Talk:Christopher Hitchens

Letter Regarding Columbus Day

I cannot determine when or why an edit adding a link to Hitchens' letter regarding Columbus Day of 1992 has been removed. It was supported by links and shows his complicity in a viewpoint many deem as racist in his tone, language, and argumentation. This is relevant to his entire worldview. Bugs318 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It was removed because you deleted an existing, sourced paragraph and replaced it with entirely different content. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean and didn't realize (and am uncertain I did?) erase another paragraph. Is the text of my addition still available, or must I seek the references again and re-write? Bugs318 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem. The "diff" between your edit and the content before can be viewed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Hitchens&diff=1297961631&oldid=1297424307

The bigger problem however is that the material isn't adequately sourced. A brief review of the one source you provided makes no claim that Hitchens' view is "widely held as racist"; nor could such a claim hold up without multiple sources characterizing it as racist. Further, the source is a blog, and blogs are only acceptable as sources in very rare circumstances. I would strongly disrecommend re-adding the content as presented; it's likely to be reverted on those grounds alone. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

anastrophe reverted your re-addition of this before I could, but I'll repeat that the content as presented will not stand. The "source" you've offered appears to be a blog which simply reposts without comment a column (not a letter) that Hitchens wrote in the Nation decades ago. To this, you have added your own interpretation of Hitchens' column, which is Original Research. At a bare minimum (and still likely to be insufficient), you would need to find Reliable Sources which discuss the column. There is also likely an Undue Weight issue, as this is unlikely to be considered a sufficiently notable aspect of his views to merit mention. CAVincent (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bugs318, I'm not reverting your re-re-addition tonight, but noting that the additional sources are little better as WP:RS. In addition to the concerns that I've already mentioned, there is also a Neutral Point of View issue with how this is written. CAVincent (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CAVincet and anastrophe. The current version of the article misrepresents the content of Hitchens' column. Additionally, "Mid-East Realities" is a rather obscure source, and Truthout is known for its strong bias; at the very least, any opinions and information from it should be clearly attributed. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 12:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Those sources may have "bias" but are clear evidence of dispute with the implications of his argument.

I would disagree, wholeheartedly, that his piece is misrepresented. It is, however, shortened to a brief characterization of his main thesis - that the anti-Columbus Day movement neglects to consider the vast gifts of colonization that (in his opinion) outweigh the bad. I could quote it extensively.

Before I contribute more labour to this, would quoting his thesis, which as follows is nearly identical to my framing suffice? This would lengthen the section, but it is nonetheless the case that bias by exclusion is also a form of bias and this published view of his necessitates mention. Bugs318 (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Whatever version you want to add, please write it down here in this conversation and get consensus for it before adding it in the article. I also want to add that looking into the Truthout opinion piece you referenced I didn't see any mention of the words race, racist or racism there. And the problem with "Mid-East Realities" is not only that it is biased, but that it also seems rather obscure, so there is a problem of WP:WEIGHT in using it as the sole source for the racism accusation. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 16:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

British vs. English categories

We start out: Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was a British and American author and journalist ...

Matching this, many of the categories are "British <whatevers>", however many others are "English <whatevers>".

I don't think we should have both. Either he's British everywhere, or English everywhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Since there is no official way in which someone can be English, as against British as per their passport, an English descriptor can only rely upon referencing, from reliable sources and/or cited self identity. Since this hasn't been done, as far as I am aware, for this article, British remains the appropriate term - and I note from the article itself that his mother was Jewish and both his parents spent a significant part of their lives living in Scotland. Therefore the 'English' term appears unevidenced and should be switched to British. You will, however, find a lot of such instances around WP, because - a few years back when Scottish independence looked a possibility - there was a concerted drive by a few editors to replace 'British' descriptors with 'Scottish', 'Welsh' or 'English', and whilst those identified as Scottish or Welsh usually had some basis for it, everyone else was simply tagged as English, which is clearly unhelpful. The more prominent such instances have usually been challenged and reverted, but for many lesser known articles, and for less prominent aspects such as the categories, it's still very common to find the term 'English' used without any evidence for it whatsoever. MapReader (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Credentials?

We are told (in this Wikipedia article) that Hitchens “read philosophy, politics, and economics” at college, but what did he actually major in? Is it—or was it—possible to acquire a college degree in the UK without majoring in anything? Considering that in the UK a Bachelor's degree is only three years (it’s always been four years in the US), his formal education seems pretty meager to me—at least for someone who styled himself as a public intellectual. Let’s compare Hitchens to, say, Carl Sagan. Sagan held a (four-year) Bachelor’s in biology, a Master’s in physics, and a doctorate in astronomy, all from the University of Chicago. He taught at prestigious schools and actually worked at his chosen field. Only then did he become a public figure, and he only gradually and occasionally branched--when prompted--in his public discourse from his field of expertise. My impression of Hitchens is that he was a pompous, pugnacious, arrogant person, spouting off ex cathedra in public about anything he capriciously felt like spouting off on. I doubt I should like him regardless, but I want to be shown that he at least had some kind of authority about something. So far, I just don’t see it. What am I missing? The article should say. TheScotch (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I just Googled "third-class degree". (According to this article Hitchens graduated with a third-class degree. We don't use these sorts of designations in the states.) Apparently it means somthing like "just barely passing". That doesn't help explain how Hitchens became someone worthy of his own Wikipedia article. (Just to be clear: I'm not questioning Hitchens's "notability" according to Wikipedia criteria. He's obviously mentioned all over the place in reputable sources. I just think the Wikipedia article should explain or at least hint at why that should be.)TheScotch (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)