Talk:Chris Hedges/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links...

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)

Hedges the Atheist

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)

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

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

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

This page needs a properly structured bibliography of the authors various works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedalusD (talk • contribs) 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

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

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)

Truthdig, A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion

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)

liberal or socialist

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."

--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)

References

Reference for Occupied Wall Street Journal

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140423211814/http://www.princetonmagazine.com/wordpress/?p=1749 to http://www.princetonmagazine.com/wordpress/?p=1749

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130310151925/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week622/hedges.html to http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week622/hedges.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131117010917/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines04/0316-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131117010917/http://www.commondreams.org:80/headlines04/0316-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121020044130/http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-main_17rel.ART.State.Edition1.21b687c.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-main_17rel.ART.State.Edition1.21b687c.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117010917/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117010917/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160425054658/http://www.princeton.edu:80/ams/anschutz/ to https://www.princeton.edu/ams/anschutz/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531003156/http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/professors/past to http://humanities.princeton.edu/journalism/professors/past
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.princeton.edu/ams/anschutz/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204135757/http://www.progressive.org/chris_hedges_interview.html to http://progressive.org/chris_hedges_interview.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)

On Contact

Mmm, should we mention this [[1]]?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Have added it above, the direct comment about the article is from 19:45. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfounded Accusations of Plagiarism

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?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemistoxford (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Concur. Done. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree this should be removed as undue. -Darouet (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

unfounded?!? he was called out by Harpers! not exactly Fox News. and he never admitted to what was clearly his wrongdoing, which is pretty important to me. -- User:Brian

@Brian: I agree with Brian here. (1) It's Harper's. And if, as a previous user has noted, all of this is motivated by "little more than pedantry or something even less appealing - a form of character assassination," then (2) the previous user's claim needs more evidence and (3) that evidence needs to be presented in the talk page and the article concisely. (4) Also, "If this sort of trivial material is routinely found in Wikipedia biographies, what sort of message will that send to the literate public?" is a slippery slope fallacy. (5) Absent a good counterargument in the next few days, the accusations of plagiarism (and Hedge's defense and others' responses) ought to be in the article. CensoredDog (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's strange to have nothing about this. It was covered in multiple mainstream sources, and it's likely to be of interest to readers. As weak evidence of this, I'll note that when I do a Google search for "Chris Hedges" (in an incognito tab), the New Republic article is on the first page of results, and is only beaten by the wiki article and Hedges' various online profiles (on Twitter and the outlets he writes for). It's possible the previous plagiarism section was disproportionately long, but that's not a reason to delete it entirely. I think it could be shortened down to giving a brief summary of the charges against him, noting the response from Hedges and his publishers, and quoting a couple RS summaries/analyses by uninvolved individuals. Because the TNR piece is so long and has so many details, I don't think it's feasible to do any kind of point-for-point analysis. An interested reader can follow the refs to read the allegations, Hedges' response, and the counter-response. I may take a stab at this soon. Colin M (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added a section about this. I hope it gives a reasonable balance of points of view (between Ketcham/Palaima, Hedges and his publishers, and third party commentary) without being too long. It's possible the Palaima content could be trimmed a bit - it's not clear whether that piece drew much attention at the time it was published, or if it only became relevant when the claims were revisited in Ketcham's piece. For the record, here are a couple sources that I came across but didn't end up using:

• Reaction published in Newsweek. Since it was published just a day after the Ketcham article (and before the official response from Hedges), I considered it a bit less valuable than the later reactions in the Washington Examiner and the Sun.
• Piece published in Gawker alleging further instances of plagiarism, much of it self-plagiarism. This is a whole new can of worms. Some brief coverage in Politico, but doesn't seem to have made much of a splash.

