Talk:Johann Hari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Hari article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

Personal attacks and unsigned comments will be removed without warning Charles Matthews 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

/Archive1 - /Archive2 - /Archive3

1 The wiki authorities have suggested mediation rather than arbitration at this point
2 Proposed Changes/Edits
3 Picture
- 3.1 Supposedly fake photo
4 Hari's support of the war
5 Spurious Criticisms
6 Awards
7 George Galloway
8 Spelling
9 Lede
10 Sexuality
11 Please start offering facts, not assertions
12 List of disputed points
13 Paraphrasing
14 Image
15 Protected edit request
16 Felix-Felix describes Hari as an "advocate [of] the destruction of untermenschen"
17 The question of the length of this entry
18 Felix describes Hari as "a self publisising [sic] careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that."
19 Mediation update
20 Reported on or from?
21 Copyedits
22 Locked
23 Request for Comment: Disputed Photo
- 23.1 Description of dispute
- 23.2 Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  - 23.2.1 David r from meth productions
  - 23.2.2 Felix-felix
- 23.3 Comments by other editors
24 Quote from a blogger

[edit] The wiki authorities have suggested mediation rather than arbitration at this point

I haven't had time to do this yet, and I think it's something we have to jointly ask for. Felix, you and I clearly aren't going to agree independently - I've offered you more than eight compromises, and you've refused them all. However, when MuttGirl - an independent thrid party - intervened, we reached our first real compromise. it worked. So I think official mediation would help even more. We both, I'm sure, have better things to do than endlessly squabble over a frozen page, so shall we apply together for mediation? What do you say?

Please answer this Felix, we can't carry on like this. David r from meth productions 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the plan then, dave?Felix-felix 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you agree, then we both read the mediation page and follow the instructions. Do you agree? David r from meth productions 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, okFelix-felix 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - I have a meeting now, but if we both get it done tonight, taht would be great. Thank you David r from meth productions 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done, have appealed to the mediation cabal as a first step. Hope we can now find some compromises at last! David r from meth productions 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Changes/Edits

Firstly this talk page is too long, and archiving it is a little tricky as the discussion is all in one section. I propose creating sections ( such as ones corresponding to setions in the article), to make future archiving and editing of this talk page easier. If we do so from now-I'll archive the rest of this page shortly.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's archived now-let's try and keep discussion to topic so it's possible to follow and archive. if you want to discuss a new section-just make a new section here to do it!Felix-felix 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

When the copyright on the indy portrait picture is sorted out, I have no problem with it's inclusion in the article. I think that the present yorkshire camp picture should stay as well-as it depicts him at work, and looks more like him to my mind as well.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your suggestion here is absurd and contrary to Wikipedia practice. The point of including photos on an entry is to give a clear, uncluttered and lifelike representation of the subject. Thus look at, for example, the entries for Jon Snow, Jeremy Paxman, Germaine Greer or Tony Blair. ALL these photos are closeups of the subject's face, with the subject looking towards the camera. Your ridiculous pap-shot of Hari shows him at such an angle that his face is barely visible. This is of no use to the reader and wholly inappropriate in what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. David r from meth productions 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have been away for a few days, my broadband connection was down - very traumatic! It's interesting to read how the debate has progressed, and I'm pleased to see that Wikipedia has adjudicated in favour of my preferred photograph - can't understand why Felix calls it 'ghastly' unless he is suggesting that mugshots are of their nature ghastly. I do not support the inclusion of the current picture, for the reasons that I have already set out; it's revealing that Felix says it looks more like Hari 'to his mind' - his mind seems focused on presenting Hari in the poorest possible light.

I'm not suprised to see that Felix has continued to abuse me in my absence, saying that he won't have any exhanges with me/puppets. As I've already pointed out, this extremely unfair given that I have never met Dave in my life. I'm sorry that I don't have a long and convincing edit history (so far my edits have been restricted to the photograph) but I think that in order to thrive, Wikipedia and other editors ought to make new editors feel welcome and their contributions valued. From what I seen so far it needs new blood.

Not sure where to put this comment - tell me if I should be starting a new thread: I think the adjudication system seems to be working well in areas where consensus cannot be achieved between Felix and Dave. Clearly when there are two people involved with different and strongly held views and a certain degree of personal animosity blosoming between them, consensus cannot always be achieved. Felix has persisently resisted Dave's calls for compromise in relation to the edits being discussed at much length above. I therefore support Dave's request for official adjudication in relation to the editing process. Thelionforreal 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your broadband, dave-I wondered where you'd gone. Two editors support both pictures going in a true compromise, which I thought you would support.Felix-felix 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix ought to note that if I was actually Dave, then I'd be much more familiar with the history of this and other disputes on this page. Charles, please can you respond to my request for adjudication under 'picture', above - Jessica Thelionforreal 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacoplane and Charles, please can we have some adjudication on this, in which I hope that Felix's continued offensive behaviour towards me will be taken into account. Two editors, myself and Dave, oppose the use of two photographs. There are two people on each side, and Felix's most recent rude remarks make it clear that he is not interested in compromise or debate. What is the way forward? How do we start the adjudication process? Thelionforreal 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Two editors favour keeping two photos, one opposes, dave. You may want to check the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidelines again.Felix-felix 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I watch this page, but the basic idea is that editors sort things out, and learn to be less adversarial. If you want my opinion, in abstract terms two pictures are better than one; but has the whole provenance business really been resolved? There is a whole rolling debate going on about free images. Charles Matthews 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do these discussions go on? (For my own interest, really.)Felix-felix 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the wiki-en mailing list is one place. See [1] for a fairly recent thread. Charles Matthews 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta muchly.Felix-felix 12:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jacoplane has already ruled, in discussion with me, that the original picture is best. That debate is over. I also notice that felix has tried to delete a massive part of the archive of this discussion where he argues in defence of inserting lies into this article (e.g. that hari went to Harrow School, and that postmodernists do not oppose the Enlightenment!) persumably because he does not want anybody who adjudicates his role on this page to be able to read the history of this. I have of course restored this to the archive - I just wanted people to be aware of what he's trying to do. - Dave

No, dave that's all in Archive 3, which I created-remember to avoid personal attacks, sign in and stick to sections. If the indy picture copyright can be sorted, then consensus was that both pictures would be included, as I think we have discussed before.Felix-felix 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the consensus, it was your view, opposed by some others. Your definition fo consensus seems to be "what I think, and anyone who disagrees is a sockpuppte"

No, dave-it was consensus amongst editors. Please review the archives.Felix-felix 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And sign in! I will start removing unsigned edits soon.Felix-felix 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I received this e-mail (I just got back from holiday this afternoon so couldn't post it before) from hari:

"Hiya Dave,

sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, have done a circuit of Mexico/Gaza/NYC and been a bit chaotic and inbox is overflowing with shite. I finally checked out the wikipedia thing. It seems fine to me, thanks for that, but for one thing, that picture isn't me. I've never been to a peace camp in Yorkshire, and I don't own those clothes, not sure how that happened. It's somebody who looks a bit like me I suppose. Unless i have been sleepwalking again! I tried to delete the pic but it wouldn't let me, almost certainly my techo-illiteracy kicking in, will leave it to you, as ever!

Love & I owe you a pint

I thought it was a bit of an odd picture all along. So not only have you inserted false information into Hari's bio that I had to correct, you have also inserted false pictures! You should go back to your source, assuming you didn't just trawl the web for an unflattering picture of somebody who looks vaguely like Hari.

Just as well Jacoplame had already ruled on this, I suppose. But if you keep refusing consensus and compromise (anybody can read through the archive and see I have offered at least eight substantial compromises, Felix has offered one, grudgingly, after the intervention of others) then this page will never be unfrozen and the fake picture will remain. David r from meth productions 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Really! It's a false picture now!C'mon, dave-you can do better than this. I'm perfectly happy for both pictures to be included, once the copyvio is sorted out.Felix-felix 11:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You can e-mail Hari to verify this e-mail is from him via his website. Are you suggesting Hari is lying? That's a pretty serious charge. You need to provide evidence he was indeed in a peace camp in Yorkshire, and this is him. You won't be able to. Go back to your source (if indeed you had one and didn't just trawl for an unflattering picture of a vaguely similar person) and get them to double-check. I think you'll owe (another) apology. It's extraordinary but unsurprising that you would be "perfectly happy" to include a picture you know to be a fake, given your record of isnerting lies into this article.David r from meth productions 12:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't make this stuff up.It's obviously him-even you thought so, and you seem to be a friend of his...Felix-felix 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I always said it was a unpublishably bad, blurred picture. Hari says he's never been to a peace camp in Yorkshire and doesn't own the clothes the person in this picture is wearing! It therefore isn't him.

On a different point, you say it's "obviously" him; do you know Hari? You keep talking about what he looks like; I have long suspected your vendetta was personal.

Now please answer my request for facts and my request for mediation above. David r from meth productions 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Read WP:ATTACK, daveFelix-felix 09:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supposedly fake photo

I'm afraid this picture is completely genuine-it was taken at the Camp for Climbate action at Drax power station in Yorkshire. The picture blurb is here [2], and here is Hari's article in the Independent about it [3]. It's obviously Hari, and I think the picture ought to stay in the article.Felix-felix 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why. but Muttgirl removed this (perhaps by accident?) on her last edit-I've just restored it.Felix-felix 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not "obviously" Hari. I know him, and my first comment if you look back was that it looks only vaguely like him. It has obviously been mislabelled by someone. Hari says he doesn't own those clothes, so even with the admission that you put the wrong label on the fake photo (there is a big difference between a "peace camp" and a protest against global warming) it's still fake. Look at the rules on bios of living persons. It says anything controversial should be left out. I think a picture that the subject denies is of him clearly falls into that category. Feel free to e-mail hari to verify his e-mail above. (MuttGirl may have deleted it because she's tired of your POV impositions on this article. I await accusations of sockpuppetry...). - Dave

Are you serious? It's clearly Hari-you thought it was him, as does everybody else-he has at the camp the photo is labelled as him and he wrote about it. Muttgirl is clearly not a sock or meatpuppet-those are very easy to spot, dave.The photo should stay in.Felix-felix 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read the rules on biographies of living people, Felix. Anything contested or controversial must stay out. Hari says he doesn't own the clothes he is pictured as wearing. How can it be him?

