Ktlynch (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: The Hitch stated in July 2007 "I always say i'm English, not British" so while he carries dual British citizenship, he identifies himself as being English which is an important distinction (speaking from experience of being a British citizen identifying myself as English) as its seperate from the church, monarchy etc.JoshHoward77  (talk) 20:28, 05 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So identifying as English separates one from Church of England but being British connects you. England and America two countries separated by a common language. Nitpyck (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: funny, i thought he meant he was against the Acts of Union 1707, and for Scottish independence, (also presumable Wales and Northern Ireland), and for England national football team. Pohick2 (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was funny that the implication of being "English" was that it separated you from the Church of England, while being British connected you to said church, but not, apparently, the Church of Scotland...Not sure how he could be presumably "for Welsh independence" simply because he is against the Act of Union as there is no Act of Union joining Wales with Britain. Did you not note that Wales is not one of the kingdoms making up the United Kingdom and that the Welsh flag is not represented within the Union Flag?KhProd1 (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitch identifies himself as being English, not British 

message: We merge the now well written political views article with this one, which was broken off due to its originally unnecessarily large size that it is no longer, and delete the quotefarmed and pointless section on his dispute with The Nation staff. Sir Richardson (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting that Nation section (the points can easily be merged into the life part). Though I think a seperate political views article is neccessary given the huge scope of subject he writes about. Ktlynch (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposition 

message: Please do I have permission to delete the thing? Consensus has established it to be quotefarmed and pointless. Sir Richardson (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said this before, but I strongly support its removal. In retrospect, I don't think his disputes with Cockburn or others at the Nation is particularly noteworthy, and furthermore the section as it exists is just a bunch of quotes without context that would mean nothing to a casual reader not already familiar with the disputes. --CAVincent (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section as it was was not encyclopedic. It's not obvious either that these exchanges are worth writing about in an encyclopedic way. Maybe if there was evidence that his relationship with Cockburn was particularly important? (The section said "Nation staff" but it was just Cockburn.) IsambardBrunel (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Hitchens faithfully cheerleaded the Iraq War and is on the same page with Iran.  Here he is recently with the usual chestnuts about freedom of the Iranian people and WMDs.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/christopher-hitchens-want_b_425026.html  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/quote-for-the-day-4.html  This needs to be worked into the article.
Savagedjeff (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens beating the war drum on Iran 

message: If someone wants to add this, feel free.  I'm about to go to sleep but if no one has added it in, I'll do it tomorrow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255852/So-WERE-Tory-ministers-gay-flings-Christopher-Hitchens-Oxford.html
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he should be categorised like that on such flimsy evidence. Hitchens has nothing to do with the LGBT movement. --Ktlynch (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes of course. I would take those soundbites with a grain of salt, as the article points out too. In any case it might be overly detailed for this bio. The article also reminded me of something that I had meant to say to you: our earlier plans to overhaul the article should take on extra urgence given that his memoirs are coming out soon. The article will probably see a huge jump in traffic and more scrunity. I imagine my journalists will be re-printing information they've read  here, so we need to be extra careful in the next few months. I've been working alot on two other articles recently but am ready to start again here, if you are...--Ktlynch (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the point about the GAy fling. I removed it because the article cited here is specluative. Also it is not notable who he had relations with at university. The commentary on his claim was distinctly questioning.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the piece from the Sunday Times entitled Christopher Hitchens' gay fling with Tories is a better source, and speaks about relationships occurring while Hitchens was an adult? I'll leave it for someone else to add to the article. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Has Hitchen's said much about LGBT rights? --DCX (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Why should Hitchens be exempt? It is an unspoken Wiki law that all articles about notable people assume that they are sexually inverted unless proven otherwise by citation.Lestrade (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sexually inverted?  Well Dr Freud, I don't know if you've heard, but nobody has used that term since the early 1950s. It's based upon old Freudian ideas about the Oedipal Complex and all that Reaction Formation junk. Try not to show your homophobia in public, Lestrade. It makes you look like a fool  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.255.58 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Fling 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: Link number 7, which is supposed to support the claim about his American citizenship, doesn't work.
/Jonte93 (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

