Talk:Johann Hari

---

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

---

/Archive1

To User:David r from meth productions:-

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You have been entirely out of order. Where it says above that personal attacks and unsigned comments will be removed, what did you think that meant? Charles Matthews 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:David r from meth productions, once more:-

Where the policy says Comment on content, not on the contributor, why do you persist in saying that you are entitled to attack the contributor? Where it says above that unsigned contributions are to be removed, why do you think you are some sort of exception? I have added the standard header to this page, and it asks you to sign. There are rules here and until you conform better to them, you are wasting your time. Charles Matthews 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had signed. Doesn't it display my name if I am logged in? I'm not sure what a signed comment means if not that, please explain, i want to get it right.

You need to add ~~~~ to the end of each post, which becomes a timestamped signature.

You have yet again attacked another editor in your posting, so I have removed that. It is quite simple: every time you attack the credentials of another editor, you are breaking a fundamental policy here. You are quite entitled to disagree with edits made to the article; but you are not allowed to attack editors. There is the fallacy of ad hominem, which is clearly understood by most people, that who or what someone is does not detract from the truth or validity of what they say or write. I repeat: you are completely out of order. If you think the article can be improved, discuss that and not personalities. Charles Matthews 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I propose a clean up of this article which reads rather like it's been written by committee, with lots of pointless Hari quotes in the turgid main body of the text which could be cut, and a fair few repetitions. I don't think the 'controversy' section is terribly useful or informative, and is lifted from his website. Lastly a criticism section would be useful-although this would all have to be sourced to comply with the living persons biography guidelines; I think that a distinction should be made between criticisms of Haris journalisic practices/integrity and criticisms of the content of his journalism, the former would be of import as well as interest, the latter could easily be spurious.Felix-felix 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article reads pretty well. The quotes, far from being 'turgid', are essential for explaining. It's a real relief to read a wiki entry that actually quotes the subject and his critics rather than trying to ineptly summarise them. You're right there are a few repetitions, but the 'controversy' section certainly is of interest. Indeed, I notice the Daily Telegraph quoted it in full on Saturday, suggesting it is of interest to their million or so readers.

A criticism section would be welcome. I'm not sure what you mean by the practices/integrity section since as the Sourcewatch entry on Hari shows, the two sets of accusations against him contradict each other. Littlejohn accused him of being on drugs on his show, Private Eye accused him of pretending to have taken drugs when he hasn't. They seem to me like a contradictory jumble of accusations, none of which come from credible sources.

If you are looking for wiki entries that need tidying up I can think of hundreds that need it urgently. However, if you proceed to edit this pretty balanced and reasonable one based on the personal prejudices you have expressed several times here I will look forward to sparring with you on it!

(Oops, forgot to sign David r from meth productions 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Dave)

I've made two more sections. That is usually a step towards upgrading an article, with the basic aim of getting material sorted out into topics, I did spot a split infinitive. The basic structure seems reasonable, to me. Charles Matthews 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There, made a start, mostly non controversial, and I think that reads a little better now. i have saved potentialy more controversial changes until other editors have had a chance to react to these ones.Felix-felix 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you pausing for discussion here, Felix. I think the new section headings are useful but your deleting of the people Hari has been attacked by is, I think, wrong. You may not think it is interesting to show who he has been attacked by, although you provide no argument for this assertion; I do. So did the Daily Telegraph this Saturday, which printed it for their one million readers. I've restored it until you produce arguments (please more sophisticated than your abusive claim that hari is a "little tyke") for removing it rather than assertions.