If anyone thinks this section is still WP:UNDUE, I hope it can be addressed by revision rather than outright deletion, as happened before. Colin M (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I do believe it is still undue, perhaps even more so now than when it was first included in the article back in 2014, because literally nothing has been written about any allegations of plagiarism against Hedges in over half a decade. I did a google search myself and that one TNR article from 2014 appears on the second page, about half way down. If this story had legs, certainly there would be more than these two sources, both of which seemingly have an ax to grind (Ketcham's wife was included in the story, so he is hardly a neutral observer), and some of those other "multiple" sources listed above read more like screeds regurgitating allegations from Ketcham's article than investigative reporting, with lines like this from the Newsweek piece: "Hedges's assured downfall recalls that of pop-sci writer Jonah Lehrer. Both men appears to have thought they were above basic journalistic propriety. Both were wrong." Assured downfall? Not only did this story all but disappear in the following weeks, but it didn't seem to hurt his career at all. While he was fired from Truthdig recently, it had nothing to do with this. Given that, reinserting these old allegations in a WP:BLP is even more problematic now than when they first appeared back in 2014. That's my view, anyway. EDIT: It's also notable that The New York Times, his employer for fifteen years, had no reason to believe he plagiarized while working for the paper and did not bother to investigate the matter further. Regarding the accusations of "self-plagiarism" in Gawker, the Politico piece quoted Michael Wolff who said "Self-Plagiarism as in Gawker story about Chris Hedges is, by definition, not plagiarism, of course. In fact, how is it that people can make up things like self-plagiarism plagiarism without being slapped?" Indeed!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about lack of sustained coverage/interest after the story broke. I was able to find a few post-2014 mentions of the accusations, but it's not much. That said, I think the volume of coverage still merits some non-zero amount of text in the article. If anyone has ideas of how to shorten the existing content, I'd encourage them to take a shot. Colin M (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not just the lack of sustained coverage that makes this undue IMO, but the fact that the bulk of the accusations comes from a BIASED source (Ketcham). It also omits that his former employer for fifteen years, The New York Times, was dismissive of the accusations and didn't even bother to conduct an investigation of their own into his work for the paper, and they didn't part ways on good terms as I understand it, largely over coverage of the Iraq War in the early 2000s. The Nation Institute, which has published works by Hedges, looked into his work for Nation Books and found no instances of plagiarism. Moreover, the Ketcham article was supposed to be published by Salon and The American Prospect but both refused to publish it. If this section is to stay in the article, and I wish other editors would opine on this, then at the very least this should also be included so readers get the full picture of what is tantamount to a little spat between Hedges and Ketcham. Nevertheless, I reiterate my strong objections to this section being included overall, given the utter lack of sustained coverage, the biases of the main source used (Ketcham), and that other publications refused to publish Ketcham's article even though they originally intended to.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that Ketcham is biased, but it's far from an objective fact. (And even then, allegations which are biased, or even outright false, can still be WP:NOTEWORTHY if they've been widely reported on; we just need to provide the appropriate context.) I also don't see how Salon and The American Prospect declining to print the story figures in. You seem to be taking that as evidence that the story was of low quality. Another plausible explanation is that they declined to publish it because they feared they would be drawn into expensive litigation. In the article, Ketcham talks about receiving legal threats while writing the story. Anyways, you could add sentences about the NYT response and the fact that Salon and The American Prospect passed on the story, but by making the section even longer, I think it would be counterproductive to the due weight concern. Colin M (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

At the very least it's a blatant conflict of interest, given his spouse is included in the narrative he weaves against Hedges as one of his "victims", which also helps explain why the piece comes off as such a vehement, polemical screed. It is interesting to note that others did not come forward to corroborate his story. Now if the circumstances surrounding this little spat were different, and several people came forward to offer further evidence of Hedges alleged plagiarism, and former and current employers conducted their own investigations and found even more evidence, then it would certainly be DUE material, but none of that happened. In fact, as discussed above, the exact opposite happened, which could help explain why this story was such a flash in the pan in the first place. On that basis, I'm starting to think that, in addition to being WP:UNDUE, it could perhaps be removed per WP:NOTNEWS, although that might require other editor's input. I am considering restoring this (now updated) paragraph from the section that was removed back in 2018, which would help add some balance to this section, although I'm waiting for others to join the discussion on whether or not it should remain at all.

The Washington Free Beacon reported The New York Times spokesman saying that it "did not have reason to believe Hedges plagiarized in his work for the paper" and had no plans to investigate Hedges for plagiarism. The American Prospect and Salon declined to publish Ketcham's article, and The Nation Institute and Truthdig issued statements dismissing Ketcham's allegations, with the latter stating it "has always found Chris Hedges to be a journalist of high ethical standards. Years ago we received one request and one complaint from a Harper’s editor representing Christopher Ketcham and his wife. We resolved those issues with notes, links and clarifications to the satisfaction of everyone involved." Some progressive organizations spoke out in defense of Hedges, describing the Ketcham article as a "hit piece."

