Talk:Chris Hedges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

Arguments about content should go here on the talk page, and not in the content. Also links should be included as such and not just chucked into the text whole. Not to mention that a lot of the statements made here probably require more textual support than they are provided with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therumor (talkcontribs) 14:06, June 8, 2006

Hedges the Atheist[edit]

Chris Hedges said in a seminar on April 5 2008 that he was an atheist. The talk was given by the World Affairs Council of Northern California and is available on iTunes U. However, in his biography he is identified as Christian. Although he was raised as such, he is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.226.210 (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering whether it is appropriate to categorize Hedges as an atheist or agnostic. In all likelihood, it is probably best to identify him as the latter. He stated in his book I Don't Believe in Atheists that he rarely go to church nowadays. But until we have more definitive proof I'm going to leave his page as is. Shaneymike (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with leaving as is. Church attendance or non-attendance is not necessarily indicate of the shape of one's religious beliefs. Jamessmithpage (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it. Not going to church may not indicate one's beliefs, but I'm pretty sure publicly stating that you're an atheist indicates that you're an atheist, and at the very least, it should be enough to remove that section from his biography since it may be wrong and misleading and is at the very least inaccurately oversimplifying. I've also deleted the criticism section; a single virulently right wing blog post is simply not a serious post and is certainly not evidence of any sort of common or well known criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.233.89 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hedges is certainly not an atheist as evidenced by his books "Losing Moses on the Freeway" and especially "I Don't Believe in Atheists: When Atheism Becomes Religion" He has spoken about it many times and has debated prominent atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on the subject. I'm sure you are taking him out of context in the talk you are referring to, which is understandable because he does use "we" a lot when not talking about himself personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.100.122 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hedges's criticism are explicitly directed to "extremist" atheists. By your logic we could not define him a christian either since he attacked evangelicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

External links...[edit]

This article has too many external links. Please take a shot at parsing the list down. I'll try to get to in a few days. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with Sam Harris, specifically regarding Hedges' repeated misrepresentations of Harris[edit]

Chris Hedges has repeatedly misrepresented the views of Sam Harris, and Harris is more than a little annoyed. Harris makes a better case for his grievances with Hedges than I ever could:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642341-dear-angry-lunatic-a-response-to-chris-hedges

and

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-chris-hedges/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.65.247 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adbusters resource: NYT "It has bed prominent writers, amongy them Chris Hedges and Bill McKibben."[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/business/media/the-branding-of-the-occupy-movement.html 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

incorrect link[edit]

The hypertext link for Nation Institute goes to page of The Nation magazine, an entirely different enterprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.128.70 (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography[edit]

This page needs a properly structured bibliography of the authors various works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusD (talkcontribs) 05:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. But we need to ensure a new bibliography doesn't end up as a complete advertisement for the books -- the way the previous one was written. However, it should be noted that Hedges' main books are already listed in the lede. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

My reply to the revert of my revert: the statement that he is notable for his being a "war correspondent specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies" is accurate. I do agree that my previous wording was off, since he's no longer a correspondent for the NYTimes. But that's still were he got his fame, so I think it should be included in the lede.

Thoughts? --Lord Roem (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Political Views[edit]

Paragraph 3 in political views does not relate to any other paragraphs. it is not clear, what it refers to?

deliver context or delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.194.158 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

liberal or socialist[edit]