The argument for keeping it is that it shows Hari has been criticised by both left and right, and has a fairly high profile, and gets under people's skin. All interesting facts, I think. Given there are no psace limitations to a wiki entry, why deprive wiki readers of this information? What's your response? David r from meth productions 15:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm partly intrigued and partly concerned to read the above comments on the criteria for editing a Wikipedia article. David r's comment that it is worth showing 'Hari has been criticised by both left and right, and has a fairly high profile, and gets under people's skin' is valid up to a point. But I feel Felix-felix takes this too far when he refers to 'criticisms of Haris journalisic practices/integrity' as if these should obviously and evidently be a component of any entry on Hari. In a necessarily fairly limited (despite the above comments, it can't be a book) summary of the salient facts about a public figure, one would expect references to their integrity to be made only if there had be a recent or widely debated event which had cast serious doubt over this integrity, as there has been for example in relation to John Prescott. There has been no such event relating to Hari. The only genuine public controversy about him has related to his initially pro Iraq War views (a subject on which he later publicly changed his mind), which were in turn notable only because they appeared in a left of centre broadsheet. What journalist worth their salt has not had something unflattering written about them in Private Eye? Does anyone whose name has appeared in Private Eye in an unflattering light automatically have a question mark over their integrity? To emphasise (or arguably even to mention) such light weight criticisms of Hari's integrity seems to me to imply a worrying bias on the part of Felix-felix. Is it really appropriate for potential bias to have a place in Wikipedia which, as rightly pointed out above, is now viewed as an authoritative source by many? Thelionforreal 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Had a day off work so decided to beef up the article, adding more detail on Hari's positions. Will add some more tomorrow if I get time. I totally agree with Thelionforreal, you might as well quote the National Inquirer's stories about Tom Cruise in the entry about him David r from meth productions 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Rob Blackhurst, 20:28, Monday 23rd October) I've just stumbled across the Johann Hari entry which, as a reader of his work since his first pieces in the New Statesman, seems to me to be balanced and accurate. There's hardly a shortage of critics of his work displayed in the links here. I do however think that references to criticisms of Hari's "journalistic practice/integrity" are appalling. As far as I know, none of these criticisms have appeared outside the pages of Private Eye - not even in a media diary of a mainstream publication. Since Private Eye are curiously immune from libel laws, I hardly think this is evidence of any genuine question marks over Hari's conduct. Robblackhurst 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what Thelionforreal says as regards the Private Eye and Littlejohn criticisms. It seems to me that criticisms of a subject should be included, with appropriate context, if they have been part of a reasonably substantial debate, and not if they constitute mere mud-slinging or muck-raking. Incidentally the Private Eye allegation seems at best unverifiable...? Quinefan 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens! So many interested people with so many red names, do I detect a whiff of sockpuppetry?Felix-felix 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you see what I mean, Charles? Now Felix has been proved wrong in his bizarre idea that everyone else is Johann Hari, he now becomes convinced everyone else is a sockpuppet... Why not check the IP addresses of these various posters? I think you will find they are from computers in totally different places, probably different countries. Can we have a serious discussion of the article, rather than Felix-Felix's endless paranoid accusations? Whenever the consensus is against him he imagines a vast conspiracy. Could it just be, Felix, that most people disagree with you? David r from meth productions 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a sockpuppet and would be happy to provide my full contact details to anybody who wants them. Felix, did you take David r up on his similar suggestion last week, by the way? Charles, you've strongly emphasised that personal attacks on editors are not acceptable on this page. I must confess that I am a little surprised that somebody (like Felix, but please don't delete this - it's meant in the spirit of improving the article on Hari and I can't think of a better way to phrase it) who seems motivated partly by the desire to discredit the views of other interested parties (also note that Felix has not declared what his own interest is) and also, majorly, by the desire to attack Hari's reputation as a journalist and his personal qualities (the 'little tyke' comment deeply shocked me) should continue to be allowed to edit a highly reputatble publication like Wikipedia. Thelionforreal 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should know that we can check IP numbers. However, accusations of sockpuppetry are not very helpful. There should be plenty to say about the article content. I have made it quite clear that this page is not to be used for attacking other editors, and have handed out one 24 hour block already. Think about it. Charles Matthews 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, please could you check the IP numbers and print them here? It will show Felix that he is totally wrong (again!) and we can get on with the serious business of discussing the article without fake allegations being thrown around... David r from meth productions 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be quite improper to disclose checked IP numbers. We don't do that. We have a strict protocol of access to our CheckUser program, and the results are only summarised for internal administrative consumption. We encourage people to log in, so that they get privacy that way, and it would be counter-productive to do otherwise than keep IPs confidential.