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the contribution. I will say, the part about the response from The Nation Institute and Truthdig feels redundant with the final sentence of the second paragraph. I don't think we need to extensively quote their response (in the same way we don't extensively quote Ketcham's article, Hedges' response, or Ketcham's counter-response). Also, I think your last sentence would be more effective if the specific progressive organizations were named. "Some progressive organizations" feels a bit WP:WEASEL-y. Colin M (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the redundancy but kept the quote from Truthdig stating that the issue was resolved years ago with all parties satisfied, which is significant. As for specific organizations, they aren't mentioned in the source provided otherwise I would have listed them; my additions were based on that source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to clean up the section, is it acceptable now? It's a little more balanced, since Hedges' citation errors were the biggest founded concern of Ketcham's. It doesn't go into details on the nonsense accusations. It's appropriately shorter now.

As an aside, I have a suspicion that most of the plagiarism drama has to do with a strong memory on Hedges' part, where the texts here and there that seem suspiciously patchwritten are actually drawn from a mind that was impressed by a work and incorporated those ideas in near-original language. I feel it explains how Ketcham can be so convinced Hedges is a plagiarist, while the New York Times and independent investigations confidently label Hedges as an original writer. Hedges simply "plagiarized" by having a strong recall of ideas that were important to him, so it thus wouldn't carry any of the same practical or ethical concerns that a true plagiarist would invoke. I've seen random things from interviews to corroborate my perspective (for example, Hedges attended a talk with Noam Chomsky where he largely stayed silent to listen to Noam, then Hedges suppressed laughter at an emergent joke Chomsky made, and then Hedges smoothly repeated that joke near-verbatim years later when he was asked about the same topic at a talk as if he similarly made it up on the spot). It's my good-faith way of looking at it, but I'm just a wiki editor on the internet, not a journalist who's looking to biopsy a long-dead topic.

Anyway, if it's a balanced section now, could the tag be removed? As-is, some reader may misinterpret the tag to mean that the article is too biased against Ketcham, when the tag was intended to communicate that the section was baselessly biased against Hedges. Mewnst (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Though the plagiarism accusations are overblown, Ketcham did in fact have a legitimate concern regarding sloppy referencing on the Truthdig site. I renamed the section "Citation error controversy" and will move the Palaima contents to the wiki article on Hedges' book (as it's a grossly overblown topic for a BLP page). I will also remove the maintenance tag, as those changes would likely be sufficient enough to finally have neutrality and no undue weight. I am in favor of generally keeping some info regarding the plagiarism allegations on this page, since it did receive significant coverage, and I think how it stands now may finally be adequate. Mewnst (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

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

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)

Not hardly a misrepresentation. Harris has done this circus before, where he posits a racially charged opinion, explains some part of it with seemingly harmless language, and lashes out at people who call him out for being a racist and Islamophobe for "misrepresenting" or "not understanding" his vaguely defined views, as if there was a reasonable explanation floating about that concluded something other than his being a prejudiced person. The classic Schrodinger douchebag, served with the extra snark of a person who always sees themselves as the smartest person in the room. In this case, Harris wrote of the potential benefits that could "hypothetically" come about in considering nuclear first strike against a "hypothetical" Islamic nation with weapons of mass destruction (coded similarly to Saddam Hussein's Iraq). Harris then got all pissy when Hedges rightfully pointed out that his choice of a metaphor was grossly Islamophobic, murderously inclined, and closely mapped to a real conflict. Harris' perspective is simply his own vapid, defensive ramblings that are far away from any merited mention in a biography of a living person. Mewnst (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Pulitzer Prize-winning" in the very first sentence

"Pulitzer Prize-winning" does not need to be in the very first sentence of this article. It strikes me as grossly undue and smacks of promotion, even if that's not the intent. We don't even do this with Nobel laureates, let alone Pulitzer Prize winners. This is in response to an unexplained revision by Cr8907 (talk · contribs), who appears to be a single-purpose account simultaneously engaged in edit warring on this article. Οἶδα (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your correction has stuck. Some part of Cr8907's edits were founded, as the Ketcham plagiarism allegations were given quite a bit of undue weight at the time. There shouldn't be any other significant issues with Cr8907's contributions that remain on the page. Mewnst (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize winner