The introduction describes Hedges both as a "liberal anti-capitalist" and as "socialist". From my understanding of the terms as they are used in Anglo-Saxon countries these labels don't mean the same. I think the term "socialist", the one that he uses to describe himself, should be used exclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.229.208 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. He actually pillories liberals quite often. If the lede is to be rewritten in order to move his political views to the very beginning, his actual profession as a journalists should come first. I'd then remove the last sentence of the lede as redundant and move the citation. I'd recommend something like this:
"Christopher Lynn "Chris" Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American journalist specializing in American politics and society and a socialist activist."[1]
--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with both of the statements above. And I support the changes suggested by editor C.J. Griffin, and this editor has provided the documentation. Of course Hedges is an avowed socialist, self-identifies as such with that "moniker." And he has repeatedly called himself a socialist, continuously affirms this, and has done so on numerous occasions and throughout his career as a journalist, social activist, and throughout many different venues: in his writings, talks, speeches, and so on. Hedges is no "liberal," and certainly not in the way that term is now used in the United States (at the present time, 2014, ie., the 2nd decade of the 21st century). Christian Roess (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the lede section (as I am reading it today on 25th Sept. 2014) is appropriate for a Wikipedia bigraphy of a living person, and we should keep this current version. I say this because I now see that the lede section has been revised after I made the comment above this one. But I think the revision is appropriate. Surely this eliminates the POV, with no mention of his political affiliations, and he is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist (he shared the award with a team of reporters from the 'NY Times'). And this falls in line with what is written above: If (being the operative word here)... " If the lede is to be rewritten in order to move his political views to the very beginning...". Well, in this case, Hedges' political views are not moved to the beginning of the article (or into the first sentence as it was done before the current revisions).
Also it is important to point out that in this current version (Sept. 25th) Hedges' political affiliation is mentioned in the 'final' sentence of the lede. Let's be clear, he is a self-identified 'socialist'; there are no political parties in the US called the 'Liberal' party or the "anti-capitalist" party. In the US, there are the mainstream parties of Democrats , Republican, Independents. And then Libertarians, Tea Party affiliations are below that in influence and power. Finally, there are marginalized political parties, such as Socialist Party , Green Party etc.. So just to recap (and to make the point as clear as possible): it will not work to put Hedges' so-called political beliefs into the first sentence of the lede. That's because it would be necessary to define how these terms are being used : 'liberal', 'socialist', 'anti-capitalist' at the very beginning (and certainly in the main body of this page). This is according to the Wikipedia style sheet. The lede introduces what will be restated in the main body of the article. However, the last sentence of the lede states that Hedges describes himself as a socialist. This is documented here. He really does describe himself as having that political affiliation. Once again: those editors who are concerned about stating Hedges political affiliations in the first sentence of the lede are giving this page a bias and slant that will not work here, at least if it is put into the first sentence. So no more changes unless the editor makes a good case for more changes on the talk page and a consensus is reached. Christian Roess (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I concur with the above statement. It appears as though someone reverted since the last comment was made, and the liberal-socialist contradiction has been restored. Given that the consensus here is against this version, I will revert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that this both does not follow the guidelines of lede, which suggests that the lede should summarize the body, but indulges in puffery and actually misguides the reader as to the subject. This person was a prominent journalist he is now a prominent activist. He is a much sought after speaker in that role. To strip out his actual role to insert long-ago awards is puffery. There is not consensus on this, and two editors in two days do not make one. I will revert this Bold change. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I see four editors here who agree that "liberal socialism" is not accurate. We have refs for "socialist" but not "liberal socialism" un ref'd material in a BLP should be removed. I will therefore remove "liberal", especially since the subject disavows "liberalism". Capitalismojo (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It absolutely does follow the guidelines of lede, as journalism is still his actual profession. The lede already mentions that he is a socialist. The prior revision appears to be the consensus, not this one with duplicated information on Hedges being a socialist. Not only that, but as it stands now, the very first line, "Christopher Lynn "Chris" Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American socialist author-activist," is poorly written and sounds like ridiculous POV. My first suggestion above is far superior to this.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You make a convincing argument on "socialist". I agree with your assessment of the awkwardness of that first sentence. I agree that we should remove "socialist" from the first line. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
If his activism is to be mentioned in the very beginning of the lede, well then fine. BUT his profession should come first!!! It would be like the lede of an article on Susan Sarandon starting like this: "Susan Sarandon is a left-wing activist. She is also a famous American actress." In fact, looking over her article, the lede doesn't mention her liberal activism till the end, just like Hedges article until all this bullshit started over the last week.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have solid refs for the writer-activist description. As anyone who follows this area knows, he is prominent on the progressive speakers circuit. We know that he was merely a journalist he is now that plus think-tank fellow, and activist. That is what refs support. It is both inaccurate and diminishing to describe him otherwise. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Not only is "author-activist" an idiotic way to introduce Hedges biographical article, it is also redundant:
"Christopher Lynn "Chris" Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American author-activist.[1][2] As a journalist he specializes in American politics and society. Hedges is also known as the best-selling author of several books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002)—a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction—Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (2009), Death of the Liberal Class (2010) and his most recent New York Times best seller, written with the cartoonist Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt (2012)."
So now it states he is an author twice. In the prior revision, the lede mentions his activism, but towards the end along with his socialist views. That is where it should stay. It is also chronologically accurate, as he started as a journalist, then expanded upon his career as an author and an activist, but he is still first and foremost a journalist, and a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist at that! If this continues, it might require mediation. And NO, a flippant description of Hedges as an "author-activist" in "The Wire" is not *nearly* enough to upend a long standing lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Truthdig, A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion[edit]

