Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 3

alcohol and BLP
The Juan Cole quote was removed because some readers believe using a blog to substantiate the claim that Hitchens has been criticized for his alcohol consumption is a violation of BLP. I disagree but there are plenty of other sources from which to support this claim; and there is little question that it is both notable and verifiable. I am restoring the claim along with different sources to support it, but I am also including Hitchens' own defense of his condition. I am also notably not including overly negative representations of Hitchens' zealous consumption of alcohol, although this one is particularly notable. csloat 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a question for Crockspot regarding the Counterpunch citation. How does it contravene BLP to substantiate the claim that Hitchens' drinking causes some to question his credibility with a Counterpunch article?  Agreed, Counterpunch is a blatantly partisan source, but for this sort of claim it seems totally reasonable (in fact, even the Cole blog is a reasonable source for that particular claim).  It demonstrates that Cockburn -- a widely known and well-respected (in some quarters) source, whose ongoing conflict with Hitchens is extremely well known and has been commented on in WP:RS's -- questions Hitchens' credibility.  The WP:RS guidelines do not ban all such sources.  Are you seriously suggesting that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for the specific claim that Cockburn questions Hitchens' credibility? csloat 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read your own arguments agianst the inclusion of Frontpage Magazine, which you describe as partisan, as source for criticism of Juan Cole. I'm sure you see how those arguments are just as valid here, even though the subject of this BLP is someone you ddon't particularly like. Isarig 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do like Hitch, despite his buffoonery, and none of my comments about him are meant to be judgemental (as for the alcohol thing, I'm certainly no teetotaler myself). I agree Frontpage is partisan, but I don't see how it's relevant here -- as I noted above, I think Counterpunch is partisan as well.  But we're not using Counterpunch to substantiate a claim that Hitchens is wrong about something; we are using it to substantiate the claim that certain people (in particular, Hitchens' political opponents) question his credibility.  It doesn't matter much - I have no interest in pursuing it further. csloat 21:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good. I trust we will not see anymore of these BLP vioaltions from you here. Isarig 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please get off the high horse, Isarig. There have been no BLP violations, as you are well aware, and I have responded to your baseless accusations.  Your immature wikilawyering is really not necessary. csloat 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The BLP violation warnings on your Talk page were placed by numerous editors. I suggest you heed your own advice and not pursue this any further. Isarig 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've stubbed the section due to BLP. Aside from it being a violation of undue weight and not adhering to NPOV as it injects criticisms of his ideas based on his drinking, there is also the problem of the cites. Sloat has already violated BLP here, and has recently been caught misrepresenting offline citations here, therefore, anything he wishes to add on this subject will need to be easily confirmed as accurate by other editors. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) BTW that also includes the Vanity Fair cite I've stubbed it to. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. There is no undue weight problem here; Hitchens' use of alcohol is notorious and is frequently commented on in all forms of media.  I bent over backwards to make the paragraph more than fair to Hitchens and in fact give him plenty of room for his own explanation.  There was no BLP violation that I added to this article, as you know well, and your claim that I have been "caught misrepresenting offline citations" is a flat out lie.  In fact, you should read WP:POT on that matter, since you were caught lying about your own edit summaries on that page! csloat 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a lie, the evidence is on the page. If you want to insert this stuff, you'll need to use online cites which can be checked. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not in any way shown me to have misrepresented anything. The cites I used can easily be checked, Armon.  Use a library. csloat 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon never lied about his edit summaries, at the very most he made an honest mistake. The fact that you keep bringing this up all over Wikipedia to tar another editor is misleading, petty, and dishonorable.  Please note that this is not your classroom where you make all the rules and have all the power; you need to respect guidlines.  Your snarky retort does not make up for the fact that you fail to apply BLP evenly to those you admire and those you don't.  Elizmr 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An honest mistake? four times in two days he made the same "honest mistake," characterizing a complete deletion of sourced and relevant material as a minor change.  Totally misleading and he was temporarily blocked for it.  And I don't "keep bringing this up all over wikipedia"; I only brought it up here in response to a new lie from Armon, the claim that *I* misrepresented offline sources, which I did not.  Finally, I'll thank you to never mention my classroom again.  And lay off the BLP nonsense; as is generally agreed at this point, there never was a BLP violation here. csloat 08:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a fact check. The block you agitated for, and are referring to here, was withdrawn by the blocking admin. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; I said "temporarily." And I never "agitated for" the block; in fact, my comments to the admin who imposed the block were about finding a way to mediate the dispute between myself and Isarig (not you), and the block was his idea.  My idea was that both Isarig and I accept restrictions on our own editing; I did not "agitate" for anything having to do with you. csloat 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk: Sloat, you gave a false tally of the opinions expressed in an article to another editor which only you had in front of you -until I found it in the web archives. You've also misrepresented ON-line sources as well in a effort to pov-push. One example which springs to mind is on the Weekly Standard article were you presented an aside in a hit-piece on, ironically, Christopher Hitchens, as a critique of the magazine. This was only corrected because other editors could easily check the cite. I'm not going to the library over every cite you present, and the burden of proof in on you for your edits. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also copied from your talk: No I didn't. I wasn't "tallying" anything except when Isarig demanded it, and my tally was accurate.  You were counting sources that were not relevant except as WP:OR.  I never misrepresented online or offline sources of which I am aware, and your nitpicking about my "tally" does not in any way change that basic fact.  The Cole vs. Weekly Standard item you cite is in no way a misrepresentation; there was simply a difference of opinion about whether the criticism was notable or accurate (it is accurate; I'm undecided about its notability, but your arguments on that page are not convincing to me).  In either case, stating that I was "caught misrepresenting sources" -- online or offline -- is a ridiculous personal attack that you are unable to support with any evidence. csloat 06:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of alcohol
A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output."

