Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Picture

I see there's been a bit of disagrement on which picture of Hari to use. For the record, I think that the pic that user:Stevehorowitz used is better, for the same reasons that I liked it when I argued for it going in against dave rose/Hari. Of course, we could have both pictures. What do we all think?FelixFelix ^talk 09:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind sticking 2 pictures in but the current image is far better technically (no blown highlight etc), and shows his features better. You can barely tell that the other one actually is Hari. The argument that was had previously was different because rose/hari was arguing to use a non-free image instead of the free one.

I am also a little bit wary that it could come across as trying to spite Hari. He clearly didn't like the photo, but now he's been found out doesn't mean we should necessarily ignore his feelings. If this was anyone else with alternative free images we would normally pay some heed to the subject of the article's wishes. Polequant (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Polequant regarding the terrible quality of the photo that User:Stevehorowitz was trying to substitute with. Extreme blown highlights all over the place, poorer resolution, profile view which is not very representative of Hari or typical of other bio images. I don't see any reason to have such a poor image in this article at all, even if it is a second image. The fact that Hari himself doesn't like it is irrelevant. It's just an awful image, and would be so for anyone, because of the poor quality and composition. Here are the two photos for comparison:

Current photo

Replacement?

First Light (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that bad, I think that calling it awful is a bit much-it is him, and it shows him working, which is quite nice-there are plenty of worse pics on WP. and have been much worse ones of Hari on this page (the unrecognisable one of him on a Greenpeace platform springs to mind).FelixFelix ^talk 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but "it's not that bad" is certainly not a reason to choose a photo. Rather the reverse, if a better one exists. --Merlinme (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Felix, that photo is awful. As a photographer with several (plant) photos on Wikipedia articles, I would be embarrassed to upload such a poor quality image, especially when there are better ones available. If there is going to be a second photo, let's put back the publicity shot that used to be in the infobox, as a second photo in the article. First Light (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that given that it was the unscrupulous Hari himself who lied about and removed the photograph, it is all the more important we assert the independence of Wikipedia and use it to defy his attempts to silence it. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the latest objectors were not a new sockpuppet. Stevehorowitz (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And there we seem to have the motivation for the picture change. Thanks for proving my point. And if you suspect sockpuppets please go to WP:SPI. Polequant (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, you're asserting we might be sock puppets because we don't like a bad photo? At least in my case, a two and a half second look at my contribution history would surely put paid to that idea. As far as "asserting the independence of Wikipedia", I really don't see how including a not very good photo to make a point does that. --Merlinme (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, a look at my edits would also show that I'm clearly not a supporter of Hari. I am a supporter of Wikipedia, and a ridiculously poor quality image makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Other neutral and longtime editors here agree. First Light (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the photo on the left looks like Johann Hari, doing a job. The one on the right looks like Russell T Davies stealing yet more ideas for his Doctor Who reboot. There's no question that the left photo is better. doktorb _words^deeds 16:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded.FelixFelix ^talk 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious intro

I see pro-Hari revisionism is creeping back into this entry. I have therefore revised the intro to better reflect the actual state of affairs. I leave it to other more proficient wiki editors to redress the balance of the rest of the article: why is so much top space given to discussions of Hari's school, birthplace and the topics he writes about, pushing the most important and notable features of his career - plagiarism and deception - well down to the bottom of the page? Compare the Jayson Blair page, another disgraced journalist.

The article currently states:

In 2011, Hari was accused of plagiarism;

The use of accused in this context is clearly an innuendo to suggest "pending". When in fact he is a plagiarist and that has been confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.205.178 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you carry on reading you will see that there is no innuendo. It describes a sequence of events - First he was accused, then he was suspended from the Independent (whilst they did their investigation) etc, and then he apologised. I don't see how anyone could have any doubt about whether had plagiarised after reading the introduction. If you think it could be better worded please feel free to suggest something. Polequant (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so that the lede cuts to the chase ("admitted to plagiarism"), rather than describing the sequence of events, since the sequential detail is provided in the body of the article, where it should be. First Light (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not too sure about that. The start of the following sentence is then a repetition of the same thing. To my mind it also confuses how it all happened. Will have a think about how it can be better phrased. Polequant (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP was pointing out, rightfully so, that the prominence in the lede of "accused" made it sound like it was just an accusation. The lede does need to cut to the chase, since Hari is notable because he did plagiarize, not because he was accused of plagiarizing. Yes, the next sentence perhaps doesn't need to say that he also apologized for plagiarism. First Light (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't read like that to me at all. I don't agree with the lead 'cutting to the chase' - you only had to read the next sentence! A lead should be brief, but your changes didn't make it any briefer, but rather confuses the sequence of things. Now it sounds like he owned up to plagiarism, but actually part of the story is that he didn't own up to it at first. Polequant (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then it should say that he didn't own up to it at first - better to be too clear than too brief. And the most notable feature of it all is that he practiced and admitted plagiarism, just as an accused criminal who was eventually convicted would start out by saying the person was convicted of x crime, not that they were accused of x crime. I'm open to ideas, of course, but I understand the IP's confusion. I've given it another try, because the IP has a valid point, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:David Rose (disambiguation)