Fortunately, this is a redundant debate anyway since the wiki authorities had already ruled this picture should be replaced with the original mugshot. - DaveDavid r from meth productions 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hari's support of the war

Dave, you wrote What you're saying is the opinion poll evidence is contradictory. That isn't so complex a point it can't be made! We can link to the polls that support the Medialens position, and those that contradict it. (both exist)." Whilst this is true,(although only in a very technical sense-opposition to the war in the UK was always huge) it's pretty irrelevant to an article on Hari-and could easily become wildly divergent. As pointed out previously, some of Hari's output has been genuinely controversial-and his support of the Bush invasion of Iraq was probably the most controversial-criticism here is more relevant than spurious 'criticism' by bloggers (or people in comments boxes!) on, say climbate change or nuclear disarmament. If you want to leave a quote in about why Hari supported the invasion (which I think that we should) then a quote supporting criticism of this stance is also appropriate. Medialens had a long and fairly high profile exchange with him about this, so I think that they're a good source of this criticism. Adding 'rider' sentences after this about various opinion polls would be divergent with the article-especially when pages dealing with this already exist, for example views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're neither accepting either of the two compromises I offered, nor offering to moderate your own position in the slightest. What a surprise.

Since the opinion poll evidence - both that supporting and contradicting the Medialens stance - is integral to the argument, how can it possibly be "irrelevant" to this article? What you think is "irrelevant" is anything casting doubt on the Medialens position.

Just as you dismiss people who disagree with you here as "sock-puppets", you dismiss criticisms from David Starkey, Bjorn Lomborg, bloggers etc. as "spurious". In what way are the views of these people "spurious"? Did Hari make them up himself? The only argument you offer for the non-spuriousness of Medialens is that they had a "long and fairly high-profile exchange" with Hari. How are you measuring "fairly high-profile"? Are David Starkey and Bjorn Lomborg, both published authors, not "fairly high-profile"? Have various bloggers not had "long exchanges" with Hari on various issues? Do Medialens stand on a higher epistemological vantage-point than your average blogger by virtue of, er, having their own website? Oops, no - as usual it's because they agree with Felix-Felix. And yet Medialens themselves link to the work of six or seven bloggers - apparently some bloggers are less spurious than others.

I have attempted to arrive at consensus by offering compromise. Until Felix does the same we will remain at an impasse. David r from meth productions 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Medialens aren't bloggers, and are well known-certainly enough for you to put Hari related criticism in their wikipedia page. Hari had a long exchange with them which is available on their website, longer than the one with Niall Ferguson which you seem so fond of. And Hari is notorious for his support of Bush's invasion of Iraq-trying to gloss over it is unencyclopedic. You seem to think that compromise means accepting one or other of your suggestions to gloss over criticism of Hari's stance on the invasion. It's pretty transparent, dave.Felix-felix 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A crucial point to address in coverage of Hari's stance on the invasion of Iraq is his equally high profile u-turn, in which he publicly state that he had been wrong in taking this stance. It's unusual for a journalist to do this, and certainly needs to be mentioned. Thelionforreal 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and the article reflects that, I have no problem with that, dave.Felix-felix 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to gloss over Hari's support for the war; I opposed the war myself, and I there was more about Hari's stance in the longer version I posted a few months back, e.g quoting Chomsky's criticisms of him as "a Stalinist", which you cut out.

You, by contrast, are trying to gloss over his apology for his stance on Iraq, declaring above that you want to cut the small quote from it.86.142.181.223 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you agree about the medialens quote, why cut it? Putting in lots of other feeble criticisms to dilute the serious stuff about Hari's role in cheerleading this genocidal war is diverting and unencyclopedic. Why not give actual examples and we can discuss them.Felix-felix 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think I've cut any Chomsky quotes out.Felix-felix 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your POV that David Starkey's criticisms of Hari, say, are "feeble". POV has no place in Wikipedia. We either quote a range of critics, or none. we can't just quote the ones you (or I) agree with.

Your position is that you want to quopte Medialens in full, quote no other critics, and even cut the text of Hari's apology for supporting the war. This reveals your very obvious POV. It's not acceptable in wiki rules.

This division of the debate into sections doesn't work; you have placed things I said without the things they are a response to, so it doesn't make sense, by the way. - Dave

The sections work fine, as long as you stick to the subject in each section, dave-then I don't have to keep cutting and pasting your comments to their respective sections.I don't want to quote Medialens in 'full' the one sentence quote is fine-although, as I've said, if you think there's a better one let's discuss it.

Perhaps we should also discuss hari's apology (and it's great that he has made one at all)is half hearted-apologising for Bush mucking up an invasion which he would have supported if it had been done better-should we discuss this? Oh, dave, remember to sign in.Felix-felix 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That is explicitly untrue. You have invented the quote "better", literally invented it. Look at his apology; he says precisely the opposite of what you claim - that it was a bad idea all along. You haven't actually read him, have you? It's quite helpful that you have revealed this; it shows why you have so totally misrepresented Hari all long - Dave

No, dave-I was paraphrasing. And sign in.Felix-felix 11:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You were paraphrasing falsely. Hari wrote:

“The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).

The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. Let’s look at the major mistakes-cum-crimes. Who would have thought they would unleash widespread torture, with over 10,000 people disappearing without trial into Iraq’s secret prisons? Anybody who followed the record of the very same people – from Rumsfeld to Negroponte – in Central America in the 1980s. Who would have thought they would use chemical weapons? Anybody who looked up Bush’s stance on chemical weapons treaties (he uses them for toilet paper) or checked Rumsfeld’s record of flogging them to tyrants. Who would have thought they would impose shock therapy mass privatisation on the Iraqi economy, sending unemployment soaring to 60 percent – a guarantee of ethnic strife? Anybody who followed the record of the US towards Russia, Argentina, and East Asia. Who could have known that they would cancel all reconstruction funds, when electricity and water supplies are still below even Saddam’s standards? Anybody who looked at their domestic policies.”

Yet you tried to summarise this statement as “half hearted-apologising for Bush mucking up an invasion which he would have supported if it had been done better.” [See archive]. Your summaries of Hari’s arguments are consistently so far from what hari has actually said I can only assume you haven’t read them, or are deliberately misrepresenting them. Everyone can see what you're doing, Felix David r from meth productions 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that no-one else can read, dave? It's a pretty good paraphrase of the above passage.Felix-felix 11:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's useful. You have revealed that you maliciously misread Hari's work to fit your own agenda, very clearly. Nobody who can read can think hari is saying he would have supported Bush's war if only he had done it better. He is saying Bush could never have done it better, very clearly: "There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way."David r from meth productions 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can read, dave-and I still think it's a pretty good paraphrase of the passage.Felix-felix 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet more assertions. Please answer the factual questions and the request for mediation above. David r from meth productions 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What factual questions, dave?Felix-felix 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The questions are in a clearly labelled section. The question are - how do you justify your assertions in light of these facts:

Here are three factual statements. I have provided evidence for them. Please, Felix, provide contrary evidence if you can, or accept you are wrong. Do not make assertions. Offer facts.

(1) Bjorn Lomborg is, according to Prospect Magazine, not a "minor figure", but one of the twenty most important intellectuals in the world. This makes his criticisms of Hari worthy of inclusion.

See www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/intellectuals/results.htm

(2) David Starkey is, according to Prospect magazine, not "a minor figure" but one of the most important intellectuals in Britain, according to Prospect Magazine. His TV shows receive five million viewers. This makes his criticisms of Hari worthy of inclusion. He did not offer them "in a letter to the Independent", as Felix asserts, but on a TV debate on the subject viewed by over a million people, in which Hari represented the disarmament side.

See www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6227 and the archive for date of the Hari/Starkey debate transmission

(3) Your idea that total nuclear disarmament by the US and Britain is "uncontroversial" is not backed by the facts. There are fewer than 10 MPs in Britain (out of 651) who support nuclear disarmament, and no Congressmen or Senators at all in the US who do. Odd, for an "uncontroversial position". Even in the only mainstream British political party to make a fuss about the renewal of Trident, the Liberal Democrats, 55 percent of its voters wanted to keep the deterrent and only 34 percent backed disarmament (see politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1803481,00.html).

Please respond with facts, in line with wiki principles, not assertions. David r from meth productions 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spurious Criticisms

As I've opined before-I think that alot of the criticisms added at the end of each para are pretty spurious and add nothing to the article, they're often from inconsequential bloggers (or comments boxes) and usually concern otherwise fairly non-controversial liberal pieces by Hari.Although many are not in the present frozen version-some still are. Specific examples include;

Prison polices-criticism by stephen Pollard.
Nuclear disarmament-criticism by David Starkey.
Global Warming-criticism by Bjorn Lomberg.
Religious section-accusations of anti-semitism and islamophobia. (Although the Delai Lama calling him fat does have novelty value!)Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

'Opined' is teh word. Assertions, assertions, never any facts. David r from meth productions 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms are spurious in that the issues (nuclear disarmament, climbate change, etc) are relatively uncontroversial-and Hari is not a prominent commentator about them. Starkey and Lomberg are relatively minor figures (published or not, although I can understand why you might want to think that published writers are "high profile",dave) but the'controversy' in each of these sentences is vanishingly small, and has no interest to the average reader.Felix-felix 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You reveal astonishing ignorance in suggesting that climate change is not a controversial issue. Thelionforreal 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep your hair on, dave. It is not a scientifically controversial issue-some climbate change deniers are knocking around, but that 'controversy' is manufactured. In any case, Hari is not an environmental campaigner, he's an op-ed writer and the 'criticism' that you want to keep is inconsequential, and of no interest.Felix-felix 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix, Starkey and Lomborg have both been named as two of the 100 most important intellectuals in britain and the world respectively by Prospect Magazine. Apparently, this makes them "relatively minor figures" in your view. You clearly know as much about them as about postmodernism. Yet again you are trying to breach the rules by imposing POV. Also, if you think total nuclear disarmament to the zero option is not controversial, you really know nothing at all about the subject - Dave

Once again, dave-I'll remind you to sign in, and also to try and keep your temper. Personal attacks against me don't move the issue of improving this article forward. The basic point remains, that the article is overlong-not least because of spurious criticism bloating paras on non-notable aspects of Hari's writing. So the odd letter written by Starkey of Lomberg is of little interest to a reader (no matter what prospect magazine thinks of them) trying to get a feel for what Hari is notable for, especially as the page has about 50 seperate links to Hari's personal website, which carries all his stuff anyway. Nuclear disarmament is neither a remarkable part of Hari's writing or controversial.Felix-felix 09:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: I have never criticised you personally; I don't know you, or anything about you. I am criticising you as a wikipdian, because you keep stating your POV as if it were fact, contrary to wiki rules. This is not personal criticism. (If you want an example of real personal criticism, I'd suggest calling somebody "a little tyke" fits the bill - sound familiar? I would also say accusing a fellow wipipedian of being a sockpuppet, long after they have provided a way to verify their identity and you know they are no such thing, is a good fit).

