Talk:Political views of Christopher Hitchens

Proposals to merge or delete

This article is unneccesary because it is redundant. The article "Christopher Hitchens" is a sufficient place for a discussion of his political views. There is no need whatsoever for this separate article just on that subject. In any event, it gives far more detail than is of interest to nearly everyone except perhaps his mother. Hambleton (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Agreed. This should be merged into Christopher Hitchens. Quark1005 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is the merger going to take place?203.184.41.226 (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why a whole page of this man's views? Was he that important? Chisme (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He was a mid-range journalist, nothing more. Wikipedia presumably doesn't aim to list every journalist's views on every subject? How do we go about getting this deleted or merged? 2.27.134.137 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To propose a merge, read this. To propose a deletion, read this. Personally I suspect you'd gain a stronger consensus if you proposed a merge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a good look at the main Hitchens article I feel more cautious about a merge, if only because it would make that article even longer, unless the material was dramatically shortened. It is perhaps better to work out what this article should look like before considering a merge. 2.27.134.137 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albert Einstein's political views which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

There appear to be many sections of this article that cite only to primary sources. This is bad for multiple reasons. First, our policy on no original research says to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources. Second, placing such emphasis on primary sources violates our neutrality guideline and, specifically, the fact that we should give weight to aspects of the article subject in proportion to their coverage by reliable secondary sources. Finally, we run the risk of this article becoming unencyclopedic as it reads like a soapbox for Hitchens' views.

Accordingly, I'm leaning toward blanking sections that cite only to primary sources. Any objections? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a bias against primary sources in cases where substantial secondary source literature exists. I'm not aware of there being a great deal of secondary source analysis of Hitchens' politics (meaning things written by professional scholars years after the fact). Most of the analysis that exists thus far is from people on the activist left or the activist right. I don't think that would add anything to the neutrality of the article.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't reliable secondary source literature about aspects of Hitchens' politics then that is a strong indication that those aspects don't merit coverage in Wikipedia and should be blanked. That is the essence of our policies and guidelines on primary sources and balance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before you make any major reductions, I'd like to at least see an attempt to fix the sourcing problems closer to your liking. I've seen too much quality material carelessly removed in the past because some editors didn't bother to use Google. I'd be more than willing to take a crack at this myself if you don't mind pointing out the specific problem sections (though I can already ascertain a few). Jg2904 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll start tagging sections instead of blanking them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much primary material is considered acceptable, but it seems that at least 50/128 sources for this article are just Hitchens' own writing. Including one supporting a subheading that rather blandly just states "In March 2005, Hitchens supported further investigation into voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election". Should a wikipedia article really just be acting as a complete bibliography for a journalist's columns, who by definition of their trade will have expressed views about almost anything and everything at one time or another? 2.27.134.137 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection it is almost worse than that, a lot of the sections are block quotes or a brief summary linking straight to the primary source i.e. a column by Hitchens himself. I am very much a wikipedia novice, do others agree that such subsections should be removed or condensed with others if nobody else has thought that particular column worth commenting on?

Otherwise the article just becomes a slightly extended bibliography of every regular column the man wrote, even on issues like the Ohio voting irregularities in 2004, which I can't imagine anyone considers of historic or general importance anymore. Or at least not to the extent of needing to separately list every opinion stated on the subject somewhere on wikipedia. I am genuinely unsure what the standard is for wikipedia. If this is the usual way of doing things so be it. 2.27.134.137 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, your instinct is correct, and it's not the usual way of doing things. There are multiple overlapping standards at issue here; however, editorial discretion is an important part of all of them. When quotes are taken directly from Hitchens' columns, the columns are being used as primary sources. WP:PRIMARY says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." WP:QUOTEFARM says: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. ... Overuse happens when ... the quotes dominate the article or section." Finally, WP:SOAPBOX says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." In light of these policies and guidelines I agree with your assessment, which is why Jg2904 has been slowly working to try to replace primary sources with secondary ones (per their comment above). I encourage you to help in this effort and to trim or remove excessive quotations. At some point it will be time to delete whole sections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will give that a go. I have removed one small sub-section on 'Other Views', only because all the topics mentioned already have their own sub-sections, so aren't 'Other Views' in any meaningful sense. I have integrated material where it wasn't just duplicating what was already there. I don't know if this section was vestigial from a time when the article was shorter overall.2.27.134.137 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari quote

Just a small point. Most of the Bosnian War subsection is a quote from an interview with Johann Hari. A few years after this interview Hari was drummed out of British journalism in disgrace for fabricating interview quotes to make them more fluent and impressive (among other things). After one initial example was found it became clear he'd been doing this quite a lot. I have no evidence to prove this particular quote is fabricated, but it is perhaps another good reason to integrate it into 3rd person text rather than relying so much on the block quote. 2.27.134.137 (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated Prose

I've deleted a bunch of word-for-word duplicated paragraphs. Just want to check this is correct. Is there any situation where directly duplicating paragraphs of content in different subsections would be correct? 2.27.134.137 (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of editorial discretion, but generally speaking most editors frown on duplication and delete it accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]