In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." Noting that his doctor expressed amazement at his alcohol consumption, Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. Christopher Reed in the London Observer observed that "Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. It would be a drag for Henry Kissinger to live to a hundred and Christopher to keel over next year." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's 0.12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."

I don't see how it can be undue weight -- very little of this is actually critical of Hitchens; much of it is from Hitchens himself and his wife. I think it is quite notable, since it is one of the first things that comes up in most discussions of Hitchens. It is something he is well known for and it is something that is frequently mentioned -- see the following google links for example: Galloway's comments alone garner some 56,900 hits. Of course, google hits are just used here as a general indication of notability; the fact is that Hitchens has been publicly accused of alcohol abuse many times by very notable sources and he has himself publicly flaunted his drinking. It is a fundamental part of who Hitchens is as a media figure, as a writer, and as a general character. Frankly, it's a basic part of his charm. csloat 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 119,000 hits
 * 136,000 hits
 * 143,000 hits
 * 119,000 hits
 * 9100 hits
 * 256 hits


 * "Charm" -pull the other one. You've ranted insults about him here here and here among others, and for some reason, you seem to have a whole lot of offline oppo on the same subject as your ad homs. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it's true I think his sensationalism borders on the cartoonish, but I've hardly "ranted insults" at him. It's also true that I've mentioned his drinking before, but as I said, I'm certainly no teetotaler myself.  I never said I don't find him charming; only that I find it absurd to think that his position in the debate you're citing has much merit.  I do think Hitchens can be charming (and I'd certainly have a drink with him myself!)  Can you please stop taking every post I make as an opportunity to make a backhanded accusation of bad faith and worse? csloat 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I frankly don't care if you're a drinker, you aren't notable. You've been blocked for one of the insults I cited which was lifted because, and only because, too much time had passed. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say I was notable. "Because and only because"?  Talk about misrepresentation; did you just miss this part?  "it was semantics in an off the cuff talk page comment, rather than an outright slur".  And, in fact, since we now know that both Hitchens and his wife use the same word to describe him, it is even clearer that the block was inappropriate.  But that's really not the issue here, now, is it? csloat 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I agree. - Merzbow 06:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think 3 paragraphs on a subject with 5 independent mainstream media sources could be construed as undue weight -- enough people have talked about this for this to be considered notable. JulesH 08:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This assumes they state what is claimed they do. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 08:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have checked them all, and they do. csloat 08:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not good enough -obviously. On the one hand you use google hits as evidence of notability, yet on the other, won't provide RS cites which are online. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution cite is particularly suspect -as it's dubious that he self-identifies as an alcoholic. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But I have assured you of what the article says. Are you saying that I am a liar?  If so, you need evidence (and it is surely just a library away).  I have the article in front of me and that is what it says.  (Just to be clear, I'm not sure what you mean by "he self-identifies," but he does refer to himself as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker."  Why is this so hard to believe?  Your implication that I would just make this up seems to be a vicious personal attack here, and it is totally unwarranted.) csloat 10:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm saying that because you've lied about offline sources in the past, and that even with online sources, you engage in quote mining and "spin", that your "word" is not therefore good enough. This is the problem you create for yourself. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never lied about offline sources in the past. You have yet to provide a single instance of lying.  All you have offered is a single instance of a difference of opinion, and I have shown clearly that you were incorrect in that instance. csloat 10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff, here's the article you were talking about. Others can judge for themselves. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And your complaint is what exactly? It was stupid of me to get sucked into Isarig's game and describe this like a sports match, agreed, but I see no lies there.  Perhaps we have a difference of interpretation at best. csloat 10:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to AGF, which means assuming that the references are correct. It seems to me that just the first two paragraphs would be enough to give the reader a good sense of what is going on. Including the third paragraph seems petty to me. Also, I'm not sure that either of the two quotes in the third paragraph is really "criticism". CMummert · talk 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Hitchens' use of alcoohol is publicly well known, and self-acknowledged, so it is fine to have a short paragraph about this, citing reliable sources. I think the NPR summary offered by Armon is a very good compromise here. What we cannot have in a WP:BLP is editorial comment alleging that becuase of this use of alcohol his opinions are questionable, sourced to either self-publshed partisan blogs by his politcal opponents (like Juan Cole) or to exteremist, muck-racking partisan rags published by his political opponents (such as Counterpunch). Isarig 17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ? I don't think any of the text in the three paragraphs we're discussing fits the description you're giving: it's all sourced to well known, mainstream media outlets. I just don't see why this comment even applies.  