For example, you say advocating full nuclear disarmament isn't controversial. That is flatly untrue. Four members of parliament (out of 651), no Congressmen, and no other national columnists in Britain apart from george Monbiot advocate it. When it was put to the British people in 1983, it lost an election. It may not seem controversial to you; if so, you must live in a very different world to the rest of us. Please answer this with facts rather than assertions.

You say Starkey and Lomoborg are "trivial", when in fact they are some of the most important intellectuals according to Prospect Magazine. You don't acquaint yourself with the basic facts; for example, you state that Starkey wrote a letter to the Independent about Hari. He did not. He appeared on an hour-long TV debate about it against Hari.

You summarise Hari's apology on Iraq below in a way that reveals you obviously haven't ever read it. You say postmodernism doesn't oppose the Enlightenment. You say hari went to Harrow School. It's quite hard to argue against you Felix when you have such a limited relationship to basic facts, and even when your errors are pointed out, you cling to them. The possibility of achieving consensus when you haven't tried to investiagte the subject is very difficult.

On the subject of spurious criticisms, it is now painfully clear that a criticism is "spurious" when Felix Felix disagrees with it and essential for inclusion when he agrees with it. Please go back and read the POV rules, and offer arguments rather than assertions.

If you continue to cling to the preposterous idea that total nuclear disarmament is "not controversial", amongst others, you really leave me no choice but to go for adjudication.

- Dave

Again, dave try and stick to sections and avoid personal attacks, which you have been warned about (and blocked for) before. To reiterate-the article is massively overlong and gives an impression of gravitas to Hari who is a not particularly noteworthy op-ed writer. The whole article is padded with spurious criticism of Haris articles, many of which are not noteworthy, to give a false impression of controversy. Hari is not a noteworthy environmental or anti nuclear campaigner or even writer-and these are simply not worthy additions to an encyclopedia article about him. Your invokation of a prospect magazine list is completely irrelevant-if these people were as important as, say Chomsky or Foucault-they would still be irrelevant.Dave, please sign in, or I may start removing your unsigned edits.Felix-felix 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Dave was right to cite the Prospect list. You said their criticisms shouldn't be included because Starkey and Lomborg are "relatively minor figures", when in fact they are some of the most important intellectuals in the world! Once Dave had proved this point, you are now saying even if they were important intellectuals (like the people you agree with, Chomsky and Foucault),. you wouldn't include them. You are shifting the goalposts in a desperate attempt to justify imposing your POV! It's quite funny really. Happy New Year Felix, sometimes you are good for a laugh Thelionforreal 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think tat an uncited prospect magazine list hits WP:NOT even if this historian and climbate change denier are on it. As I said above-it doesn't matter who they are, but what they said or did which is important-and this is certainly not notable-for anyone who is trying to find out about Hari. My New Year was fab, dave-I hope yours was too.Felix-felix 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Prospect list - Lomoborg - www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/intellectuals/results.htm Prospect list - Starkey - www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6227

Jessica is right. Every time one of your arguments is proved to be false, you pretend you didn't make the argument and invent anotehr reason to impose your POV on the entry. You said Starkey and Lomborg should be deleted because they are "relatively minor figures." It is shown they are major figures, so you say that even if they are major figures, they should be deleted because Hari doesn't write on a high profile on these issues. I'd say a TV debate seen by over a million people is high profile, but then no doubt you'll invent another reason to impose your POV and claim you never said it mattered whether Hari had a high profile. Again, everyone can see what you're doing Felix. I'm glad you had a happy new year. I hope this year you'll read the wiki guidelines and stop trying to impose your POV on the article. David r from meth productions 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not major figures, and the criticisms, as detailed at length and depth before are spurious.Felix-felix 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anotehr set of assertions. please see the subject at teh top of the page. David r from meth productions 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the original point, dave. It doesn't matter who they are (I used Chomsky and Foucault as examples, remember?) if what they did is unimportant or unnotworthy, then it shouldn't stay in.Felix-felix 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's simply untrue, as anybody who can read this archive can see. You said they shouldn't be quoted because they are "relatively minor thinkers". Now that has been proven to be false, you are changing the criteria, to say their points are "spurious" (a blatant statement of POV).

Please repond to my request for factual responses and mediation above. David r from meth productions 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, firstly, as you can see from the above, it's not changing the subject, and they both are minor figures, prospect list or not.Felix-felix 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And spurious is not POV, you may want to read that too. WP:POV Felix-felix 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep referring to some mythical "above" where you have offered facts, rather than assertions. Where is this "above"? I offered the Prospect list as evidence, along with the masisve veiweing figures for Starkey's shows. What referenced facts have you offered? David r from meth productions 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read it many times. I think you might want to read the section called "biased writing". You are trying to remove quotes from everyone you disagree with, and quote at length the one group you do agree with - Medialens. It's hard to think of a more blatant example of biased writing, based on your view that Hari is "a little tyke!.

Now please answer my request for mediation and factual responses above. David r from meth productions 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I'm all for a (bullet pointed?) section on awards he's actually won. I still don't see why previous nominations are of interest. No other orwell prize nominee has this mentioned.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re mentioning the Orwell prize - haven't we already covered this issue to death. Why does Felix refuse to move forward on issues about which compromise has already been achieved Thelionforreal 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Orwell Prize thing was removed with good reason. Charles Matthews 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too.Felix-felix 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't see why any nominations for awards are notable at all.Felix-felix 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway

I notice, dave, that you remerged the section with Galloway and Che Guevara, with the edit summary; Makes much more sense to have Che with Galloway; they are both crits of the communist left I split the section as they have nothing to do with each other, and I'm confused by your summary. Neither are "critics of the communist left", one was a revolutionary communist, the other is an elected British MP. Galloway isn't, and never has been a communist, although he has criticised Hari, Guevara was and obviously never even knew about Hari.What on earth have they got to do with each other?Felix-felix 11:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix, you've failed to actually understand what I wrote, partly because I lazily used an abbreviation. I was pointing out that Hari's disagreements with Galloway and Che are +criticisms+ of the communist left, not critics. Sorry, thought this was obvious. Galloway is part of the communist left, check out the Guardian interview where he explicitly associates with the Soviet Union and says he would call himself a Stalinist if it didn't "make a rod for my own back."

I've offered compromises and consensus, you have so far offered nothing except an insistence that you get your own way and everyone else shut up. You continue to insist that the one set of critics you agree with should be the only ones given a lengthy quote.

I'm afraid it's hard to think of how you could be more obviously trying to impose your POV onto this article.

I think I've been quite persistently trying to compromise, and you've been quite persistently refusing and insulting other people who post here.

I've had a heavy workload over the past week and will have up to teh New Year. Let's try for anotehr week to get some compromises and then go for arbitration - can we at least compromise on those principles? I know givenm your track record of defying wiki rules (insulting other users, showing a clear hatred of the subject of the profile, attempting to insert POV, inserting libellous falsehoods into the entry) this will probably go against you and you will no doubt resist even this, but I can't see any other way forward86.129.145.129 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dave, Galloway is not, and never has been, a communist. The merge of these two entirely different strands makes no logical sense, and I suspect that you made the revert just because I had edited the tidy up. You have offered one compromise, consisting of a choice between two unacceptable demands. I think that the medialens quote is a good example of the criticism that he faced over his support for the invasion. If you can think of a better one, why not suggest one that we might incorportate. I don't think that diverging into issues already covered elsewhere is encyclopedic, and I would imagine would any other wikipedia editors. And why not give the personal attacks a rest, dave? You might notice that I didn't use your recent absence as a green light to have a go at you, as you did to me not so long ago. And don't forget to sign in.Felix-felix 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix, here's a direct quote from Galloway: "If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,11660,792915,00.html

We can split hairs but it is plainly accurate to call Galloway 'communist-supporting'. Clearly, Hari's opposition to Galloway stems from the same place as his opposition to Galloway. They are hardly "entirely different strands", as you claim. It seems logical to me to link them.

You say, "I think that the medialens quote is a good example of the criticism that he faced over his support for the invasion." I agree. I am in favour of quoting it - along with many of the other critics, and including some of Hari's responses. I would like to quote one of the Iraqis who criticised his retraction over Iraq, for example.

The difference between us is that you want to quote only the people you happen to agree with, and not mention Hari's response to those criticisms. That's not acceptable. You can set up a blog to make those points, but wikipedia is not a forum for Felix-Felix's personal opinions but for impartial facts. Quote several of his critics from across the political spectrum, from David Starkey to Medialens, and give them equal weight, or none of them. Anything else is POV.

Simply saying "I insist on having my own way" is not a compromise. You call for me to stop personal attacks, immediately after a post in which you insult Jessica yet again in personal terms by addressing her as 'Dave', implying she is fake, when you have been offered the means to verify her identity. Pointing out your track record of inserting falsehoods etc is, by contrast, not a personal insult; I'm not calling you (say) fat or stupid, I don't know you personally so I'm not in a position to throw any insults. I am commenting on your role as a wikipedian here, which is a perfectly legitimate source of comment and bears directly on the content of the article.

I may not post for a few days, work is very heavy. The reason i criticised you after you disappeared, Felix, is that when you could arbitrarily impose your edits on the article, you posted six times a day, but when the page was frozen and you had to discuss and abide by wiki principles, you went silent and have said far less. That is revealing about your approach to wikipedia. That criticism doesn't apply to me, so I'm afraid I can't give you credit for not mentioning it because I've been a bit more sparse this week.

We have two options: let's find some serious compromises and get the page unfrozen, or go for arbitration.

Your failure yet again to suggest any serious compromises (I, for example, am prepared to accept the consensus is against me on the Orwell Prize; what are you prepared to give up?) suggests that you leave us with no choice but to appeal for arbitration. It's a real shame to waste the time of wiki volunteers like this and I'd rather try to bash out an agreement with you... 86.142.181.223 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 86.142.181.223 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, dave-I must remind you to sign in. So do we agree that Galloway has never been a communist? Does that mean that it would be more sensible to have him in the section on domestic politics (as he comes from the UK) and Guevara in International (he was not)? I think that Galloway's support for the former USSR was from the viewpoint of opposing US imperialism the rest of the quote goes; If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe." The main point being, I suppose that if he hd stood on a chair and yelled "I love Stalin!" it would STILL not make him a communist. This just seems like common sense (unless you're trying to incidentally trying to get in a dig at Galloway).