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)

Considering that Judith Miller was disgraced for her frequent fabrications in her efforts to tie Al Qaeda activities to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, wouldn't that make Hedges' contribution more comparatively notable in that it was one of the few remaining contributions that weren't fake? Regardless, I do agree that the prior placement of the award was undue. It should be acceptable now. Mewnst (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

NYT and Activism sections

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)

A chronological presentation of his activism may be worthwhile, but it'll be sloppy to shoehorn much discussion of his views into that. I think there's more value in organizing the section around the views he has elaborated, with chronology of events being secondary. Mewnst (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiding from readers that RT is Russian state-funded

It's clearly pertinent context that RT is a Russian state-funded network. Why has this context been removed from the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because this is a biography of a living person, and network-related details are especially undue to elaborate in a BLP lede. The context is not hidden, as there's an internal link to RT America there in the lede (that I added), and that related page doesn't bother hiding where their money comes from. Despite your claim that the "context has been removed from the article", RT America is mentioned to be Russian-sponsored in the On Contact section of the page, which I wrote. So, no, I'm not trying to hide what RT America is was. Mewnst (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It obviously has long-term encyclopedic value to add four words ("Russian state-funded network") that informs readers that Hedges had a show on a Russian state propaganda network. It's beyond my understanding why readers should be forced to figure that out on their own: that does not apply to anything else on this encyclopedia. This seems like straight-up whitewashing with an intent to obfuscate things for readers. Same as adding content to the lead that misleads readers into thinking Hedges is an academic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to be accusatory. Sure, maybe I made in error in over-emphasizing recent developments and adding more info about his academic work, but that existed in the page before I started editing it. Hedges' academic work was also the subject of his most recently published book. The error of including it could clearly be made in good faith, which is apparently not afforded to me.

There's also no need to compare this page to what is standard in others, as that doesn't necessarily reflect any part of Wikipedia policy. But, if you do want resort to pointing at other content, consider Larry King's page. There, RT America is mentioned in the lede, and is then mentioned to be Russian-owned when it was brought up again in the body.

Why accuse me of whitewashing this page and being misleading? I'm pretty sure I've done good work in de-puffing and cutting out partial language. Mistakes are possible, but I don't see an issue in my removal of the Russian state-sponsorship blurb in the lede. To me, it seems like a possible push towards synthesis that Hedges was a propagandist for the Russian state because he made Book Club With A Jersey Nerd. It is undue, because (as of my writing this) Hedges has never been accused of partiality or having a lack of editorial independence due to his work in RT America. One outlet has alluded to the opposite. Mewnst (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that, after checking through your edit history, you've had quite a time dealing with some rowdy characters. Your aggressive footing for improving Wikipedia is understandable, and I don't want to be another headache on top of that bunch. There's no need for apology. Mewnst (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Some good points Mewnst. Adding "Russian-funded", "Russian state-funded" etc after mention of RT is unwarranted in my opinion because most readers will know what RT is and those that don't can use the link. It is close to an editorial statement which casts doubt on a BLP's independence. As you mention, if there has been commentary around a subjects independence, we can use that as part of the subject's assessment. However, without that, we should not be making our own comments. Burrobert (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Political views and activism" is a very sloppy section