That being said, in case of disputes, IP numbers will be checked, and the existence of abusive sockpuppetry is an exacerbating factor taken in account when handing down sanctions. Charles Matthews 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now totally understand you can't publish IP addresses . But to reassure Felix-Felix, could you personally check the IP addresses and then explain to Felix that he is being both abusive and libellous when he calls us all sock-puppets? I think it would make this a more sensible discussion if we could knock down these paranoid accusations and actually discuss the substance of the article, as all of us but one want to. It's interesting Felix has responded to none of the substantive points made, not one, preferring instead to fall back on his usual tactic of false allegations instead. (Ironic, when he is trying to accuse Hari of lacking integrity and honesty). I'd really like to resolve this once and for all, Charles, and you have a simple way to do it and we need never discuss it again David r from meth productions 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I really appreciate your saying, above, that accusations of sockpuppetry are not helpful. Such accusations are also very frustrating (a frustration that is exacerbated by the fact that all of us are devoting considerable time to the issue of the accuracy of Hari's entry) given that the nature of the net is such that none of us know who anybody is (though I must admit I am becoming increasingly curious as to who Felix-felix is and why he seems to desire to edit the entry in order to present a negative impression of a perfectly respectable and many would say middle of the road journalist) and a certain assumption of good faith is, it seems to me, necessary from all parties for an enterprise like Wikipedia to work. Just as it seems wrong to accuse Hari of lacking integrity on the basis of a comment in Private Eye, it seems wrong to accuse people of being sockpuppets just because they all happen to hold different views from you. Thelionforreal 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, if you could also check the IP addresses for AngelaM and the people in the archived discussion accused of being sock-puppets by Felix and confirm that they were in fact totally different people, that would be great too. I note Felix has not tried to verify my identity despite repeated offers. I hope he will apologise for the false accusations against me and everyone else here, or maintain a dignified silence on this page from now on so we can actually discuss the article seriously David r from meth productions 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say on the matter dave is that I will not be constrained by false concensus and IP addresses prove nothing.Felix-felix 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Current Edit

In the spirit of our new perestroika, dave-I am going to voice my criticisms of your magnum opus before I go about the monumental task of turning it into something approaching an encyclopedia article rather than a hysterical love letter.

I find many faults with this edit,not least of which is its preposterous length, made up mainly of pointless quotes in subsections, which without said quotes would boil down to single sentences like 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea'or 'Johann Hari thinks that Global Warming is bad'. These lengthy quotations all need to be chopped out-links are quite sufficient to take the interested reader to Hari's articles. The links are also very badly applied-I counted a total of 62 external sourced links, 47 of which were to the same website, Haris own-thus one link would have sufficed quite well. Not only that I found one dead link (number 11) and at least one that doesn't support the text (number 44). There is also plenty of spurious criticism of journalistic content (and only content!), much of which could be ditched-presumably this was put in to bolster the image of Hari as a controversial writer, it reads very tediously. There are also plenty of unsourced assertions which are far too numerous to point out here, but which I will tag after you've had a chance to read and digest this criticism, dave. I also notice that the spurious 'hari boasts he has been attacked..' sentence made it back in, dave. I removed this as it is 1) uninformative 2)unsourced 3)a direct lift from Hari's website. The fact that the Telegraph used it tells us that the Telegraph employ lazy journalists, and little else. Also the sentence about not winning the 2005 Orwell prize is still inappropriate and thus still needs removal. I think that will do for the minute, dave-as I said, i'll give you time to digest this before I start editing. Oh. and as above I won't be bound by false concensus.Felix-felix 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, don't about cutting out well-sourced things for the sake of it. That is not how we operate. Some things in the article may be superfluous. I'd have thought the Controversy section is now past its best-before date. Not because it was wrong to include it in the first place, but there is enough and much more interesting and specific discussion of contentious matters in other sections. In any case it would be a great help if further discussion could be section-by-section, on the merits of the material. It is quite right that there are unsourced things up there now; but the etiquette would be to point them out, with the {{fact}} tag if necessary, and wait for some adequate response. Unless you feel certain that something is defamatory, or not actually possible to verify, there isn't the urgency. Also, cut out words like preposterous and hysterical, could you? We edit collectively here, and rhetorical flourishes don't improve the atmosphere. Charles Matthews 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Felix, it seems that your definition of a 'false consensus' is one that disagress with you. (And please remember: it's 'consensus'). IP addresses prove nothing? I know from an e-mail communication I received after I put up my e-mail address for you to verify my identity (which you have chosen not to do) that AngelaM is in Germany, as her IP address will show. Do you think I am so determined to set up sock-puppets that I take flights to other countries? Checking the IP addresses will show they are all in very different places, I expect. And therefore different people. And therefore this is a real consensus, because you are being motivated by personal animus and most people think there's no place for it in Wikipedia.