We both have quiet and heavy days at wor, dave-that they don't coincide is not surprising. Bemoaning time wasted by admins on this site sem a little brazen, dave-when you have been the only one to ask for adjudication, rather than seek concensus, but no matter. lets try and keep the discussion to sections, as it gets hard to follow.Felix-felix 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Che and Galloway supported communism. That is the basis on which Hari criticises them. Therefore it seems logical to me to group them together.

However I think this is a rather minor debate and I would be prepared to compromise on it. Placing Galloway in the UK politics section doesn't seem quite right though, since Hari's criticisms of him are for his stance on international affairs. But I'm not wedded to the idea of putting the two together, i just think it seems sensible, if you suggest another place for it I'll consider it with an open mind.

To say I have not been trying to seek consensus is extraordinary, Felix, It's exactly what I have been trying to do by repeatedly suggesting compromises. Your idea of compromise seems to be insisting everyone else agree with you.

I can't sign in when I'm at home, i keep forgetting to write down my login details from my office computer. You know who I am when I write obviously so I don't see the problem, but I'll try to remember tnought when I go in - Dave

How about the Gallow bit in public disagreemants, and the Che part in inernational? (Although the Che part is pretty minor IMO) If you can't log in, you still need to sign your comments as you were doing before.Felix-felix 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think they go together, but I'm prepared to compromise on this. the trouble is that at the moment our compromises are all one way Felix, so I will compromise here but repeat: what are you prepared to compromise on? Are you going to answer the extraordinary point you made when you said Starkey and Lomborg were trivial? - Dave

See above-try and stick to he sections, and remember to sign in.Felix-felix 09:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Very revealing; I offer a compromise, and ask "what are you prepared to compromise on?" and the answer... nothing.

And a week later, after some of your blatant misrepresentations are shown... still nothing. No retraction, no suggestions for compromise, nothing at all.

In light of all this, I have now applied for adjudication. Anybody interested should go to the adjudication page to discuss this.

Adjudication rejected, dave. Are we agreed about the Galloway section going in domestic politics? Is the Che qoute even necessary? It's unremarkable.Felix-felix 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where Dave is, but hope he's back soon.

They have recommended mediation before adjudication. That is no sanction of your behaviour, Felix; people who know about wikipedia tell me if you refuse to comply with mediation then adjudication is inevitable. I think the Che line is important. With your extreme bias you might find it hard to believe but people often accuse Hari of being excessively left-wing; I think the Che point is important in relation to this.

You think hari is an "unremarkable writer", yet you seem unaware of the most basic facts about him. You are entitled to your opinion, but enough distinguished people disagree, from the Orwell prize committee to the National Secular Society to the people who give out the National Press Awards, for this to be clear POV. You are constantly trying to impose your hostile attitude on this article. You have been offered loads of compromises by Dave and refused them all.

Charles Matthws on behalf of wiki has told you not to delete well-soiurced stuff for the sake of it. With an attitude like yours, blatantly defying wiki rules, this page will never be unfrozen.Thelionforreal 16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Che line is completely irrelevant to anything-it's a line from one of his articles-the intro on politics underlines his soft left liberal politics. Deleting cited material is fine if it's irrelevant-for a 'wiki rules' stickler you certainly don't seem to read WP policies or guidelines very much.Felix-felix 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is irrelevant. It is certainly mkroe relevant than the fact Hari "seems to have enjoyed Francis Wheen's book 'How MUmbo Jumbo Conquered The World', a line you tried to insert into the entry. Anti-communism is one of Hari's core beliefs, and this Che section (he has written about Che and Cuba many times) demonstrates that.

It's revealing that you think opposing the insertion of blatant lies (Harrow School, anyone?) and POV into an article makes somebody a "stickler". David r from meth productions 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that line infrustration at your use of links which didn't support your overblown hyperbolic statements. And now anti-communism is another of Hari's core beliefs? He seems to have alot of them, doesn't he? It's irrelevent, dave-like about 70% of the article.How many different ways can I say it?Felix-felix 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you have inserted unserious and nonsensical statements into the text of the article "out of frustration"? That is an admission of vandalism. David r from meth productions 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously not vandalism, dave-check out the guidelines.WP:VAND Felix-felix 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And, more to the point, what's that got to do with Galloway or Che? Stick to sections, dave, your proclivity for inserting huge chunks of text is making this page very long again, and so these sections can form seperate archives, remember.Felix-felix 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that inserting statements you do not believe should be in the entry, and are plainly absurd, "out of frsutration", is not vandalism? It's not me who needs to read the guidelines. David r from meth productions 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, dave, the passage was neither, have you even read the vandalism page? Give it a spin.Felix-felix 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. It says inserting nonsense, like trivial references to irrelvant things that you do not intend to remain in the article, is vandalism. Take a look.

Now please answer my request for factual responses and mediation above. David r from meth productions 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that, dave?Felix-felix 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense." Your statement was nonsense; it was not intended to be kept in the entry, it was a dig at me. Wiki entries are not for you to pursue your personal vendettas in.

Now can you please start offering some factual links and evidence for your assertions below?David r from meth productions 18:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't nonsense was it? Just a non-notable sentence.If you want to quote guidelines and policy-read it first.Felix-felix 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was nonsense. it made no sense in the context of the article. It would have perplexed any reader. You could list literally thousands of books Hari has "enjoyed"; it was gibberish. David r from meth productions 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But it made sense didn't it? And it actually fitted the citation you supplied-about Wheen's (terrible) book.Felix-felix 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No it didn't make sense in the context of the article, at all. I twould have perplexed any reader, and struck them as a nonsensical statement, which it was. i.e. vandalism. 86.149.160.84 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Minor I know in relation to some of the debates here, but seeing as the page is protected, please could someone correctly spell "renewable" in lieu of "renawable" in the Global Warming section? Many pedantic thanks. The Geography Elite 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I've also noticed a few technical shortcomings further down, such as a missing full stop in the bit about clinical depression and a spelling of "he" as "eh". The Geography Elite 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the Geography file for that, will do. - Dave 86.129.145.129 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lede

The intro of this article needs to be worked on, at the moment it is a bit gushy in praise of Hari. (award-winning in first sentence?). Catchpole 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, although I'm of the opinion the entire article is far too long and gushy.Felix-felix 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix, when the article accused Johann Hari of being pro-paedophile, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and fat, you thought it was too gushy! The only thing that would please you is if it read "Johann Hari is a little tyke and unremarkable writer who supports genocide. Here are Medialens' criticisms of him and no replies from anyone." Dave is right, you really need to go and read the wiki rules.Thelionforreal 16:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, all that spurious criticism was put in by you to give a misleading sense of controversy. He's unremarkable and most of the sections in here fail notability.Every actual editor who has commented on this article has noted that it's either too long or to 'gushy' (I'm paraphrasing again..).Felix-felix 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They have done no such thing. Charles Matthews, for example, said the opposite, and instructed you to stop cutting well-sourced material for the sake of it, a consensus you blatantly defied. (Have you accused Charles of being a sockpuppet yet?)

Criticisms by two of the most important intellectuals in the world, according to Prospect magazine, are not spurious. You have a habit of making POV assertions as if they were fact. I have offered sources to prove Hari's critics are high profile and deserve inclusion. You have offered just assertions. How about giving me some facts and links, in line with the wiki rules? Let's start with your assertion that the complete disrmament of all nuclear weapons by the US and Britain is "uncontroversial." Facts to back that up please, to counter the many I offered disproving it? David r from meth productions 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stick to sections, dave.Felix-felix 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So you implicitly admit your statement was false, and Charles Matthews (along with Jessica, ThomCostello, QuineFan and others) said no such thing. Your inability to answer basic rebuttals is very revealing.David r from meth productions 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See spurious criticisms section, dave.Felix-felix 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the request for facts and for mediation above.David r from meth productions 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

This article doesn't mention that Johann Hari is openly gay (apart from category) - does anyone think that it would be worth including? I know it's not always appropriate, but given that he is a strong supporter of gay rights and has written many articles on the topic, isn't his sexuality an important piece of information for readers? 81.101.137.167 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Nick, 31/12/2006

I think that is relevant as the article mentions his support for gay rights. He did refer to his sexuality in a debate on BBC Radio 4 a couple of days ago - sorry can't remember which programme. Pontificake 23:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of obvious from the article, but a line stating it would be useful Thelionforreal 16:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but as above it seems obvious, much like, for example his weight. In these enlightened times, do we really need to spell this sort of stuff out?Felix-felix 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are referring disparagingly to hari's weight, having trawled the internet to find the most unflattering possible picture - which now turns out to be fake. I'll add it to your list of insults revealing your blatant POV. David r from meth productions 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Felix - Actually I'm not sure that's true - you can tell his weight from his picture but not his sexuality! Plus, in the context of Hari's opinions, his sexuality plays a far more important role than his weight. Anyone doing casual research (who was unfamiliar with the subject) most likely doesn't need to know that he's large, but not knowing he's gay would be a pretty major omission. Surely hinting at it throughout the article isn't the role of wikipedia? Nick 81.101.137.167 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me a perfectly reasonable point. How about: "Hari, who is gay himself..." at the start of the section about gay rights?David r from meth productions 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No strong feelings about it, you certainly can't tell his sexuality from his picture-but he does write about both his weight and the fact that he's gay-both of which are mentioned in the text of the article (or were at some point..). But, whatever, really.Felix-felix 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my request for mediation and factual responses above. David r from meth productions 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please start offering facts, not assertions

There is a persistent problem in this discussion page. Felix-Felix, who has inserted falsehoods into this article (like the ludicrous claim Hari went to Harrow School, or the fake picture currently on the page) and now admits to vandlising the entry by inserting unserious lines "out of frustration", will not provide any factual backing for his assertions.

(And no, these are not "personal attacks". I don't know you, or anything about you. They are criticisms of your practice as a wikipedian.)

I'm aware you don't know who I am, dave-your personal attacks are against me as a wikipedian-try reading WP:ATTACK.Felix-felix 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of these rules. They say clearly, "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks." That is precisely what I have done. I have commented on your actions, which include inserting defamatory lies and fake pictures into this entry.

If you want an example of personal abuse, I suggest you look at your comments directed towards Jessicca, who you have repeatedly accused of being a sock-puppet after she has provided you with the means to show this is wholly wrong. David r from meth productions 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are three factual statements. I have provided evidence for them. Please, Felix, provide contrary evidence if you can, or accept you are wrong. Do not make assertions. Offer facts.

(1) Bjorn Lomborg is, according to Prospect Magazine, not a "minor figure", but one of the twenty most important intellectuals in the world. This makes his criticisms of Hari worthy of inclusion.

See www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/intellectuals/results.htm

(2) David Starkey is one of the most important intellectuals in Britain, according to Prospect Magazine. His TV shows receive five million viewers. This makes his criticisms of Hari worthy of inclusion. He did not offer them "in a letter to the Independent", as Felix asserts, but on a TV debate on the subject viewed by over a million people, in which Hari represented the disarmament side.

See www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6227 and the archive for date of the Hari/Starkey debate transmission

I have dealt with this in the spurious criticism below,dave.Felix-felix 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where? I see no factual responses to this, only factless assertions expressing your personal POV. David r from meth productions 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is ridiculous-public opinion is massively in favour of total ('global') nuclear disarmament, as would the politicians in the above survey-I think that they're being asked about unilateral disarmament. This is not a noteworthy part of hari's writing and he's not a leading or notable figure in the movement. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a puff piece.Felix-felix 17:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have offered more assertions. Can you please offer some facts? Where are your links showing that public opinion is "massively" in favour of total disarmament, or your evidence that most politicians agree? I specifically asked for hard facts, of the kind I offered, not assertions.

Also, you say support for nuclear disarmament is not a noteworthy part of his work and he is not a prominent campaigner. In fact, he was chosen by Channel Four to be the representative of the disarmament case in a high-profile debate on the subject viewed by over a million people (see archive for transmission date etc).

Please try justifying your argument that this is not "prominent" work with facts and figures, not assertions.David r from meth productions 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As you like, dave;(in the order they come off google) Opinion polls around the world [4], Los Alomos Study Group 2005 66% of americans believe no nation should have nuclear weapons [5], "public opinion polls showing that an overwhelming 82 percent of all Americans backed the (Comprehensive test ban) treaty [6]. Poll results for question "do you want Europe to be free of nuclear weapons or not?" [7], "For instance, 57 percent of respondents thought that the world would be more stable if all nuclear weapons were eliminated. Respondents 60 years of age or older were surprisingly the biggest supporters of complete nuclear disarmament—67 percent believed that eliminating all nuclear weapons would contribute to international stability." [8], "The American people are strongly in favor of eliminating all nuclear weapons."[9]

I realise that you wont accept this evidence for a second, dave-but you asked, and here it is. I strongly suspect that you won't be able to fing any polls showing rejection of anything but UNILATERAL disarmament, which is specifically not what Hari talks about.Felix-felix 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's better. At least some facts to discuss.

Felix, (a) Hari does support unilateral disarmament by Britain, look at his articles, he was opposed to the renewal of Trident which amounts to unilateralism, he was proposing this on the BBC only the other day

(b) Even the most overwhelming of these polls show at least 33 percent of people oppose nuclear disarmament. Some suggest as many as 47 percent oppose it. Where a third to a half of the population and almost the entrie political class oppose something, it's fair to call it "controversial". It is not true to call it "uncontroversial", as you do.

You say, "you won't accept this evidence for a second." I do. I accept it entirely. (As it happens, I am in favour of unilateralism myself). The evidence is accurate, and it shows a substantial division.

Opposing renewal of Trident does not amount to supporting unilateral disarmament-and is a position which has been popularly voiced recently.It is not noteworthy. Support of total nuclear disarmament has the support of the vast majority of humanity. Thus Hari also supporting this position is not noteworthy.Felix-felix 09:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

After a (very) brief flirtation with facts, we are back to assertions.

Firstly, disarming Trident would indeed be an act of uninalteral nuclear disarmament, by definition. It would be one country, on its own, dismantling its nuclear weapon. What is the argument that it is not unilateral disarmament?

Secondly, I see you have given up the argument that Hari is not a prominent supporter of disarmament, given his role representing that position on a major TV debate watched by over a million people. I see also you have given up the claim it is "uncontroversial", since using your own facts, a third to a half of people in the US oppose it, along with the entire political class. You now fall back on saying it is supported by a majority of people in the world. But plenty of things are supported by a mjority of human beings but remain controversial by any definition - the creation of a Palestinian state, to to name but one.

If it was "uncontroversial", it would have happened by now. In fact, any political commentator will tell you that alas it is very, very far from happening. The world is moving in the opposite direction.

You are plainly motivated by a desire to leave out any of Hari's left-wing credentials, so you can impose on this article your bizarre POV that Hari is a right-winger. - Dave86.149.160.84 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

On the question of evidence, do you now accept the overwhelming evidence that Bjorn Lomborg and David Starkey are not "trivial" figures? David r from meth productions 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A poll in Prospect magazine? No. But even if it was Walt Whitman and Walt Disney-if the matter is trivial and nonillustrative-then it should't go in-as repeated ad nauseum in the relevant section.Felix-felix 09:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Prospect survey is one more piece of evidence than you have ever offered for your asserion that they are not important. Nor is it the only evidence: the viewing figures for Starkey, the sales figures for Lomborg (his book 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' is one of the best-selling books by a university press ever), etc.

Lomborg and Starkey were first introduced into this discussion because you said Hari's support for disarmament and environmentalism were not contested by anyone.

When that argument was proved wrong, you claimed the people who contest it are "minor".

Now that has been demolished, you are shifting the argument to claim that whoever contests it, it shouldn't be included because the whole matter is "trivial and nonillustrative"!

I'm afraid your persistent shifting of your argument when facts prove you wrong show that your real agenda: to impose your POV, no matter what the facts are - Dave (not in the office today so can't sign in) 86.149.160.84 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, dave-I made this argument from the start-as anyone who can read will be able to see.Felix-felix 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Anybody who wants to can read through the archive and see which of us is telling the truth. Could you now respond to my factual rebuttals? To repeat:

Please answer with logical arguments and facts, not assertions.

- Dave

Dave, if you don't sign in-I will start to remove your unsigned posts.

In answer to your first assertion, non-renwal of Trident does not amount to unilateral disarmament-it amounts to non-renewal of Trident, which will be usable in its current form until 2030 at least and is only one ICBM system.

Hari holds a view that most of the rest of humanity hold-including the political class (your figures were for unilateral disarmament, remember? Should we include every TV appearance Hari has done? I think not.Felix-felix 10:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As so often, you are deliberately misrepresenting Hari's position. He is in favour of disarming Trident, as he said on the radio the other day. Nobody else would be simultaneously disarming; therefore, by definition, it is unilateral disarmament. What is your response?

Are you saying most of the American and British political class is in favour of multilateral nuclear disarmament? Why then is the entire Congress and the President in favour of increasing the US nuclear arsenal, and the vast majority of the British political class in favour of renewing Trident? If you were correct, they would be holding summits to try to reduce them in line with everyone else.

Nobody is suggesting quoting evety TV appearance Hari has amde - an abusrd straw man. The TV appearance is cited because Hari was chosen, before a million people, to represent the disarmament case. This seriously undermines your claim that he is not a prominent defender of the disarmament cause.

You also ingore my argument that plenty of things are supported by a majority of human beings but remain controversial by any definition - the creation of a Palestinian state, to to name but one. Please answer this. - Dave 86.129.127.242 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines controversy as "a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate." This makes clear that your defintion of nuclear disarmament as "uncontroversial" is false. Using your own statistics, it is disputed by half to a third of the US population, and there is a great deal of active disagreement over this issue.

Please answer my point that plenty of things are supported by a majority of human beings but remain controversial by any definition - the creation of a Palestinian state, to to name but one David r from meth productions 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of disputed points

I think there should be a section on this page that simply lists the points that are still being disputed without giving arguments for or against. That will help other people join the discussion/follow what's going on and if a point is resolved it can be mentioned here so people don't have to search back through the archives.

Here's a preliminary list, feel free to edit or add points.

1. Which photo(s) should be included (link to photos?).

- Resolved, since Felix's photo has been shown to be a fake and was already ruled inappropriate by JacoPlame on behalf of the wiki authorities. He also ruled that the original mugshot was by far the best available picture to use. 86.149.160.84 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the photo is genuine, as I've proved above in the picture section.Felix-felix 15:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very revealing that your definition of 'proof' is an assertion thatr something is "obviously" the case. - Dave86.143.155.116 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Felix is correct about the photo. Having been to the same year of the same university as Johann, I am able to say that it looks an awful lot like him. Clearly that doesn't prove it but the Indy article, combined with the Flickr date properties, is better evidence than solely text from an e-mail (that is unverifiable as originating from Johann). Of course this still leaves the issue of which photo is suitable or whether both should be included, which I don't really feel qualified to take an opinion on given the wider links to photo policy.Greycap 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Greycap - welcome to the page. I hung around King's bar a lot so we've probably met... I think it looks a bit like him, but he says he doesn't own those clothes, and I don't think he's lying. Do feel free to e-mail johann, at j.hari@independent.co.uk, to verify the e-mail really is from him. - Dave

Dave, it clearly is him, and there's evidence to prove that he was there.Remember to sign in, too.Felix-felix 14:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that while it looks very much like Hari, it is certainly a controversial point. Bearing in mind that it is not particularly important to include it (in my opinion, I am ignorant of Wiki policy on this point), if Felix feels strongly about inclusion of the photo and considers Hari's email unverified, then I think he should email Hari to verify as suggested by David. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Whether Hari being the youngest person ever nominated for the Orwell Prize should be mentioned.

3. Whether criticism by Bjorn Lomberg should be included.

see my input for pt. 10. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Whether criticism by David Starkey should be included.

see my input for pt. 10. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Whether Hari's position on nuclear disarmament should be included.

see my input for pt. 10. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

MuttGirl 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah for MuttGirl! Welcome back

I'd add:

6. Whether Medialens should be quoted, while simultaneously cutting out other critics, and leaving out Hari's response to Medialens and the salient opinion poll data.

I think to do this would violate NPOV. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

7. ~~Whether Hari's apologia for Iraq should be cut, as Felix proposes~~ I proposed no such thing, I think it's inclusion is important.Felix-felix 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) - Anybody who wants to can look in the archive and see Felix's proposals to cut it right back. I'm glad you now retract this position. - Dave

8. Whether Hari's criticisms of Che and Galloway should be grouped together as criticisms of the communist-supporting left.