The "Political views and activism" section is currently a kitchen sink of some significant and oft-articulated views blended together with what may be called "hot takes." No subsections for his more original perspectives, no clear organization. I propose that the views contained in the literature Hedges has produced should take precedent over the more general lefty business. In the very old versions of this article, the information laid out for Hedges' various works were problematically promotional, as if ripped from a hardcover book sleeve. This was resolved, appropriately, by having those parts get deleted; but better descriptions of Hedges' works haven't been re-added since. Reorganizing this section may be most appropriately done by making some use of the literature first and foremost. Mewnst (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To the section's credit, it's currently somewhat chronological, but that's not a necessary way to organize it as Hedges has been more or less saying the same things since 2007. Mewnst (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed mentions of Hedges' concerns over speciesism and overpopulation because he hasn't committed much writing to those positions. He's a writer, it's his job to put things out there. He should be defined more by his books than the views in one or two Truthdig posts. Truthdig posts are cited quite a bit, but that's usually because they are a convenient way to source things coming from Hedges that may be mentioned dozens of times in other resources but never match the same level of communicated context. The Truthdig/Scheerpost one-offs about James Joyce and everything else aren't as important for wiki inclusion, however fun they may be. Mewnst (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be true that he has not written a lot on the topic of population, but given that the material in question was sourced to an academic work, and not just one of Hedges articles, I figure it is also worth mentioning here. What I would propose is restoring that but incorporating it into a sub-section on environmental views, which was deleted earlier. He has written quite a bit on this topic, especially climate change, so I think that sub-section should be restored or reworked into the article. I will boldly restore parts of the environmental views section deleted earlier, omitting the material sourced to Truthdig, and add a tag suggesting further expansion. Regarding his views on speciesism, he hasn't written much on that specific topic per se, but he has written several columns on veganism and animal rights. Given his transition to veganism is included in the Personal life section, I will not restore it to the Political views section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Problematic editing

I would like to know why User:C.J. Griffin and User:Philip Cross edit war to remove Chris Hedges' views, coming from HIS OWN MOUTH from this article. HERE User:Philip Cross claims that a video of Chris Hedges explaining his own views is not a strong source. This is unbelievable, outrageous, shameful garbage. Chris Hedges is calling the United States "increasingly bellicose". Why remove his views from his own article? Shameful dishonesty on display here from Chris Hedges' self-appointed PR team. Stop edit warring everything factual out of this article. — goethean 15:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The passage was already entirely the views of Chris Hedges citing from two articles published by the Salon website in March and May this year. The addition you restored merely substitutes the end of the Cold War/German unification for the end of the Soviet Union in his mention of the expansion of NATO and "increasingly bellicose" for "unchecked militarism" in the United States. The content is repetitive, even if the terms used differ. The passage does not add anything fresh. Philip Cross (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The problematic editing is the repetitive material and duplicated wikilinks to the Russian invasion now present in the sub-section. I mentioned this in my edit summary when I attempted to make a sensible trim to these additions when I removed his comment on NATO which was already included but retained his comment on the "war of attrition, one funded and backed by an increasingly bellicose United States". Perhaps the material from March 2022 Salon article and The Chris Hedges Report should be merged together in a rewrite to remove these repetitions. EDIT: I have BOLDLY attempted a rewrite of the material to remove the repetitive content while adding a proper citation. I hope this resolves the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

...and the owner of this article has again deleted everything that I added, which was a DIRECT quotation of Chris Hedges. Why you oppose Chris Hedges' views being a part of this article? I QUOTE HEDGES DIRECTLY and you delete it. Why? — goethean 19:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am actually stunned that this is your response. You can look at my edit and not see the quote is there but broken up in order to remove the repetitive material mentioned above, by myself and another editor, and to give a more encyclopedic presentation so the section looks like less of a WP:QUOTEFARM? None of the context was removed. Let me show you:

Here is the current version after your edit warring:

Hedges said that the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was "stoked in part by NATO expansion beyond the borders of a unified Germany violating promises made to Moscow at the end of the Cold War, now looks set to become a lengthy war of attrition, one funded and backed by an increasingly bellicose United States."

Here is the previous version where I tried to clean it up a bit:

Hedges has stated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine constitutes "a criminal war of aggression", but argued the likelihood of conflict was aggravated by "NATO expansion beyond the borders of a unified Germany violating promises made to Moscow at the end of the Cold War." Hedges called NATO's actions a "dangerous and sadly predictable provocation" that baited Russia to initiate a conflict. Hedges called for an immediate ceasefire and "a moratorium on arms shipments to Ukraine and the withdrawal of Russian troops from the country." He subsequently assessed that the conflict "looks set to become a lengthy war of attrition, one funded and backed by an increasingly bellicose United States."

As you can plainly see, THE QUOTE IS THERE IN ITS ENTIRETY! (I can yell in bold, too!)

Not only has the repetition been restored, but you also restored the bare URL from YouTube and removed the properly formatted citation which includes not only the video but also a transcript with the very quote you are talking about. Please take a breath, refrain from making accusations of bad faith, and actually read and try to comprehend the comments and materials others are including here before making such comments and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. And I’m not even going to revert this. I’ll leave it to someone else to clean up this mess.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References