Can we restrict the comments to the actual content we're discussing, not some kind of strawman version of it? JulesH 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a strawman at all - it is the original version that the POV-pushing editor who inserted this issue to begin with wanted (and apparently still wants, and sees nothing wrong with). I am making clear that this shoudl not be tolerated in a WP:BLP Isarig 19:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Jules must not have seen the most objectionable version. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, we are talking about the version in the box -- the only change I am recommending is the inclusion of the deleted material from Galloway; otherwise I am ok with this. So assuming I am the "pov-pushing editor" Isarig is referring to in his personal attack, let me state publicly that I would support the above version with the inclusion of the Galloway quote (which is also from WP:RS). csloat 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph includes Hitchens' and his wife's defenses of his drinking, as well as Reed's explanation of why his drinking is an issue. The Reed sentence constitutes the "criticism" as such (rather lukewarm, as it is) while the Hitchens and Blue quotes offer his response to the criticism.  I don't think it would be fair to Hitchens to censor these notable responses. csloat 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, one sentence that apparently was deleted appears to be important: "When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink."" Galloway's rather public attacks on Hitchens are quite notable -- they were repeated in many WP:RS's -- and, even though they are mentioned elsewhere on this page, this particular quote emphasizes that the thrust of Galloway's criticism was Hitchens' drinking.  It comes back to the claim that Isarig was consistently removing, that Hitchens' alcohol use is considered by some to have clouded his judgement or undermined the validity of his opinions.  Frankly, I don't see how this point is controversial for anyone. csloat 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no opposition to having the article mention alcohol use. The second sentence of the third paragraph does not seem like any sort of criticism, to my ear; it seems like a compliment, in fact. The rest of the paragraph does not sound like a defense, frankly, it sounds like something that a typical person would be embarrassed to learn they had said, which is why I don't think it is necessary to repeat it here.  The goal isn't to include every possible reliable source; we must use editorial judgement, which is different than censorship.  CMummert · talk 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning alcohol use is not the issue, in fact, I provided the NPR cite myself. The issues are a) quote mining to assert that the guy is an alcoholic, b) an undue amount of focus on this issue (How many ways do we need to state that he drinks and smokes a lot?) c) giving credence to ad hominem attacks by implying that it "clouds his judgment" rather than noting ad homs for what they are, and d) despite using google to claim notability, the use of offline sources by an editor who has a bad track record in this regard. The cites will therefore need to be fact checked by others before they are included. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * a) Nobody is quote mining. And nobody is suggesting Wikipedia should "call the guy an alcoholic"; only that we should accurately report what has been said.  He has freely referred to himself that way (though it is quite obvious that it has a different meaning to him than to someone in AA, for example), so I don't see the point of pretending that he hasn't. (b) As for undue, check the google hits above -- this is an extremely commonly noticed and commented upon aspect of who he is as a public figure.  It is no more undue than a paragraph on heroin in William S. Burroughs would be.  Hitchens is rather proud of the fact that he drinks heavily, and I don't see why we should create false shame about it.   (c) you are welcome to your opinion that this is an ad hominem, but that's not relevant here.  It is notable criticism that has been made by notable figures.  Find another WP:RS mentioning that these are ad hominems (and I don't totally disagree with your opinion on that), and I'll be more than happy to support the inclusion of such citations.  (d) this argument is a canard, as I have shown decisively.  I will ask you again to please stop repeating it and please publicly apologize for your gross violation of WP:AGF.  Thanks! csloat 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need three paragraphs on this issue? Do the three quotes introduce new ideas or do they restate the same? If they restate the same the repetitive bits should be trimmed or removed. --meaning: H drinks and smokes and writes a lot of stuff (theres a sense that he is functional despite drinking a lot in the phrase "pordigious literary output) In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." Noting that his doctor expressed amazement at his alcohol consumption, Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." 	meaning: this perhaps gives a humerous quantitation of how much Hitchens drinks and shows that he feels he can be functional despite how much he drinks--not all that much added meaning IMO Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. Christopher Reed in the London Observer observed that "Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. It would be a drag for Henry Kissinger to live to a hundred and Christopher to keel over next year." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's 0.12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing." Meaning: This quote brings into question whether or not H is an alcoholic (master or servant), but then goes on to suggest that he is functional despite the problem. Then there is some editorializing about the relative merits of Kissenger vs. Hitchens (which is irrelevant), then more humorous quantitation from Hitchens (repetitive), and more of H's statements that he is functional despite the alcohol (repetitive). The intro sentence to this quote introduces an idea that the quote does not support--it is OR and should be struck.
 * Quote one: A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output."
 * Quote two:
 * Quote three:


 * In summary, I'm not sure we need all three quotes in their entirely since they are largely repetitive. We certainly don't need a lead sentence for a third paragraph that is not supported by the actual quote.  How about the first quote, and then a statement that Hitchens has humerously characterized his alcohol intakes as " to kill or stun the average mule"  but maintains he is functional despite his heavy use of alcohol(ref to quote number 2), but that his drinking has been commented on by critics and other commentators(ref to quote number 3).    I think this would be fair, less repetitive, more neutrally stated and would bring the emphasis to this point in the article more into balance with the rest of the aspects of Hitchens a bio article should cover. Elizmr 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Elizmr is twisting misconstruing things. It is not OR to say that Hitchens has been criticized for his extensive and public alcohol consumption. The well-known Galloway quote (conveniently left out of the above explanation) clearly substantiates the point (as does the Counterpunch article, and Cole's comments, among others). Hitchens should be allowed his own fair say on the issue which is why I include his comments and his wife's. It is certainly relevant that both refer to himself as an "alcoholic," though I don't see a problem with shortening the quotes a bit. I agree think that the NPR quote adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion and should probably be removed, or at least relegated to a footnote. The Reed quote sums up the issue - that there is concern that Hitchens has a real problem that affects his thinking. Certainly the Galloway, Cole, and Cockburn comments questioning his opinions and his thinking substantiate this. csloat 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sloat, could you please agf for one nanosecond? I have made an attempt to tease out and discuss the paragraphs in the box at the start of this section and suggested an alternate version.   Instead of replying to me in a like fashion, you make the ill faith assuming summary statemnt that I am "twisting things" and  attack me for "conveniently" leaving something out (ie--suggesting ill intent).  This is just the kind of non-productive disruptive stuff that I have been asking you to stop doing for a year now.  It is so hard to edit with you because in order to work with you one has to put up with and get past this type of stuff constantly.  After you do this, you say that you agree with me that the NPR quote adds nothing and should be removed or footnoted, while I have actually suggested that it is a good introductory and summary quote on the topic of his drinking.  I'm not exactly sure what to do with that.  Finally, here is the Reed quote:  Hitchens, who found himself labelled 'the barstool bombardier' for his support of war against Iraq, has for decades impressed his friends with his capacity both for alcohol and work, but as time passes - he is 54 in April - the question is whether his drinking is 'a master or a servant'." .  Where does this say that there is a problem with H's thinking?  Elizmr 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, look, I apologize if I seemed to be attacking your motives - I don't mean to; but I think your argument misconstrues things. As for the NPR quote, you said that it means "H drinks and smokes and writes a lot of stuff" which is of course repetitive with the other quotes; I did not mean to put words in your mouth, but I think that quote is repetitive and adds nothing (which was the criteria you laid out).  As for the Reed quote, it says that the question is whether his drinking is a master or servant -- if his drinking is a "master," that indicates a problem that affects his thinking.  Again, this is a common critique of Hitchens and I really don't see the need to waste a lot of time on it. csloat 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what exactly makes Reed an expert, and a notable one, on what "masters" Hitchens? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 09:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? He doesn't claim to be.  That's really not at issue here at all. csloat 09:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is if you want to include this the guy on the topic of Hitchens' drinking. See WP:NOT &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. csloat 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, we'll remove Reed then. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the Reed quote is useful, but I'm happy to look at alternatives. But your implication that a reporter must be an "expert" in something to make a valid claim is ludicrous.  Can you suggest an alternative version of the above so we can move on? csloat 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As a trained academic, you must realize that one doesn't use three paragraphs when one sentence will do. I have compared the other quotes TO the NPR quote have have showed that THEY don't add much. The NPR quote also has the advantage of being more neutral sounding. Therefore, I am suggesting again that the NPR quote is the best summary quote for the section. As far as the Reed quote, I don't think you can really make the conclusion you are making, but if it is a common critique maybe you could you find a quote which lays it out more explicity than this one? I am also in agreement with Armon that if you are going to say that H's "thinking" is affected by alcohol---ie, if you are going to to discredit Hitchen's analyses on various matters with this sentence---you need to have a source who is really qualified to make that judgement. If you do not, you do have a BLP problem. Elizmr 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I've asked you before to stop referring to my occupation -- you do it in a way that comes across as a backhanded personal attack, and I have called you on it before. It really is a simple request.  Second, the other quotes are far more useful than the NPR quote as I have shown.  They come from reliable sources and show that Hitchens refers to himself in this way and that others have seen and recognized this as a portential problem.  I think the Galloway quote really makes the point more clear since you find the Reed quote confusing.  Finally I am not "going to discredit Hitchens' analysis" based on alcohol -- that is not for me to do or for Wikipedia to do.  All that is being done here is making the statement that his public and heavy use of alcohol causes others to question Hitchens' opinions.  In that matter, Reed, a reporter, is qualified to make the point, and the evidence from Galloway, Cole, and Cockburn all back up the point -- that Hitchens' opponents point to his alcohol use as a possible source of what they see as confused or incorrect thinking.  I believe I have been very clear on this.  If you have an alternative construction of the paragraphs above, offer it up and let's take a vote or something; there is no need to keep going back and forth on this argument. csloat 20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

''Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker "because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem". He drinks, he says, "because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur. Citation: Oliver Burkeman, War of words'', The Guardian, October 28 2006 -&lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good quote to me. Let's go with this one.  Sloat?  Elizmr 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)  (and I don't see that you've really replied to my statements above, exactly, but I think thisis a better quote so let's use it and move on.  Elizmr 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to add that quote in along with the others, certainly. But it hardly substitutes for the actual criticism.  Again, I think the Galloway quote, Hitchens' references to himself as an alcoholic (particularly the frequently cited Vanity Fair article), and some third party comment on the issue would be helpful.  This quote is a good one but it is simply Hitchens using the claim to attack his opponents.  I don't think you're really suggesting that should be the only comment here on the matter. csloat 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to the galloway quote, but it is not in the box at the top of this section. Could you please reporduce it here for discussion sake?  Elizmr 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you never seen it before? Over 61,000 google hits at this point. csloat 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You propose this quote, "You're a Drink-soaked Former Trotskyist Popinjay" shoud be in. How would the sentence read that couches this for the article?  Elizmr 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No; it's the part after that, as you ought to know; just go back to the last version that I was defending of this section. csloat 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a dense piece which includes a lot of stuff. Would it be too much trouble to reporoduce the "galloway quote" that you want to use and how you want it presented, exactly? Elizmr 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Click the link for the diff.  Do a "find" for "Galloway" if you get lost.  Are you really telling me that you have been arguing all this time (in a frequently abusive manner) against my suggested version of the page without even having known what that version is? csloat 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you could argue that the "Popinjay" quote was a notable insult, but I don't see what it adds except to make Galloway look bad. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the quote. Is it true that both Armon and Elizmr are disputing my version of the page -- vehemently -- without having read it?  Bizarre. csloat 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sloat, as I've said above I have read your version and have already discussed most of what is there above. I am not sure why you are accusing me of not reading your version, or arguing without having read your version.  That is not productive.    I am asking you to reproduce the galloway quote which you have said is better than many of the other quotes we've already discussed, to reproduce it here so we can discuss.  I am not sure why this is problematic for you.  Elizmr 23:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying it's right there in the diff, all you have to do is click the link and read. If you read the version I am advocating then you know exactly what the quote is and you are just wasting our time. csloat 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the quote, "When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink.""? Elizmr 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, can you confirm that this is an accurate reproduction of the Reed article? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks like it; the relevant quote is certainly the same. csloat 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then the quote is an unattributed, out of context reporting of a BLP violating claim by Alexander Cockburn regarding Hitchens' mental health. Alexander Cockburn is not a mental health professional. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd. Cockburn never claimed to be a mental health professional.  The issue is whether Hitchens' opponents feel his alcohol use has clouded his judgement, and they do.  (And, frankly, one doesn't need to be a "mental health professional" to have questions about someone who drinks a fifth of hard liquor a day, but that is neither here nor there).  I really feel you are twisting things Armon and I'd like you to stop.  I'm not going to debate you or Elizmr anymore about this - let's just present the two different versions of the page and take a vote or something. csloat 00:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, no more debate until the NEXT time some creep calls Hitchens a name, and you scurry to your keyboard. - Mcasey666 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I never said no more debate; I just said I personally don't want to debate these two editors anymore.  Everyone else is free to debate all you like.  I just don't think I need to say any more about this -- let's look at the two versions, lay out the arguments on each side, and take a vote.  I'm not going to convince Armon of anything and he's not going to convince me. csloat 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol use
Here's an attempt to get beyond the back and forth. I don't think anyone disagrees that Hitchens' alcohol use is notable or that we should have a section on it. Below is a version of the section that I would support; if anyone has another version they would support please offer it and we can discuss or simply vote. Just so it's clear, I've made minor changes to the version I supported before in order to take into account some of the discussion above. I've ditched the Reed quote and pared down some of the others; I've kept in Hitchens' own defense of his drinking, including the quote Armon likes. I don't think anyone in their right mind can say that this version is an "attack" on Hitchens -- it's over 75% quotations from Hitchens. csloat 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol. In 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind." In 1999 he described himself to reporter Michael Skube as "an alcoholic and a chain smoker." His wife Carol Blue acknowledged to writer Ian Parker, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably." Hitchens told Parker that Mel Gibson's .12 blood-alcohol level at the time of his arrest in Malibu is "as sober as you'd ever want to be," but he insisted, "I know what I'm doing with it. And I can time it. It's a self-medicating thing."


 * When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink." Oliver Burkeman writes, "Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker 'because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.' He drinks, he says, 'because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.'" Elizmr 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need the Skube or Parker cites either. I haven't found them yet but I remain dubious about the context of the quotes, and the Parker cite is described as a hit piece here. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, go to the library if you have a problem with the "context," or simply ask about it. Second, you're citing a blog.  The Parker piece isn't a hit piece; read it yourself. csloat 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternate version (more neutral lead):
 * Hitchen's heavy use of alcohol has been commented on in the media. A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output." .  Hitchen's admits to drinking heavily, but maintains that it does not affect his work; in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind."  More recently, Hitchen's wife has said, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. .  George Galloway used references to alcoholism to avoid answering questions Hitchen's posed in a pubic setting, "When Hitchens confronted MP George Galloway outside the U.S. Senate, Galloway ignored his questions and taunted, "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink.".  Oliver Burkeman writes, "Since the parting of ways on Iraq, though, Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker 'because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.' He drinks, he says, 'because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.'" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elizmr (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not terribly opposed to your changes in the lead, though I think this version is less accurate. I don't think you need to add the editorializing about Galloway, nor to pretend that the other comment about Galloway is some kind of quote -- I wrote that part (and actually it smacks of editorializing too, so if anything we could make that more neutral, not less.) csloat 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So, I think it is quite appropriate that my last edit here should note that User:Commodore Sloat can't WP:AGF for enough time to imagine in his own mind that a fellow editor might be making a PUNCTUATION ERROR rather doing something intentional (note: I'm talking about his comment above "I don't think you need to ...pretend that the other comment about Galloway is some kind of quote"; I made a punctuation error; he assumed bad faith). Maybe one day he will realize that it makes the encylcopedia a BETTER not a WORSE place when editors have different opinions and POVs, and stop being such a DICK to everyone who doesn't agree with him. Anyway, that's it for the rant. I had thought my lead-in sentence to the Galloway quote was ok beucase I thought I had paraphrased the Guardian article, but I can see Sloat's point. I've included more of the Galloway quote to directly quote the part I thought I had paraphrased and have rewritten the sentence where I did that in favor of something more neutral that frames the setting in which Galloway's comments were made.
 * Alternate version (more neutral lead), version 2:
 * Hitchen's heavy use of alcohol has been commented on in the media. A profile on Hitchens by NPR stated: "Hitchens is known for his love of cigarettes and alcohol -- and his prodigious literary output." .  Hitchen's admits to drinking heavily, but maintains that it does not affect his work; in 2003 he wrote that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule." He noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind."  More recently, Hitchen's wife has said, "Once in a while, it seems like he might be drunk. Aside from that, even though he's obviously an alcoholic, he functions at a really high level and he doesn't act like a drunk, so the only reason it's a bad thing is it's taking out his liver, presumably. .  The Guardian reports on remarks George Galloway made to Hitchens outside the US Senate, where Galloway had come to testify before a US senate subcommittee for homeland security and governmental affairs and Hitchens had come in his role as a journalist to question him before the hearing, "'You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay...Your hands are shaking'...'You badly need another drink,' he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead" .  Oliver Burkeman writes, "Since the parting of ways on Iraq...Hitchens claims to have detected a new, personalised nastiness in the attacks on him, especially over his fabled consumption of alcohol. He welcomes being attacked as a drinker 'because I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem.' He drinks, he says, 'because it makes other people less boring. I have a great terror of being bored. But I can work with or without it. It takes quite a lot to get me to slur.'" Elizmr 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF? I'm being a "Dick" but you can see my point?  Look, I didn't say anything about your faith; all I said was that we don't need the extra editorializing, and I even said my version editorialized too, so I don't see how I was being a dick.  Do me a favor and if you're going to respond to my posts, just respond to the substantive points and refrain from the personal attacks.  Thanks. csloat 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No implication of bad faith was intended when I used the word "pretend" either; I was simply stating what the quotation mark made it look like the paragraph was asserting, mistake or no. Please calm down, Elizmr -- your reaction to this word is completely out of line.  Thanks. csloat 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been no substantive debate on this in a couple days - unless there are objections, I'll be restoring the comments on Hitchens' use of alcohol to the article soon. The one substantive challenge has been to the sentence "Hitchens has been criticized for his heavy and public use of alcohol" -- I'm happy to change that to the version suggested by Elizmr if others like that. csloat 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the version signed "Elizmr 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)" is an improvement over the version that I copied from the talk page to here. CMummert · talk 13:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the version signed "Elizmr 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)" (not sure why it's signed that way though). The differences are minor but that appears to be the more accurate one. csloat 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for a day or two to see if anyone else comments. If not, the differences between the two are really pretty minor, mostly in the part about Galloway, so either seems OK. CMummert · talk 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the compromise version in the article; we can tinker with it from here but I think it is pretty NPOV (and if anything, it consists almost completely of Hitchens' defense of his own drinking rather than actual criticism). I think there should be some note of Cockburn's comments on the matter too, since that is the most visible public criticism on the topic. csloat 19:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

comment by Metamagician3000
(new section header created by CMummert)

This is not a place where we muckrake over the alleged excessive alcohol use of people we write about. We're an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine, and gossip just makes us look cheap. If I see anything substantial about Hitchens' drinking I will probably revert it out and rely on both the letter and spirit (no pun intended) of BLP. Metamagician3000 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the theoretical goal is to find a well-attributed, NPOV wording that is neither too short nor too long. So, forgetting the actual wording for the moment, how long should the section on alcohol use be? As long as the proposed wording above, half as long, a quarter as long? One sentence makes it seems that we are skimming over the issue. CMummert · talk 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this version deals with the issue in enough detail. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

deletions of sourced and relevant material
Armon, do not delete relevant material from clearly reliable sources (much of it from the subject himself) without discussion on the talk page. If you refuse to explain your wordless deletions, then please revert them back. Thank you. csloat 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't a deadline for getting the article done. Let's figure it out on the talk page rather then bouncing the article back and forth with reversions. CMummert · talk 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but unexplained edits should be reverted until they are explained. The version I'm supporting at this poing is a compromise version hammered out in talk, though I am happy to entertain other suggestions or changes. csloat 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although they may eventually be reverted, there is no hurry, and policy strongly disfavors repeated reversions (see WP:3RR). The edit history is starting to look like an edit war; the best thing might be for everyone to cool off for a day and then come back. User:Armon commented above on the version he/she prefers. CMummert · talk 01:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, as I've stated here on talk and in the edit summaries, we aren't going to pov push the assertion that he is an alcoholic. It's extremely dubious that he self-identifies as such. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 02:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody said we should pov-push anything. My point is that we should quote notable statements about the topic.  Please stop distorting this.  Your 3RR violation has been reported. csloat 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commodore, another one of my wiki-friends did the same thing as you and also got blocked. It's an easy mistake to make: knowing you are 'right' and yet expressing it 'badly'. Next time, ask someone for help.

Also, what looks like others mistakenly reverting a good edit can sometimes be a legitimate disagreement over a passage's relevance. It helps to seek out the perspective of others. Obviously Hitchens drinks a lot. But how many quotes about that do we need?

Does this project really need to inform our readers about every drunken author or pill-popping radio loudmouth? And don't even get me started on the Babylon of movie and recording stars. Their tawdry affairs could fill a newspaper (or line a trash can) - which is one reason I avoid supermarkets. We don't want to get sued, the way the National Enquirer occasionally has been.

Anyway, you are a good contributor, csloat. Hang in there, tough it out, and come back with a more congenial perspective. Who knows, maybe Hitchens will buy you a beer! :-) --Uncle Ed 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed... Like Hitchens, I prefer the harder stuff ;) Let me say that the only reason this is an issue for the hitchens page (and not for "every drunken author") is that alcohol is a fundamental part of Hitchens' identity as a writer (for better or for worse).  Personally, I think it's for the better -- and this is what the editor who keeps reverting my changes claims not to understand or believe -- as maddening as his opinions might be, I find Hitchens entertaining.  I often feel for the person on the other end of Hitchens' incessant bullying and condescension, but there is no denying that he is a remarkable writer.  And part of that charm for me is his unapologetic embrace of alcohol (like William S Burroughs and heroin, Timothy Leary and acid, or Abbie Hoffman and pot).  This has been a subject of critique by notable sources -- e.g. Cockburn, Cole, Galloway -- as well as something jovially commented on by Hitchens himself as well as his wife.  As I have shown, much of this is in indisputably reliable sources.  To delete such material in order to whitewash something that Hitchens himself refers to proudly seems absurd. csloat 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's whitewashing the fact he drinks a lot. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are whitewashing the fact that he has been criticized for such, and that both he and his wife have acknowledged it. But I'm sure you already know that. csloat 10:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Drinking

 * alcohol is a fundamental part of Hitchens' identity as a writer
 * Good point. Now find a verifiable source for that, and we're in business. :-) --Uncle Ed 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found five, and most of them keep getting removed by . Sure, they don't state it in those specific words, but that's why I used quotes rather than my own words. csloat 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR and WP:NOT. Using quotes in this way is simply an attempt to skirt the policy on OR. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no attempt at WP:OR here. Five quotes from reliable sources mentioning a very commonly-observed phenomenon (see the google hits above alse).csloat 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol sandbox:
 * /drinking

Please place sources in the subpage, where we can work out the formatting and so forth. Since this is not in article space, there is no 3RR limit. --Uncle Ed 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with your changes, Ed -- none of the rest of the article is organized like that. I think a paragraph or two is better than a list of quotes, even when the paragraph is mostly quotes. csloat 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore the formatting. I'm just arranging the quotes in logical order. Now you can turn the whole thing into text.


 * Remember, I don't have dog in this fight. I 'barely' even know who Hitchens is, and I care even less about his drinking. I just want to help you get on board here. --Uncle Ed 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll place the text under the quotes. csloat 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The sandbox is a waste of time because it's non-compliant with BLP and OR, and there's no evidence that Hitchens self-identifies as an alcoholic other than a dubious off-line cite which is likely out of context or misquoted. As sloat was blocked for insults regarding Hitchens' drinking and "alcoholism", this is simply a violation of WP:POINT in order for sloat to "prove" he was "unjustly" blocked. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF; and please stop the BS. The block was lifted, and nobody else cares about it besides you.  This has nothing to do with it, and your claim that the quote is misquoted is an egregious violation of AGF and NPA.  Cut it the hell out; I'm serious. csloat 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down and talk about the article - not about your fellow editors. I can't stop the admins from blocking you if you're going to get out of hand.

Perhaps each contributor might explain why CH's drinking is important to his bio. Does it show how cool he is, like Ernest Hemingway? Does it indicated an unbalanced or irresponsible personality, whose views and assertions should be disregarded because "he's just a drunk"?

If it's the latter, all we need do then is provide a source who says:
 * "Hitchens's drunkenness calls into question everything he's ever written. I dismiss him as a serious historian or journalist," said S. Traten-Narrow, professor of history at Upper Lip Univeristy in Great Britain.

How does that sound? --Uncle Ed 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed -- I've commented on the sandbox page about this; there are several important figures who do appear to discount what Hitchens says as a result of his drinking. All I am advocating is a sentence saying such people exist.  I don't think it should be too controversial but the problem is it inevitably degenerates into character attacks on me that seem unprovoked and abusive. csloat 20:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I took out the stuff you and Armon have put in and taken out 8 times recently. I just don't see how it adds value to the article. If his drinking is fundamental part of Hitchens' identity as a writer, it would help to find a source who says precisely that. Look for:
 * "Hitchens is a writer influenced by his drinking, like Ernest Hemingway was. His drinking is a fundamental part of him," said biographer Hiso Potted in Writers Who Drink (Macmillan & Sons, 1998)

Okay? --Uncle Ed 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not okay. You took out stuff that there was actually consensus on, even between myself and Armon.  The fact that Hitchens has been vocally criticized for drinking heavily and publicly should not be censored.  I haven't made changes beyond restoring what you deleted.  The Galloway quote in particular has been reprinted several thousand times; it is certainly quite notable.  Check the google hits above, Ed, as well as the conversation.  Your demand that I find quotes that say certain specific things is circular -- I never said those things should be said in the article; only that notable quotations should be in there.  The quotations in there are unquestionably notable, and I don't see any need for you or I to "interpret" them. csloat 07:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well this may be a sign of the apocalypse if I'm agreeing with sloat on anything ;) but I do agree the Galloway invective is notable, as well as the quote about the ad homs post-Iraq. I think it's good as it is, but we need some other editors to comment. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you two getting along. Would you like to join the Harmonious editing club? ;-) --Uncle Ed 12:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the version as of now is good... any larger and it would potentially give undue weight. - Merzbow 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to join the club and support this as it is now too. I think the other quotes are notable but I also see the value of backing off and getting along :) csloat 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)