An editor has suggested that calling Truthdig a progressive news and opinion site is "dubious" and asked that it be discussed. As anyone who has read Truthdig knows, it is proudly "Truthdig, a Progressive Journal of News and Opinion". This very line appears on every page of Truthdig and has for as long as I can remember. The "about us" section goes into more detail saying: " Truthdig is a news website that provides expert coverage of current affairs as well as a variety of thoughtful, provocative content assembled from a progressive point of view. " There are vast RS refs that could be assembled supporting the suggestion that Truthdig is progressive but given that they state it on every page I think it is hardly necessary. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is dubious because it was obviously added in an attempt to marginalize his work. It is interesting to note that there is no emphasis on The Washington Free Beacon being a right-wing news and commentary website.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
"...it was obviously added in an attempt to marginalize his work..." It actually isn't obvious, and we can cast aspersions on each others motivations back-and-forth all the live-long day. The question is whether it is accurate and notable, and it most certainly is. Notable (unlike the Washington Free Beacon reference), because it has been Hedges' home for nearly ten years, and is significant to his history.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll remove the neutrality tag.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize winner[edit]

The subject was part of a group of staff at NYT who won in 2002. There were eight other staff who contributed to the series of ten articles. He co-wrote part of just one article. Judith Miller wrote all or part of 5 articles. Her mention in her article of this award is one line in the body. Steven Erlanger wrote all or part of 4 articles in his article is at the very end and even more brief. "2002 – Shared Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting with other staffers of The New York Times for work on Al Qaeda". I share this to say that throwing "Pulitzer Prize Winning" into the first line of the lede is an exciting and bold edit, but it is entirely undue. It should be in the body, like the rest of this awards team. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to note this is the way the external link you added introduces Hedges:
"Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and writer Chris Hedges - a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and a foreign correspondent for nearly two decades in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans - writes and speaks extensively on war, religion, American culture, empire, and the conflict in the Middle East."
--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The incessant hyping of Hedges is frustrating. Can't we describe him neutrally instead of trying to cherrypick the most positive possible wording for every sentence? bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Bob. I would point out that the external link I added is to Hedge's speakers bureau. It is explicitly hyping Hedges to sell speaking engagements. I think it is interesting, which is why I added it. Perhaps it should be removed as spam. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference for Occupied Wall Street Journal[edit]

Here is a reference for the removed sentence about the NYT mentionng Hedges and the Occupied Wall Street Journal. ref

However I don't think it should go in the lede, which is rather long.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

NYT and Activism sections[edit]

I suggest the end of his newspaper career at the NYT should be in the appropriate section above. His post-NYT activities should follow in chrono order and then the vast array of political/community beliefs and activities should have their own section. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Hedges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfounded Accusations of Plagiarism[edit]

After reading the entire article, I wonder whether any other editors would agree that the lengthy account of the two unfounded accusations of plagiarism are of enough importance for this biography of a living person. Hedges' prolific ouevre has been so thoroughly scrutinized that the two unsound cases of "plagiarism" appear to be pedantic. My feeling is that they are unimportant, unnecessary and detract from the quality of this article. For my part, I would like to see all references to them removed. These cases are petty and trivial and were deemed to be irrelevant by publishers. The section on these charges serves no useful or serious purpose in expanding our understanding of the biography of this living person. In the present context, they appear to be motivated by little more than pedantry or something even less appealing - a form of character assassination. If this sort of trivial material is routinely found in Wikipedia biographies, what sort of message will that send to the literate public?

I concur with this. Given the length of the section, it is massively undue for a BLP given the limited number of questionable sources cited. I'm in favor removing it entirely.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)