Talk:Johann Hari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Hari article.
Article policies
LGBT Portal
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 on the quality scale.

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


[edit] Removing libels

As has been discussed ad infinitum above, libels must not be inserted into this entry. It's a bit disappointing that the first thing that happens after the page has been frozen for four months to prevent libels, is somebody tries to reinsert the libels. If you do this, the page will juyst be frozen forever. Please stop exposing wikipedia to the risk of beign sued, and preventing any other wikipedian from posting here.

David r from meth productions (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Less than 2 weeks. Sigh :-( Anthere (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the passage about Hari working for Archer, which isn't libellous, and was sourced, to boot. I'm afraid I can't see how this can be construed as libellous. Also replaced the POV tag.FelixFelix talk 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was sourced to Private Eye, which several wiki administrators said very clearly is not a legitimate source for an encyclopedia. We had this discussion for ages; look in the archive, it was resolved with an acceptance that Private Eye will not be used.

For example, wiki adminsitrator David Gerard told us to view Private Eye "with a very jaundiced eye" as a source. When you kept trying to use it, wiki administrator Charles Matthews wrote: "Come off it. Private Eye sniping at someone is well below the encyclopedic threshold."

(Their claim is also untrue. In reality Hari worked as a student for a publisher, and he was assigned to loads of authors, one of whom was Archer. He didn't "work for" Archer and wasn't paid by him; he met him once. If we're going to include trivial details about his student jobs - and you'd have to find a legitimate source for it, which you currently don't have - then I'd want to include an awful lot more information you have dismissed as trivial too.)

Please abide by the judgements of the wiki administrators.

Anthere, I second your sigh.David r from meth productions (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I hope the new year finds you well. I'm still baffled as to why you find the passage libellous-it's sourced (I don't see how you can construe this as 'sniping'), there's no doubt that Hari did work on Archer's book, and your OR musings about his work details are neither here nor there. Thus I've replaced it-if you have a different source to cite, lets use it. Don't edit war , Dave-let's improve the article.FelixFelix talk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To User:Felix-felix: http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2007/08/17/from-page-5-of-private-eye/ is an indirect cite from Private Eye; and is nothing like a reliable source. I give you formal warning here that any future violation of the letter or spirit of WP:BLP will expose you to administrative sanction. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Charles-but could you explain to me how the edit that I restored is a violation in letter or spirit of WP:BLP? Much appreciated.FelixFelix talk 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough. I'm blocking you. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. While I agree with you that Felix's position is "faux naïf", I think it's worth me answering his point for anybody else who is following this: it is a violation of BLP because

(a) it is from a deeply unreliable source - a scandal sheet that administrator after administrator has said is not up to encyclopedia standards, any more than the National Inquirer is.

(b) it is simply false. Hari did not "work for" Jeffrey Archer; as a student, he worked for a publisher and was asigned to a range of authors, meeting Archer a grand total of once. Implying a left-wing writer chose to work for a notorious crook and right-winger, when he didn't, is plainly just a smear. It belongs, I'm afraid, on a long list of smears against Hari offered by this editor: that he is "in favour of the destruction of Untermenschen" (despite awards from Anesty International), that he went to the Harrow School (despite his father being a bus driver), that he is a "self-promoting careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", etc etc.

(I do think this history has to be pointed out for other wikipedians to understand the decision that admins have taken here.)

After literally more than a year of trying patiently to reach compromises with this user, and being rebuffed every time, I can see no alternative to Charles Matthews' choice, regrettable as the banning of anybody from wikipedia is. I am afraid I think we will have to be alert to this user emerging in another guise. The fact that seveal of the most senior figures in wikipedia are monitoring this page is extremely helpful and appreciated, and should help to ward this off.