There's a discussion concerning Johann Hari over at Talk:David Rose (disambiguation), which people watching this page might be able to help with -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Labelling

See WP:BLPCAT:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

At this point, I have not found a source for Hari specifically self-identifying as "LGBT" which means that "outside lists" so labelling him are not sufficient per Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is one of many, in this case from the opening of a piece by Hari for The Huffington Post now cited in the article:

This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism.

Philip Cross (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see one now being furnished - I trust you see why such a source is required. Collect (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Introductory section

The intro to this article is ridiculous. The first line lauds Hari's "successful, award winning career" when his career is now in the toilet, and he's been obliged to hand many of his awards back. I have removed this claim, however I leave it to more experienced Wikipedians to fix the rest of this article, which seems to go to extraordinary lengths to hide the known details of Hari's dishonesty below a lot of fluff about which school he went to. Only when you read to the end of the page, well below the fold, does the scale of Hari's dishonesty become apparent. Contrast the Jayson Blair entry (another fabricating journalist.) Hari's offences also include the protracted gaming of Wikipedia using sockpuppets on his own page and elsewhere. Surely Wikipedia now has a responsibility to redress the partiality of this entire entry. 1.4.148.11 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We have an obligation to obey both. Hari might be Satan incarnate, but we are bound by the very foundations of Wikipedia to follow the policies named. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added the "successful, award-winning career" ref as, prior to the scandal breaking, Hari was probably the most decorated and successful young journalist in Britain. A sort of "wunderkind" in the trade. Which made his fall all the more sensational. These are the key ideas of his career which need to be reflected in the lead. Jprw (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the fluff in the first sentence - there are far more notable and real award-winning authors who aren't defined that way in the first sentence of their bio articles. See Thomas Friedman (three Pulitzers) and Fareed Zakaria (Padma Bhushan) for a couple of examples of journalist who have won truly notable awards. If anything, the first sentence should be the main way that they are perceived. Right now it's simply as a British journalist, similar to the two examples I mentioned. If you google news articles from the last year, you see "disgraced" more commonly used than "award-winning." I'm not going to edit-war over it, but a compromise might be that he "had a successful, award-winning career before admitting to plagiarism, etc." Or to add the positive stuff in the context of the following sentences. That's all I'll say, as this isn't as important to me as it seems to be to others. First Light (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First Light's suggestion of "Successful ?award winning? career before admitting to plagiarism", with or without the words "award winning", looks a reasonable approach to me. Some editors have suggested that the lead should concentrate more on what he is notable for, i.e. plagiarism. However that seems harsh; he was notable well before the plagiarism accusations, and I certainly don't think the lead should focus on those accusations to the exclusion of everything else. --Merlinme (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have reworded so that the first sentence in the lead includes both the awards and the downfall. Straw Cat (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the fluff from the lede again-it's completely redundant, and somewhat subjective. His career before his fall is adequately detailed in the text; this article has chronically and fairly shamefully gathered fluff throughout its career, lets keep it crisp, concise and factual.FelixFelix ^talk 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But is it redundant? Hari is primarily known for two things: 1) being the rising star (wunderkind / enfant terrible, take your pick) of UK journalism, various awards being showered on him by various organisations, etc. and 2) having his career cut short by scandal. The trouble with the revised wording is that 1) above is not reflected. Jprw (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Added your "rising star" bit followed by his subsequent downfall (not to sound too dramatic). I also switched from the "akward voice" to the passive voice - there is no reason for him to "be suspended from" and "surrender his award" in the same clause when he can suffer both actions and "be stripped of" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.199.3 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the earlier version. First of all, "praise and recognition at an early age" makes him sound like some 5-year old journalism savant. And "earned" is rather self-serving and not exactly neutral. He is most notable for the plagiarism and attacks - that should be mentioned first, front and center, rather than "He earned praise and recognition at an early age." First Light (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I streamlined it to "Following early success..." and put the suspensions first after that, since they more clearly address that early success and the mention in the first sentence of being a columnist at The Independent. First Light (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to give heed to the calls for having both his ascent and descent in the lede. I think "early success" is just as self-serving as "earned"; perhaps "received recognition" would be more neutral as it does not imply he deserved or conquered it. But I can live with your changes, I think it is better now, so I will leave it up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.199.3 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is, and let others give their opinion on this, since this well-watched page has traditionally worked with the consensus of more than one or two editors. First Light (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive length of Journalistic Controversy section