Only somebody with an extreme bias against Hari could think an encylopedia entry in which he is accused of being an anti-Semite, an Islamophobe, "overweight, overintellectual", "alarmist", "startlingly wrong-headed", "like a lazy student" and an apologist for paedophiles is a "love letter."

If you think the quote from Hari about global warming can be boiled down to 'Johann Hari thinks that Global Warming is bad', then I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills are poor and you simply don't understand the quote.

To deal with your arguments: "The links are also very badly applied-I counted a total of 62 external sourced links, 47 of which were to the same website, Haris own-thus one link would have sufficed quite well." You have misunderstood the nature of links. They are there to show a quote is correctly sourced, so they must lead to the precise article. Simply linking once to Hari's website would leave the reader to browse through thousands of articles to find the correct quote and check it.

You then say, "There is also plenty of spurious criticism of journalistic content (and only content!), much of which could be ditched-presumably this was put in to bolster the image of Hari as a controversial writer, it reads very tediously." Two points. First. It was put there because in an enclopaedia entry, it is important to list significant criticisms. You may think it is tedious, I don't, and I suspect others don't either. You keep asserting personal judgements based on personal animus as if they were fact. They are not. Second. You complain people have actually criticised the content of Hari's writing (oh how terrible!) rather than his integrity. As has been explained by others, his integrity has been questioned once, by a scandal magazine that questions every journalist's integrity at some point. (Unless you are referring to another story I have not seen, in which case please show it). It is like saying an actor's integrity has been questioned because he was 'exposed' in the National Inquirer.

I am afraid I can only conclude from the hysterical abuse you have thrown at Hari ("little tyke" etc"), your abusive attitude to other posters here, and your plainly unhinged belief that an article containing such drastic criticisms is a "love letter", that you are determined to vandalise this entry. To that end, quotes that are cut will be restored one by one, because they give important information about Hari's perspectives and those who criticise them. I will appeal for adjudication if you persist on vandalism. David r from meth productions 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You must do as you see fit, dave, I will proceed as set out above.Felix-felix 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to actually respond to my points, Felix? This is meant to be a discussion, not just you making assertions and then, when they are proved wrong, simply saying "You must do as you see fit."

Please answer in turn:

(1) IP addresses showing people in very different geographical locations reveal that they are, in fact, very different people. Therefore there is a +real+ consensus against you, which you are deliberately defying. True or false?

(2) An encylopedia entry calling someone an anti-Semite, an Islamophobe, "overweight, overintellectual", "alarmist", "startlingly wrong-headed", "like a lazy student" and an apologist for paedophiles is not a "love letter". True or false?

(3) Quoting is the best way to give an accurate summary of a person's views, provided there are also quotes from critics. True or false?

(4) Almost every prominent journalist is attacked by Private Eye at some point in their career. Hari was attacked three years ago, and Private Eye has never mentioned him since to my knowledge. No mainstream publication has ever repeated these allegations. Yet these are the sole basis for your attempts to question his integrity. True or false?

(5) By calling Johan Hari "a little tyke", you have revealed that you in fact motivated by personal animus towards Hari for whatever reason. True or false?

(6) Read the following paragraph - "Hari argues that nuclear disarmament must not been seen as an issue from the past. Indeed, he argues the world is now embraked on a Second Nuclear age that may be more dangerous than the first (the Cold War): "We are entering a world of rapidly multiplying nuclear stand-offs... India vs Pakistan. Iran vs Israel. America vs.China. Within decades, North Korea vs Japan and South Korea. Not one Cold War, but many - and the risk is doubled each time...It is wildly naïve to think that all these stand-offs between highly volatile countries can continue until - when? forever? - without, sooner or later, a bomb being used. Even the minimal protections of the Cold War - like hotlines between leaders - are not yet in place in most of these countries. How many reruns of the Cuban Missile Crisis should we risk over the next century?" "

It would be a ridiculous over-simplification of this view, and deprive wiki readers of the actual argument, to simply write, as you propose, 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea'. True or false?

If you believe the answer to any of these questions is 'false', please explain why. There is no place for unargued, undefended personal hatreds on wikipedia. David r from meth productions 12:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Arranging sections

I have done some work in subclassifying the sections. People may of course disagree with the precise placing. Charles Matthews 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think these subject arrangements look excellent, Charles, makes the piece look much clearer than I inexpertly did - D David r from meth productions 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)