I am keen now to implement the compromises agreed with other users concerning this page; it's worth noting that disagreements with every other user have been resolved with compromise and discussion, and it is only with this user alone that this has been impossible, despite alas more than a year of effort.David r from meth productions (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed both the unblocking of the page and the insertion of the material that sparked the above debate. Let's not let it distract from the ultimately productive and consensual discussions that took place in late 2007. We can now, as agreed in the autumn, use my original edit as a basis upon which to build. I'll attend to this (if editing the page is not disabled again) in the next few days, then we can resume arguing about what else gets to go in.SamuelSpade79 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam - sounds like a good plan for me. let's use that as the framework and argue it out from there... David r from meth productions (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As an occasional user it is extremely confusing to read that allegations from Private Eye (That Mr Hari threatened to sue for but didn't)lack the rigour for an encyclopedia, when the article in question is nothing more than a blatant puff. To an outsider the article on Mr Hari appears to have the balance and depth of a Persil advert. If you really want Wikipedia to have credibilty then surely it's time to remove this kind of nauseating self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.188.192 (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I can relate to the above comments and have voiced those concerns myself several times. Nevertheless, the best way to move forward and make the entry more neutral is to trim it and remove obviously self-serving puff rather than to raise the Private Eye issue again. Personally, I think that it doesn't raise much in the way of libel worries (it is fully documented at Sourcewatch, for example: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Johann_Hari), so the real test is notability. But the problem with arguing that it is notable is that such a claim jars a bit with the really important claim that most of the information contained in this page is not notable. If you are concerned about the quality of the entry, join the editing process once I change the page in the next couple of days.SamuelSpade79 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right Samuelspade79, I'm sure the reason people keep having a go at this preposterous article is because it is a flagrant piece of egomaniacal advertising. "Views on the enlightenment" - give me a break - he might as well tell us what his favourite yoghurts are. In my opinion this kind of guff makes Wikipedia look very silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.93.189 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: "notability" applies to topics here, not fact-by-fact. The requirements of neutrality are thought of in another way. "Puff" suggests too much prominence given to minor matters, and/or lack of a neutral tone. The opposite failing would be to emphasise negative aspects in a muck-raking way. The requirements of the policy on biographies of living people effectively rule out the tabloid approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there would be any 'confusion', Charles - maybe you misread my post? And I don't think the anonymous user (nor I) were eliding any distinction between notability or neutrality, since the two can on occasions bleed into or overlap with each other. Thus, the inclusion of an abundance of topics that fail the notability test can comprise a whole that fails the neutrality test. SmauelSpade SamuelSpade79 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous user above (who sounds an awful lot like GWP, who has just been banned) - I tried to insert serious criticisms from all sorts of people, but the consensus was that - even though they came from very distinguished intellectuals like David Starkey - they weren't notable. I didn't agree but I'm prepared to go with the mood in order to get some progress on this page. This entry certainly isn't any more a 'puff piece' than entries for any other senior journalist, from Melanie Phillips to David Aaronovitch to George Monbiot to Mark Steyn. It follows a familiar journalists' format.

Re: Private Eye - take a look at the BLP rules, and the archived discussion of this issue. Half a dozen wiki adminsitarors have said that Private Eye clearly falls below the threshhold these rules stipulate, and I think it would be impossible to make a case that it doesn't. Their claims are demonstrably untrue in their own terms, and obviously based on personal animus. Private Eye even had to print humiliating letters pointing out that they only started these criticisms after Hari publicly criticised their editor and ex-editor, and that they were "smearing honest journalists just because they criticise you and your mates." We wouldn't include claims from the National Inquirer, and we can't include claims from Private Eye, it's that simple. David r from meth productions (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felix ruled by admins to have "a deep lack of understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. I don't feel comfortable about letting anyone with such problem to edit Wikipedia."

