Talk:War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Military history: Historiography

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force

Quote[edit]

Fellytone (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a book, so all the allegations about the book's content should provide direct references to the pages of the book, rather than an inaccessible secondary source.

I disagree. Just because the source is not available online does not mean it is inaccessible. I think it's entirely reasonable to include sourced responses to a book in its article. --Maxamegalon2000 04:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is wrong with spelling errors. The issue could easily be settled if the quote could cite the book directly; people reading this article clearly are interested about statements from the book, and not a secondary article with a questionable citation. I have no way of getting access to that citation "On Campus" magazine. However, the book is easy to acquire.

I've just read the relevant portion of the book; the quote, on page 94 in my version, is accurate. As for the claim, though I see no reason to doubt that the source in question makes the claim, I cannot confirm whether or not the claim is shared by others, and will not put it back into the article without some proof thereof. --Maxamegalon2000 05:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "socialist journalist" to "journalist". Hedges' view on socialism isn't directly relevent to the article as written. If it is important, the article should discuss its connection to the content of the book.Fang2415 (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That edit is being continuously changed back and forth, and the socialist tag needs to stop. While Hedges has called himself a socialist, his body of work is not ideological, and 'socialist journalist' is not an appropriate descriptive title. If anything it should read 'war correspondent' or 'war reporter' as that is what could arguably be said to define Hedges, especially in the context of this book. The article being referenced in the revisions is an opinion piece decrying what he percieves as the disastrous state of the US today. His stated reasons for being a socialist have little or nothing to do with his thesis in War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. Socialist is too often a buzzword used by conservatives to discredit someone whose view they disagree with, and whether or not that is the case here, the potential for misinterpretation precludes its use in this article. --Theglowpt4 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist tag[edit]

I've noticed that a few people editing this page disagree with the "socialist tag" that I think belongs to the article on the grounds that I think people should know the book isn't written without a political agenda. As well, I see the political orientation of writers and political commentators (of which Mr. Hedges is one) and even think-tanks and organisations written in front of their names all the time (e.g. conservative commentator Ann Coulter or Marxist-Islamist writer Tariq Ali). Moreover, Mr. Hedge's political orientation is sourced from an article in which he himself admitted of being a socialist. So what's the issue? Fellytone (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it has nothing to do with the book. If you you want to add this to the article on Hedges than fine, but it theres no reason to add it to this article other than to unfairly bias it. He is mainly defined as a journalist, not a socialist. annoynmous 04:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that it has nothing to do with the book" But his political ideology has everything to do with the book. In fact, it's the same reason that drove George W. Bush to attack Iraq in the first place. Also, take a look at this article. Will you remove the phrase "an outspoken Somalia-born critic of Islam" as part of the description of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Using your reasoning, this description adds an "unfair bias to the article" as she's mainly known as a Dutch politician. Fellytone (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he isn't known mainly for being a socialist he's know for being a journalist. If you want to add this link the article on hedges saying that he defines hinslef as a socialist than fine, but it's simply wrong for this article.

Also for the record I think the description for ayaan hirsi ali is also wrong.annoynmous 05:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.130.193 (talk) [reply]

He's as known for being just a journalist as George W. Bush is known for being just a President. Sure. But of course, that's not the end of the story as we usually identify people, especially politicians, political commentators and journalists, by their political ideas. So, just like how Hedge's ideas are informed mainly by his socialist philosophy, so to is his reason for writing this book. Fellytone (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't indentify a book written by George W. Bush as Written by "Conservative Christian" president Bush. Socialism is not what chris hedges is known for and it's not what the book in question is about and the only reason to have it in is to unfairly bias the article. annoynmous 05:25, April 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't but many of your comrade in arms would. In fact, they'd probably even go further and call him a "neo-conservative" which is what Bush is known for. The main reason why I am putting the socialist in the article is that people should be entitled to get an unbiased view of the article and the reason why you wouldn't is because you want to squash any criticism of Mr. Hedge. Fellytone (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding the word socialist giving an unbiased view. Hedges is speaking of socialism in the scandanavian sense. He is not a member of any socialist organization, all he said was that he agrees with the outlook of certain democratic socialist nations. He professional occupation is as a reporter and that's what the article should say.

All ignore the cheap comrade in arms statement, and simply say that I would also object to an article which stated that this book was written by conservative christian president George W. Bush. annoynmous 05:52, April 2010 (UTC)

Fellytone, your insinuation that 'annonymous' is somehow socialist betrays precisely the point those of us who oppose your tag are trying to make. George Bush clearly is both conservative and Christian, however it would not be neutral for that tag to be used in an article describing him; it skews the reader's perceptions. You are clearly attempting to polarise the reader in a left-right political direction based on your own reading of an ideological agenda in the text. In fact, it seems difficult to me to find any overt ideological bent in Hedges' text at all. The article itself states that his thesis is that "war seduces entire societies, creating fictions that the public believes and relies on to continue to support conflicts. He also describes how those who experience war may find it exhilarating and addicting." I fail to see how this relates to socialism in its economic or political sense, enough to warrant describing Hedges' as socialist in the context of this book. 'War reporter' seems a much more appropriate tag in this context, especially give the fact that much of the book is devoted to accounts of his experience at war. If you believe that his ideological allegiance is important as a defining feature of his body of work as a whole, you should post that suggestion on the talk page for the article on Hedges himself. Hedges can be criticised as much as you want, but you have not presented any convincing evidence that there is any kind of socialist agenda in this book, and I therefore request that you do not add the tag again. --Theglowpt4 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Fellytone, your marking of a revert as a minor edit in this situation was highly innapropriate. Please read the Minor edits page for guidelines on what is, and what is not a minor edit. --Theglowpt4 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Is the title of the book a quote from someone else? Or is Hedges the original author of this aphorism? 31.16.20.174 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unsourced should be rediretcted[edit]

This book article is entirely unsourced and unref'd as with similar books/authors this should be redirected to the author's page. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]