I think they are important to include (esp. Galloway, obviously), but I don't necessarily think that they should be lumped together. If others decide that the Che part is irrelevant I would not be devastated if it were removed, although I wouldn't recommend it myself. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Whether Hari's 2006 nominations as Secularist of the Year and Gay Journalist of the Year should be included

Could these be lumped together in the awards section - eg "he has won x, y, and z. He has also been nominated for a, b and c.Greycap 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea Greycap. Unfortunately Felix-Felix kept removing this, without offering any argument. - Dave

No, that's not true is it? In fact, we actually reached consensus about the non-relevance of nominations ages ago, with Charles Matthews, remember? And remember to sign in, dave.Felix-felix 14:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Greycap on this. I think they are relevant (nominations for awards do acknowledge ability/importance). Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that I shoudl compromise on a few and Felix should compromise on a few - but he has rebuffed literally every offer I have made.

The only offers he has ever agreed to come from you, MuttGirl. Any suggestions for compromsie would be much appreciated - Dave

86.149.160.84 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Muttgirl;

10. Removal of the environmental and nuclear disarmament passages altogether (which is the underlying point to the spurious criticisms of Starkey and Lomberg, really)

I don't think they are spurious. I don't see a compelling reason for removing them (or the input of Starkey and Lomberg), given that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. I don't think they are excessively detailed, and they give valuable insight into the subject. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

11. Removal of the entirely overblown enlightenment passage.

This seems less overblown than it has been previously - and I suppose it's something Hari does mention explicitly as a plank of his beliefs in various articles.Greycap 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks Greyplank. You can expect to be accused of being a sockpuppet by Felix now... - Dave

I think this is a pretty important aspect to Hari's writing (it informs a lot of the rest of it, and is a pretty important part of someone's political philosophy nowadays, especially within the left). Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

12. The gay and women's sections should be cut down-specifically the quotes and paraphrases from individual articles.

I agree that there is probably room to trim these two sections.Greycap 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about that, but what do you think could be trimmed? - Dave

I think these sections are pretty useful for understanding Hari. I don't feel strongly either way about trimming, but I do think they should remain generally. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

13. The removal of his views on certain television programs. And the spurious criticism of those views.

14. Removal of spurious criticism by Oliver Kamm for praising Chavez.

15. Cutting out as many quotes as possible, most of which could be replaced by short summaries of his position.

Quotes are often as good as short summaries, and give a better feel of the writer. However, so long as this is done well and fairly I don't have a massive problem with it. Mr-Thomas 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How's that for starters?Felix-felix 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphrasing

The problem with your proposal for summaries, Felix, is that you've shown yourself to be incapable of honestly summarising Hari's views. I urge readers to look at this:

Hari wrote:

Felix tried to summarise this statement as “half hearted-apologising for Bush mucking up an invasion which he would have supported if it had been done better.”

He defended this, even after being challenged.

So I oppose summaries by Felix because his overwhelming hatred of Hari (who he calls a "little tyke", makes disparaging references to his weight, etc) makes him incapable of not imposing his POV on them.

It's also startling that you are now backtracking on the only compromise you have ever agreed to: accepting the section about Hari's views on the Enlightenment. After your arguments were shown to be factually wrong and almost comically ignorant about postmodernism, you accepted the facts; now you propose they should be cut.

I have offered several compromises Felix. Until we compromise, the page will not be unfrozen. Do you want to suggest a compromise for once? - Dave 86.143.155.116 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, you seem determined to make this page unreadable by repeatedly inserting huge chunks of text in for little reason, especially when they're still here on the same page-hence my splitting this off into a new section. The basic point you make above, dave-is irrelevant (even if you think my paraphrasing is inaccurate, which I don't) as that is a comment I made on a talk page, not in the article.Felix-felix 10:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very revealing that (a) you think quoting what a person actually says has "little reason", and (b) you think that summary is accurate, rather than a ludicrous distortion. - Dave David r from meth productions 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image was deleted since it had no source information. The image page stated it had been "uploaded from flickr" but no source was given. Images like this should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is hard to determine whether or not it was him. David says that according to Hari this is not him and if that is true we definitely wouldn't want to use the image. In any case, the new image which shows his likeness much more clearly should be available soon. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-5 23:46

Thanks Jacoplame. I tried to explain to Felix-Felix that this was your position, but he refused to accept it. He has repeatedly defied wiki administrators: Charles Matthews told him not to delete any more well-sourced passages, but he ignored this and deleted more than half the entry. - Dave

Ok, I'll upload it again, and be more careful with the source information. We have only dave's word about Hari's denial of being there, even though he wrote about it in the Independant, does this seem likely?Felix-felix 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean, Jacoplame? Felix, you don't only have my word for it, you can e-mail Hari yourself to verify it, it will take 30 seconds. Hari denied being at a "peace camp" in Yorkshire, which was true. He reported on a global warming demonstration, a pretty different thing, and given how many things he reports on, I doubt what you said rang a bell. But also he said he doesn't own the clothes he is pictured wearing. You really need to look up the rules on biographies of living persons Felix, controversial or contested material must be left out. This clearly falls into this category. Your determination to break the wiki rules at every turn is pretty shocking really. - Dave

PS Do not delete this. I can't sign in here because I'm not in the office, where my login details are stored. I am leaving ym anme and it's clear who I am. 86.129.127.242 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave, if you do not have your account details (although you only need to remember a password!) Log in with 4 tildes anyway. I have just removed an unsigned edit, and will do so from now for all unsigned edits. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that the photo is not Hari? He wrote about being at the Drax camp, which is where the photo was taken, and is obviously him. This whole thing is becoming completely surreal...Felix-felix 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Felix, Hari doesn't own those clothes. He doesn't own that bag. It's not him. The person at Drax obviously just mislabelled a picture of somebody who looks a bit like him.

You say it is "obviously" him. But you also stated Hari "obviously" went to harrow School - a preposterous lie.

Are you seriously claiming your obvious and extreme hostility towards Johann Hari is not skewing your judgement?

The wiki authorities have ruled on the picture. I know you have no respect for the wiki rules or authorities, but the page just won't be unfrozen if you continue to assert your right to vandalism. You have already admitted to inserting nonsensical sentences into the entry "out of frustration". It's just tiresome now, Felix.

Why don't you start suggesting some serious compromises? I have offered plenty and been rebuffed every time. You tell me one of the above items on the list you'll give up, and I'll find one of mine I could bear to surrender.

For example, you give up your point (10), and I'll give up my point (8). I don't want to, I think my point is important, but the nature of compromise is that you give things up.

If you don't like that compromise and reject it (as you have with every otehr one), suggest a few more from the list David r from meth productions 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, dave-you have never liked the photo-but are you suggesting that there was a Hari lookalike at the Drax camp? Really? One who looked like him so much that even a close personal friend like you was fooled? Has Hari actually denied it is him? Or was it evasive remarks about clothes and not attending peace camps?

As for the rest, we are waiting for mediation are we not?Felix-felix 10:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, an offer of compromise from me is met with... a refusal from Felix. (Yes, we are awaiting mediation. I foolishly thought you could behave like an adult while we wait).

Hari's exact words were "that picture isn't me". Hardly "evasive", you only had to scroll up to see that. The wiki rules on living persons are pretty clear, and JacoPlame has already ruled on this. The picture is a blurry snap taken from far away, you don't have to be a "lookalike" to be mistaken for somebody else in those circumstances. The issue is resolved as far as the wiki authorities and wiki rules are concerned.

Your obsession with breaching the rules to insert an unflattering picture of somebody (who isn't even...) somebody you hate is becoming creepy.

I repeat: Are you seriously claiming your obvious and extreme hostility towards Johann Hari is not skewing your judgement?

An update on felix's extreme eccentric (or worse) political opinions. Go to the Gilad Atzmon page and check out the discussion.

Felix is expending vast amounts of energy arguing that there is no anti-Semitism in the following statement: "[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world."

David r from meth productions 12:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least you signed in this time dave-even if you didn't stick to sections. I don't think that Jacoplne 'ruled' on anything, dave, and the picture is not blurry or taken from far away. I don't know why you think I'm hostile towards hari, dave-I'm just more critical of him than you-and try to remember to avoid personal attacks, as warned about at the top of the page, and that you have been blocked for before.Felix-felix 15:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit request

Can an admin please fix the lead bolding (or lack thereof) of the subject? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you also change ... the [[Sunday Times]] ... to ... ''[[The Sunday Times (UK)|The Sunday Times]]'' ... ? Thanks. --Geniac 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you add {{wikiquote}} to the External links section, as there is a quote article available for this subject? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix-Felix describes Hari as an "advocate [of] the destruction of untermenschen"

Readers following this discussion may be interested to know that Felix-Felix has revealed his POV again in the discussion of the Medialens article, where he accuses Hari of advocating "the destruction of untermenschen."

He says above, "I don't know why you think I'm hostile towards hari".

I am beginning to reach the conclusion that rational engagement with Felix-Felix is impossible, and that will affect the editing of this page quite seriously. I reiterate: this is a man who says it is not anti-Semitic to write, "[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world."

I will no longer be engaging Felix in discussion. He ignores evidence, inserts lies into entries, and compares Johann Hari to Nazis while defending blatant anti-Semites himself.

Instead, I'll wait for mediation. If (as I suspect) Felix refuses to engage with mediation, I have been told I will probably be accepted for adjudication. With a track record like Felix's, I am confident this will bring a conclusion that sides with those of us who respond to evidence and do not deny blatant racism when we see it.

David r from meth productions 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding personal attacks again, then , dave?Felix-felix 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered what I actually wrote on the Medialens page, which was; I always thought the "pro-war left" was a perjorative, and thus had no problem with the term, although I take your point, it was originally a self description, and none of them are actually left wing at all, they are all vaguely liberal except when they advocate the destruction of untermenschen. This page needs alot of work anyway, so edit away. I remember being quite pleased with that turn of phrase, which struck me as rather pithy. Once again,dave, it looks rather diferent in context, non?Felix-felix 17:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is in direct response to a comment on Johann Hari, so you are explicitly describing him. You accuse him of advocating "the destruction of untermenschen", a ludicrous slur on a par with the other ludicrous slurs you have tried to insert into this entry and your disgraceful defence of a blatant racist. (You also then complain about people insulting you, after you compare a dedicated anti-racist to a Nazi).