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

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

message: I've only read the lead section, and it already has a distinct leaning towards POV. And what about his defense of some Holocaust deniers such as David Irving? I think they certainly merit some mentioning in the article at least. In addition, as opposed to be an essay on its own, the lede, per WP:LEAD, should be a summary of the article and therefore citation-free. Last, the size of external links further gives the illusion that this is a fan article instead of a wikipedia article. --Artoasis (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: David irving is not a  holocaust denier. The ledes on good articles don't need citations, people who want citations will read the end of them anyway. I don't think there's any problem with citations myself.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this before, here. He's been convicted of Holocaust denial by two Western courts, among other things. Did you not read the previous discussion? Please desist from making obviously inaccurate statements. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, reliable journalism applies to Wikipedia articles. I am sure that if you consider evidence-based news reports you will find he has said that the holocaust is open to doubt, rather than a myth, as you seem to assert.I do not believe in the verdict of a British kangaroo court on Irving, and holocaust denial should not be mentioned in his wikipedia biography either.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A POV article 

message: I'm removing the following line:
:Hitchens's support for interventionism, employment of the term "Islamofascist" and his notable support for the Iraq War have caused his critics to label him a "neoconservative". Hitchens, however, refuses to embrace this designation, insisting that he is "not any kind of conservative".
Whoever accused him of being a "neoconservative" was either being careless or just didn't understand what the term means. Of course he's not a neoconservative. This quote of him denying a clearly inaccurate label ends up falsely coming across as confirmation that he's still a free-thinking ideological nonconformist. Now, if someone finds a quote of him denying being a neoliberal, it wouldn't be surprising, but it might be notable. --MQDuck (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see a reference that points Christopher Hitchens to neo-conservativism.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neoconservative" 

message: The entry now reports Hitch and his brother are 1/32 Jewish, which makes no sense if, as Hitch makes clear in Hitch-22, his mother was fully Jewish so that Hitch and his brother are nominally half Jewish (leaving room for hitherto unrecognized Jewish forebears in their father's lineage and the possibilty for their mother's line to have non-Jewish forebears). The presence of this 1/32 attribution should be reconsidered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus7 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Jewish religious scholars had determined that if someone's mother is Jewish, then their children (at least at birth) are also Jewish.  Is this incorrect?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I find it difficult to understand why this page needs to have these tags added.  They were removed.  Please discuss if you would like to add them again. Rmosler | ●  18:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to have an anti-catholic tag here IMO. PalindromeKitty (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a noted critic of all religions, you wouldn't add an anti-semitism tag on Hitlers bio, would you?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding "anti-catholicism" tags? 

message: Hitchen's cancer condition could quickly and vastly change; would a current event tag on this article be warranted?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's extremely unseemly—making the possible progression of a disease appear to a spectator sport. The article is well-enough tended that any developments will be incorporated in a timely fashion. Bongomatic 16:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You confuse unseemliness with wikipedian contributions to WP:BLP, not to mention you should read WP:TALK, it isn't nice to subjectify an attempt at making an article better. I merely don't want an obituary disaster, where someone writes an obituary, and enry and enough cynics see the article and try and huckster it up with misinformation.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to come across as pedantic, but couldn't every living person article as a whole technically be a current events story, based on the criteria that information could change drastically at any moment while they are alive? Anoldtreeok (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if something as deadly as cancer strikes someone, especially if they;ve admitted dying, is there any equivalent template which will stop people wirting obituaries prematruely, other than a current events tag? There must be some template. thank you.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: A criticism section on this man's radical views is needed. 184.96.244.40 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This man is right, and he sounds the one to do it...! ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of Hitchens's views have been challegned and this criticism should indeed be reported in this article. Rather than a crude rattle-bag of criticisms, we need to search out the contemporary arguments Hitchens had:when he advocated the war in Iraq who did he debate against in person or in print? This way ad hominen attacks are avoided and the context is better established. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I follow, why would it be needed? He's not a politican, but he is a political commentator with political opinions and of course some people will disagree with those opinions. You need to add criticism sections to the pages of every single politican and editorial journalist in the world in that case. --213.112.21.83 (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism 

message: Why is Hitchens' bisexuality not mentioned at all in the article? He came out as Bisexual in 2010.
http://www.rationalape.com/2010/03/christopher-hitchens-to-reveal-his.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.240.207 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source. Then you can include it in the article. (Although, of course, somebody's sexual orientation is a rather boring piece of information and shocks no-one outside the US) ≡ CUSH ≡ 16:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't "come out" as bisexual. He said he had certain experiences in his boyhood. Read more carefully, it's already in the article.  --Ktlynch (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then all's well. And you still don't just delete somebody else's post on a talk page. Big no-no on Wikipedia. ≡ CUSH ≡ 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is proper to redact statements on a Talk page that seem to serve no purpose other than spreading unsubstantiated rumors; such actions are in accord with policies regarding biographies of living persons. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexuality