Talk:Christopher Hitchens

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)

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Needless to say, this point is irrevelant.

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

b) a number of other users agree with me;

• Again, irrevelant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the contrary. I find them quite refreshing.

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

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

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

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

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

Better picture of Hitchens

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

Got an image off flickr. It's still fairly bad, but better than it was IMHO. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's much better than the previous picture. --Uncle Leo 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Antitheism and Catholicism not neutral

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

Well he has been attacked for being anti-Catholic more so than being attacked for being specifically anti-any other religion (this is OR). I'll try to trim it down though. JoshuaZ 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a crack at it myself. I rewrote the lead to make it clear that he attacks all religions, but has most often spoken about Judeo-Christian ones. I kept Donohue's accusation but trimmed it down, as it doesn't seem expansive enough for a sub-section. dharmabum 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This version has stood for a couple days (outside of a revert by a clear vandal), and I'm of the opinion it's quite neutral and non-committal. I'm a fan of Hitchens in general, but also raised Catholic and don't always agree with him, and I do think he sometimes is a little hard on the Catholic church. I don't want to remove the tag myself, as it was mostly my revision and would prefer someone completely uninterested in both Hitchens and Catholicism to to remove it. I'd just like to point out that NPOV tags, when left too long, can generate more problems than solutions. dharmabum 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Good for what? Can you explain the possible relevance? And, would you please discuss the matter here on the talk page before you delete large sections of the text? The section you deleted was accurate and referenced. I have restored it. Please give a good reason here before you delete it again. Thanks. ---Cathal 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I never deleted anything, I merged the religion sections, you re-created now duplicate text. There was a legitimate critisism that the Anti-theism section was biased against the subject. It was clear that merging the religion part of the personal section would largely solve this. And there was no obvious reason to keep that particular text in personal since it concerned opinions that he talks about professionally. The youtube clip shows his opinions in context and helps banace the anti-catholic accusations. You should re-delete that Religion subsection in personal. It's not really personal, the referencing code appears slightly broken, and the same text now appears elsewhere in the article. JeffBurdges 17:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

well, I suppose it is reasonable to say what a persons religion in in their personal section.  :) But the referencing code still seems broken. And it's still needed elsewhere for balance. JeffBurdges 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Opium use

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

External ref

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

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

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

Table of contents?

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

I have no idea where it went, I'll see if I can track down a template. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

It's back. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

However, after forcing the creation of a TOC, it has, on its own accord, created four false sections (i.e., the do not, and have not, appeared on this page): 1 Requests; 2 Clean-Up; 3 To Expand; and 4 Translate to English. I don't know what that's about, but... a slightly screwed up TOC is better than no TOC at all... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I went back through the history for the past week, and find no indication of its having been deleted, unless I simply missed it. I am glad that it is back, as it amkes page navigation so much easier. Strange, though, as you say, that these false headings now exist for sections that do not. ---Cathal 20:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

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