For these reasons, as I have made clear, I am not going to engage with you, any more than I would engage with a nutter yelling insults at a bus stop. I regret I assumed you were a rational and sane person for so long, and I have no doubt you can only abuse the wikipedia system for so long before you are booted off. I feel sorry for you really. - David R 86.129.145.38 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember to sign in, dave, and to avoid personal attacks.Does this mean you're no longer interested in the mediation?Felix-felix 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I will engage with mediation. I just don't engage with people who defend blatant racists, while accusing consistent anti-racists of "advocat[ing] the destruction of untermenschen". Do not address me again. We can talk via a mediator (assuming you are not banned from posting here for your persistent libels about Hari). David r from meth productions 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, dave-keep your hair on-and remember about the personal attacks.Felix-felix 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Hari's page has not been unfrozen and why felix-felix hasn't been booted. He seems to pursuing, through the pages of wikipedia, an interest in Hari that is not based on a commitment to objective descriptions and reporting. Johann Hari is a controversial left-wing figure, that much is true, but comparisons to Nazis are based on factual untruths and the intent is a.) to slur Hari and b.) propagandistic. The paragraphs from Hari's article that recant his former pro-war position are absolutely necessary to any discussion of the man; they are the paragraphs relevant to Iraq future histories, and a useful source for researchers to quote pinpointing the tipping point in intellctual opposition to the war in Britian.

Felix-Felix, why does this subject interest you so much? What exactly is your intent here? Your interest in Hari seems either sectarian or personal and neither are appropriate for the pages of a wikipedia. User: portablevanland

Well, the 'comparisons to Nazis' is mainly in daver's head, but comes from a fairly hysterical reading of a comment on the medialens discussion page which I thought was a fairly funny description of the so-called'pro-war left'. I've made no attempts to 'slur' Hari, and I've always said that his (partial)recant of his support for the war should be included, as you'll see if you bother to look back over the discussion. Apart from that,discussion should be about the article-not on unprovable ascribed personal motives.Felix-felix 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And, dave, as far as slurring Hari, I've not even made anything of his questionable taste in Aussie dramatists, such as van Badham Felix-felix 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me also that any constructive progression with this page is being deliberately prolonged and put off by Felix, who seems to be motivated by spite. The only way for this page to be allowed to evolve to an adequate final product seems now to be to stop Felix's personal vendetta against Johann and now, it seems, against Dave. ThomCostello 12:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, dave-I'm waiting for mediation, as we have discussed before.Felix-felix 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Felix-Felix abusing people who defend factual descriptions of Hari, since it is highly implausible that he has he has seen the work of Van Badham. David r from meth productions 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Portablevanland, Thom, I appreciate what you're trying to do but really it's best to ignore this guy until wikipedia can deal with him. People who insert libels into articles and defend blatant racists can't last long on wikipedia. - Dave 86.143.155.219 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The question of the length of this entry

Felix persistently claims this article is too long. I was looking around and it seems to be the standard length for prominent op-ed columnists, and to include the usualy number of critics referenced. Check out Peter Hitchens, Ann Coulter or Polly Toynbee. Peter Hitchens' is remarkably similar to the original entry I laid out here that was subsequently shredded, contrary to the epxlicit instructions of the wiki authorities, by Felix. Nobody on the discussion pages of these entries has suggested they are too long. - Dave David r from meth productions 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They are all older and more notable than Hari, with longer careers. Pretty straightforward, really.Felix-felix 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no policy or guideline about covering a subject in depth, provided that all statements are well written and comply with verification requirements, and that the subject of the article is notable. See generally "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia." Are there concerns about the sourcing of the article or "undue weight" concerns, or is this just an argument about whether Hari is notable enough to deserve a long entry? TheronJ 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This stems from a longer version of the article, the current version was protected after much trimming by me, and in the midst of much restoring by daver. Relevant comments from other editors can be found here [10] and mainly relate to WP:LENGTH but also to WP:NOT. My main objections are to a tedious repetition of the form 'Hari is a prominent defender of x, so-and-so said thats silly.' Felix-felix 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For anybody following this, it's worth pointing out Theronj is an impartial third party who has offered to mediate. I have accepted; Felix has yet to do so.

I will work on the assumption that Felix's response above is an acceptance of the principle of mediation by Theronj anyway (perhaps this is optimistic) and put my response.

I don't see that, say, Peter Hitchens is much more noteable than Hari. Age does not correlate with notability. They seem to have comparable profiles in British public life.

Hitchens' article lists his political and philosophical positions, and frequent/prominent responses to them, in exactly the way this article did until Felix (contrary to the explicit instructions of wiki administrator Charles Matthews) told him not to. Nobody on Hitchens' entry has suggested this is an improper way of describing a journalist's life and work.

The position of various editors here on the question of length has, as Felix's link shows, been mixed. (Felix of course accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being a sockpuppet, but they have provided evidence to show this is not the case and they are independent people).

If the article did not include critics of Hari, Felix-Felix would have called this article a press release. But including a huge number of very high profile critics (e.g. the twelfth most important intellectual in the world), with quite severe criticisms, is also dismissed by him as a "love letter", on the grounds these extremely high profile and well-sourced critics are "spurious".

I fear this is because Felix-Felix is predisposed to despise Hari (who he accuses of wanting the "destruction of untermenschen", a position so absurd it amounts to evidence of loathing). He would see any article that did not simply reflect his eccentric politics and intense hatred as a "love letter". This explains his desire to reduce the article to almost-nothing, and include only teh critics he agrees with.

This is not a sensible basis for a wiki entry. I think Peter Hitchens' entry is however a sensible, uncontested model for us to use in seeking a consensus on the entry of a controversial, high profile journalist. David r from meth productions 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Felix describes Hari as "a self publisising [sic] careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that."

Dave, you really must remember to sign in!FelixFelix ^talk 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a factual note for anyone who's been following this debate: Felix has talked about his "warm fondness" for Hari here, but on another website he has described Hari as "a self publisising careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that."

See http://members.boardhost.com/DT3rd/msg/1170952413.html David r from meth productions 01:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned about personal attacks before, dave!Felix-felix 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A good example of a personal attack is calling the subject of an article you're trying to edit - after agreeing to a consensus period - "a self publisising careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that." David r from meth productions 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 15:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember to sign in, dave. I note that the post you link to was on a message board unrelated to wikipedia. You appear to still be confused about the no personal attacks guideline WP:ATTACK ("Comment on content, not on the contributor", it's on the first line.) Felix-felix 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Felix has denied above that he has tried to insert deliberately unflattering and weird pictures of Hari into his entry. Yet when he wants to demonstrate the 'unpleasantness' of Hari, he chooses to link from the word 'unpleasant' to... precisely the unflattering picture he tried to paste here. Another factor for editors here to bear in mind.David r from meth productions 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

David, I apologize - Felix has accepted mediation, and has been commenting on the mediation page. I assumed you were watching that page, which was my bad. I will post something here in a moment about the mediation. Felix - my proposal would be that you consider this post to have fallen before the "start fresh" proposal, since David hasn't seen it, and since that oversight is my fault. Thanks! TheronJ 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation update

Both Felix and David have agreed to mediate. Since many (but certainly not all) of the issues appear to be personal to the two of them, I have started mediation discussions on the mediation page, here. Anyone else who feels that they have something to add is welcome to join in. Thanks, TheronJ 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reported on or from?

"He has reported from many parts of the world. These include Iraq, war zones in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Rwanda, Peru, Syria, France and Northern Ireland".

When was he supposedly reporting from Northern Ireland? I take that to mean that he was physically in that area witnessing events then sending copy back to his editors. It is also a stretch to call ireland a "war zone" post 2000-2001 (period his journalism appears to have begun).

Hi - you're right, the order in which they are listed is wrong, he has reported from war-zones in Congo - not warzones in the other places, as far as I know, so Congo should be listed last or it can be easily misunderstood. He reported from Northern Ireland when he was at the New Statesman, I believe, i recall articles from the IRA-dominated estates and an interview with Martin McGuiness, I'm sure this will be on his website www.johannhari.com - DavidR

Hi, it wasnt so much the order, more like was he actually in those places or just reporting on them. I did look on his site (thanks) and found this story, which appears to place him in Ireland interviewing Sinn Fein supremo Martin McGuinness in early 2002. The article being reproduced in The New Statesman - 04/02/2002. Thanks for your assistance DavidR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.116 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Copyedits

{{Editprotected}} there is a place where a space is needed after a full stop and the headings do not meet with WP:Manual of Style (only the first word should be capitalised. Itsmejudith 20:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Done the headings. I cannot see where the space is needed after a full stop - it's a big article, please say where this is. Proto::► 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked

This article has been locked for ages; it's getting rather annoying. Is there any point in the future when it will be open for editing? — Emiellaiendiay 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's annoying Emi, but the page was being vandalised a lot by a user who has a vendetta against Johann Hari snd who mislead the users here, inserting libellous information about Hari's schooling and - a more insidious example - inserting deliberately unflattering and weird pictures of Hari into his entry. (He denied they were deliberately unflattering, but I caught him on another website where when he wanted to demonstrate the 'unpleasantness' of Hari, he chooses to link from the word 'unpleasant' to... precisely the unflattering picture he tried to paste here.)

Theronj kindly agreed to mediate so we can unfreeze it without the page being hijacked by an anti-Hari agenda again. Unfortunately he seems to have gone awol since, I hope he's not ill or anything. I messaged him a few days ago but no response... David r from meth productions 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to block this user? — Emiellaiendiay 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What was that about personal attacks, dave?FelixFelix ^talk 08:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made nothing but factual statements. Emie raises a good point though. David r from meth productions 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, many of the statements you've made above are false (the 'vendetta' and 'libellous comments' as well as 'weird pictures'-whichever those were..)-although even if they were factual, would still violate WP:NPA.You have been warned about this before, dave.FelixFelix ^talk 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't engage with people who defend blatant racists while calling anti-racists Nazis; anyone who wants to can read through the archive and see the clear evidence for Felix inserting into the entry the false and libellous claim that Hari went to Harrow School, one of the most elite public schools in britain, when in fact he is from a working class family and went to a nearby school!

They can also see the pictures he tried to insert which on other websites he cites as the epitome of Hari's unpleasantness, but which he claims here are merely the best possible pictures available.