It might interest anyone who regularly follows the discussion on this page to know that wiki administrators, after studying Felix's behaviour here, have concluded, "Instead of admittance of wrongdoing and promise not to do in in the future, we see a deep lack of understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. I don't feel comfortable about letting anyone with such problem to edit Wikipedia."
Details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Felix-felix
Should Felix try to return to altering this entry after his current three-month ban is up, this is worth bearing in mind. (Felix, please stop trying to delete this note; you are currently banned from ediitng this page due to your persistent abuses.) David r from meth productions (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article on Hari is so poor it defies belief.Honestly who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.146.212 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick peek to see how things were getting on - clearly there's been some drama.
But, as we left it last time, there had been promise of compromise. I STILL find it hard to reason why the page, even as it stands, is regarded as so very slanted and POV. Clearly the Archer issue doesn't mass muster on any grounds whatsoever. But more generally, I'm still puzzled as to why other users consider this page as "egomaniacal" and "self-serving". And not simply because both adjectives tacitly insinuate that Hari himself is involved in the supposed puffing...
I've argued before that the article is essentially (that is, more or less) neutral. I'd also like to state my disagreement with SamuelSpade's claim that "most of the information contained in this page is not notable" - to say "most" seems to me very strong. Still, lets use your edit as a template for building a good article, as discussed in late 07. And for the anonymous user: I've argued, in agreement with SamuelSpade, that "Views on the Enlightenment" is a somewhat portentous heading for this paragraph. SamuelSpade's "Notable Secularist" heading seems much better. And, if you look back at earlier discussions, you'll find that Dave R has happily agreed to compromise on this. (Although, in terms of finer detail, I suspect he'll fight his corner strongly, as he has every right to do).
Still, I'm rather tickled that you think that an op-ed journalist's stance on enlightenment values (at a time when said values have a very interesting place in public discourse) is of little more consequence than his taste in yoghurt. You weren't being flippant, were you? Zafio (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Zafio. I don't think many people at all view it as excessively slanted; it seems to me to be one or two wiki users making this complaint, one of whom has been permenantly banned because his hatred was so extreme and is clearly still posting using almost exactly the same words without signing in. This entry follows a standard journalists' format: summarise their views, give prominent criticisms and biographical details, etc. It compares perfectly well to say Melanie Phillips or George Monbiot or Polly Toynbee or Jonathan Freedland or Mark Steyn. SamuelSpade has made some specific criticisms which are valuable; I don't class him with the people who are posting one-line insults for the entry. The poster who says "who cares?" invites an obvious response: you do, since you feel the need to post here, and other people who care include Amnesty International, the Orwell prize jury, the Independent newspaper, Debrett's.... etc.David r from meth productions (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is at least three who view the page as "excessively slanted". SamuelSpade, as David R rightly says, has provided valuable criticisms. However, I do notice he's dismissed Charles Matthews clarification that notability works on a topic-by-topic rather than fact-by-fact basis. But, despite your claim, neutrality and notability are separate issues. Unless there is something in the wiki rules that specifically says different? Without any precise clarification of this sort, I think to treat notability as if its a neutrality issue is to approach things from quite the wrong direction. It, at least, muddies the waters.

Despite this, I'm taking the liberty of editing some of the article based on SamuelSpade's earlier edit, which David R agreed might prove the basis, and nothing more, for revising the article. This doesn't suggest that I think SamuelSpade's edit reflects the essential notable information. Naturally, too, I've not reverted any of the contentious, Private Eye material.Zafio (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zafio - as I've said before it's not how I would have done it, but I'm happy to compromise with wikipedians who have reasonable arguments, and when the consensus is clearly against me. The only bit I've taken out is the bit about an article six years ago talking about seducing neo-Naizis, which was satirical and, of all his articles, far from the most notable. There's a lot of things I'd put back in before we got round to that. Is that a fair compromise? David r from meth productions (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. Thought I'd leave it to you to remove the neo-Nazi thing, although I seem to remember SamuelSpade and yourself horse-traded it a while ago. However, removing it does leave the material on Hari's sexuality a trifle thin - and the phrase "self-described homosexual" is rather quaint! So I've rewritten this a little, using some of the phrasing of the older edit.

Thanks for the compromise. But naturally I'd be happy for you to put in other material you see as appropriate. That's Wikipedia. I hope you like the revised Notable Secularist section, which I think reflects Hari's views well, and I hope is satisfactory for both you and SamuelSpade. I've quite intentionally retained a claim about Hari's belief in enlightenment values, as I think this is notable in context.Zafio (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to link to three responses to an article Hari wrote in the links as three seperate entries. If you can amalgamate it all into a single line (i.e., here's the article, and hjere's lots of responses) then fine, it can stand. - DavidR86.143.158.2 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)