I hope theronj, when he returns, makes proposals; in the meantime, I'm not going to engage with racist-defenders and vandals, no matter how much they disingenous splutter about wiki rules which they bel;ieve protect them from a simple straighforward factual summary of the evidence. David r from meth productions 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, dave-WP:NPA and why is mistakenly saying that Hari went to Harrow boarding school, when he went to the associated John Lyon day school (which is 'nearby' what, precisely?) libellous? It would be nice if you entered into the spirit of the mediation..FelixFelix ^talk 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is preposterous to suggest these schools are the day and boarding versions of each other. This reveals you are either (a) lying, or (b) utterly ignorant. They are different institutions in different places. Pick up the phone and call either of them, as I did when you first raised this issue: you'll find they had a connection about a century ago. "John Lyon? No, it's nothing to do with us," the secretary at Harrow School said. Go on, call them. So the fact is: you inserted a whopper into the article. And it's not a one-off. You inserted photographs which you claim here are simply the best you can find, but that you admit on other websites are the epitome of Hari's "unpleasantness". On other websites you hurl abuse at Hari, comparing him to a Nazi and calling him "a self-publicising careerist and a particularly unpleasant one at that," yet to wiki users who object to your attitude you claim you have "warm feelings" and "affection" for Hari. Your plain motive all along has been to defame Hari via wikipedia and to lie about it; it's now plain for all to see. - DavidR86.151.42.250 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dave, we're supposed to be in mediation-try and calm down. I think you're wrong about the 2 schools, as a quick look on their entries will reveal.FelixFelix ^talk 07:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(a) You inserted the simple falsehood that he went to Harrow School, to mislead readers into sharin your hatred of Hari ("destruction of untermenschen", "a self-publicising careerist and a particularly unpleasant one at that" etc) (b) A call to the schools - the number is 020 8872 8000 - will confirm that you are factually and entirely wrong. Anybody who want to fact check this person should make the call, it takes about twenty seconds.

It's very revealing that Felix has nothing to say in response to this point: On other websites you hurl abuse at Hari, comparing him to a Nazi and calling him "a self-publicising careerist and a particularly unpleasant one at that," yet to wiki users who object to your attitude you claim you have "warm feelings" and "affection" for Hari. Your plain motive all along has been to defame Hari via wikipedia and to lie about it; it's now plain for all to see.

This will be my last post responding to Felix except through mediation, because his malicious arguments lie in tatters.David r from meth productions 12:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, dave-I think that cooling down would help with the mediation and the spirit in which we will need to go forward together in editing the Hari article. A simple look at the articles for the 2 schools will show how closely associated they are, mistaking one for another isn't the end of the world, or a smear for that matter. I'm not really sure how posts on unrelated messageboards is relevant to the article, either, dave.FelixFelix ^talk 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody - I ended up busier than I thought I would be. (That's no excuse - it's totally my bad). I swear I will take the couple hours it will take to get things started in the next day or two. TheronJ 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks theronj. Other users have suggested barring Felix; let's see if he agrees to a reasonable impartial mediator and your suggestions, or whether he starts hurling abuse at you too. - DavidR David r from meth productions 12:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a limit on how long you can keep a page locked? Anyway, if it is to be this way, I'd appreciate it if someone with the power to do so would make the following changes:

Add a References section (<references/>), preferably the small font kind, if possible
Turn all the [11] kind of links into footnotes
Add Johann Hari to Category:LGBT journalists

Thanks.

— Emiellaiendiay 08:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Disputed Photo

[edit] Description of dispute

This is a dispute regarding whether this image is appropriate for inclusion in the body of the Johann Hari article. The previously involved editors may offer more details below, but basically, the dispute is this:

Felix-felix would like to include the picture. He thinks that it is a good illustration of the subject, Johann Hari, pursuing his profession (journalism), and would therefore be a positive addition to the article.
According to its posting on Flickr,[12], the image is licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0 attribution license,[13] which means it's the only GDFL-compliant image currently available. (The editors are working on obtaining releases for more images, and hope to get a copyright release on this image[14] shortly. In addition, the editors could probably come up with fair use rationales for "promotional" images if the free image at issue is not usable).
David r opposes the use of the image at issue. Dave reports that Hari has confirmed to him in e-mail that (1) the picture isn't him, and (2) the clothes in the picture aren't his. In addition to believing that the picture isn't Hari, Dave also opposes the picture because Dave believes the picture to be unflattering. Dave has offered for Felix or I to e-mail Hari and confirm the e-mails, but we believe him.
Felix believes that (1) the picture is clearly Hari on its face (see generally the other Hari photos on Google images); and (2) the Flickr caption [15] identifies the photo as Hari, and reports that the photo was taken at a protest in the UK. (Hari wrote a piece about this protest[16], so there does not appear to be much dispute that he was there). He is concerned about the implications of allowing a subject of an article to veto a photo that he believes clearly is the an accurate photo of the guy in question.
The question of whether to use the image therefore raises a number of sub-issues: (1) Given that the photo resembles Hari, but that it's disputed, what are the WP:ATT requirements, and have they been met. (2) Does this raise WP:BLP issues, and how can they be resolved? (3) Does the existence of this photo prevent the editors from using promotional images under the fair use guidelines?

Thanks for commenting, TheronJ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the photograph is one of him. See this one for a comparison. Its existence does preclude us from using a fair-use one. Hari can send us one he regards as more flattering if he wants to, then the problem will be solved. Interesting issue, though, and not one I've come across before, where the source was saying the clothes weren't his. He needs to stop stealing other people's clothes if that's the case. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

[edit] David r from meth productions

It's worth bearing in mind three other factors:

(1) My understanding is that the picture was taken at a very crowded protest event where hundreds of people were milling around, and clearly the photographer has picked out somebody who looks a bit like Hari.

(2) There is a perfectly good and undisputed picture that we are getting copyright clearance on in the next few days - DavidR

[edit] Felix-felix

(1)The camp had only 600 people as recorded both here [17] and (by Hari) here [18], so the chance of finding a doppleganger seems a little unlikely, to put it mildly.

(2)The picture is not unflattering and shows Hari at work.

(3)No-one is against the indy portrait mugshot going in when it's non-copyvio, I (and other editors) just want this one too.FelixFelix ^talk 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other editors

While images do have some exemption from the rules of WP:ATT, that's not a total exemption. Usually, we'd be able to assume that the subject of an image is what is claimed, but I think the fact that a dispute exists means we'd now have to have a reliable source to cite that claims the image was of Hari before we could use it in this context. JulesH 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the alleged subject of the photo disputes that it is him, then there is a problem. If it could be reliably verified that it is indeed him, a citation could be used, but I suspect proving this reliably would be extremely difficult. Find another photo, or go without. Crockspot 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy of Attribution applies to any and all material in Wikipedia, including photos. As there is no way to verify the author or the subject of the photo in question, and has not been published in a reliable source or a self-published source that attest to the identity of the person in question, it fails to comply with policy and should not be used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons where it says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." We have to use extreme caution in biographies of living persons because one lawsuit could wipe out Wikimedia. Keeping in a wrong picture after being told it's wrong may be a lot worse when being sued about it than just putting in a wrong picture by accident. Since there are so many biographies, even a small chance that it's wrong is significant: we don't want even one lawsuit. The number of people present has little relevance to the chance of the picture being a doppelganger, it seems to me. I compared the Google images photos and see some resemblance, but don't see how someone can tell it isn't his brother or some other person who happens to look a lot like him. You might want to ask Wikimedia what standards to apply. How do you know the Google images are correct? Maybe they're pictures of the same wrong person. I can think of two types of expert who might help out: (1) people who have met him multiple times, and (2) professional experts at judging whether two photos are of the same person, if there is such a thing. Unless the photographer is one of these types of expert, the photographer's statement may be no more use than someone else comparing to the Google images. I suppose there's no use putting a caption like "A person, who may or may not be Hari, taking notes." It would imply it's probably him and probably therefore be unacceptable. And come to think of it, I suppose we'd probably have to have a published statement from such an expert; without such a published statement Wikipedia NOR policy wouldn't let us say on the article page "Expert Z claims this is a picture of Hari", and since it's contentious, maybe we couldn't make any stronger statement than that nor just put the picture there implying it's him. --Coppertwig 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the photo is disputed, I would disagree the photo be used unless it's reliably verified. Apparently we can't know who the photographer is. Obviously, it looks like Hari in the photo, but in a strict sense editors here are unqualified to definitively judge who it is in the photo. I would agree that using communications from Hari himself to settle content disputes would in most circumstances violate the WP ban on original research. But the photo at Flickr was taken by an anonymous photographer, and Flickr is not a newspaper publisher or similarly edited, published fact source. When WP editors try to assess an anonymous photo's authenticity via comparison to other published photos, or by assembling other clues including whether Hari can be assumed to have attended the protest, they are essentially performing original research also. In this circumstance, WP:ATT has to come into play. I suggest that the photo not be used, and I'll bet another will eventually come along which can be used instead.Professor marginalia 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the photographer is anonymous, I could try and contact him/her, I suppose, if this would help.FelixFelix ^talk 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's 8 against using it (including me, Mr Thomas and Jessica), 2 in favour (including Felix), and 1 potentially in favour if more evidence could be found. Is it fair to say the consensus is against use and we can move onto the next subject, or shall we wait for more comments? I'm happy with either David r from meth productions 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from a blogger

We don't care if people are criticised by bloggers - everyone has been criticised by bloggers - they are not notable. Secretlondon 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohann_Hari_3a20.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Unassessed biography articles | B-Class LGBT articles

Talk:Johann Hari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The wiki authorities have suggested mediation rather than arbitration at this point

[edit] Proposed Changes/Edits

[edit] Picture

[edit] Supposedly fake photo

[edit] Hari's support of the war

[edit] Spurious Criticisms

[edit] Awards

[edit] George Galloway

[edit] Spelling

[edit] Lede

[edit] Sexuality

[edit] Please start offering facts, not assertions

[edit] List of disputed points

[edit] Paraphrasing

[edit] Image

[edit] Protected edit request

[edit] Felix-Felix describes Hari as an "advocate [of] the destruction of untermenschen"

[edit] The question of the length of this entry

[edit] Felix describes Hari as "a self publisising [sic] careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that."

[edit] Mediation update

[edit] Reported on or from?

[edit] Copyedits

[edit] Locked

[edit] Request for Comment: Disputed Photo

[edit] Description of dispute

[edit] Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

[edit] David r from meth productions

[edit] Felix-felix

[edit] Comments by other editors

[edit] Quote from a blogger

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search