The size of the "Journalistic Controversy" section seems out of proportion to the rest of the article. For a figure whose career can be summarised in two short paragraphs, having a section on the scandal that destroyed his career that is around ten times that in length seems excessive and slightly odd. The return of the Orwell prize could be adequately summarised in two sentences, without the need for an entire section. Likewise there is no need for five paragraphs on the apology and criticism of it - it would suffice to say he apologised, a brief outline of it and the fact that the individuals concerned claim to not have received a personal apology. There is no need for the minutiae of who said what and when, and it looks like fluff.

I suggest a section on the plagiarism, a section on the sockpuppetry and a section on the fallout from these. We could lose over half of what is there currently and not lose any important information - only be left with a clearer article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.188.201 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

In this edit someone with the IP 109.144.254.183 added as extended passage last week about Hari's carrer. I allowed most of it to stand. You are quite right that the article is now unbalanced in its emphasis. I did not allow the following to stand, and the notice : "in 2010 he was named as one of the twenty most powerful gay men in the world.[user cited: DavidMixner.com - Live From Hell's Kitchen ] by the Dutch magazine Winq." Obviously, this a blog like this is not a reliable source. I checked the earlier IP at the time, and found that it appeared to be from an internet cafe in London. The more recent IP looks as though it is from the same block. Philip Cross (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the same person who made the edit last week but I am not posting from an internet cafe in London - I am in a house in Bristol. The addition I made in the previous week was an attempt to rebalance the article by increasing the section on Hari's career - it was a short section that had been previously removed but was still relevant. However, I feel that since his career is fairly short and relatively insignificant, that the two short paragraphs are an appropriate length for a summary of his career, so the article is better rebalanced by shortening the criticism section to something more succinct - hence this addition to the discussion section. 109.144.188.201 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and attempt to make the Journalistic controversy section shorter, while not losing an important information. Hopefully this will make the article more balanced, relative to the size of the section on his career. Atshal (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've cut it down quite a bit, making it more readable and to the point. The important information is still there, but the article is in proportion to the length of Hari's career section.Atshal (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, let's get consensus before deleting massive amounts of cited content. The controversy is what gives most notability, other than that he's not really that notable a journalist. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The only other editor (PhillCross) agreed it was unbalanced and nobody else has replied in over a week. The controversy section is ten times the career section, which is fairly absurd in itself, as well as the section having a huge amount of fluff in it and being fairly unreadable.Atshal (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought on the whole the cuts were an improvement. I thought the Orwell Prize section was too short though, as that was a major part of the controversy. I'll make an edit now. I would suggest to Atshal though that according to WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss, having made a bold edit which was immediately reverted they should now be discussing here, not reverting to their version. --Merlinme (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken a look at that article now. I waited about a week before making the change because there was no discussion here. Looks like there might be now though, so lets wait and see what people think.Atshal (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my point of view, I thought the cuts were largely good, as I don't see the need to discuss in-depth the investigations of every single accusation of plagiarism made against him. However I thought the cuts to the Orwell Prize section went too far, as that was a major part of the controversy (that he had received a major journalism prize based in part on an article which turned out to be largely plagiarised from a Der Spiegel article, his main original "contributions" being to make the story more sensationalist and less accurate). --Merlinme (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to build on what I did before if you like and improve the Orwell prize discussion. Will be interested to see what come up with.Atshal (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"The only other editor (PhillCross) agreed it was unbalanced". I did not advocate cuts. In fact I think there should be more about Hari's earlier career, but without suggesting (to use Nick Cohen's reference to the sock-puppetry of 'David r') that "the effect of Wikipedia is to make [Hari] seem one of the essential writers of our times." [1] Philip Cross (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the article does need trimming, not to bring it into any form of balance, the plagiarism et. all is what he is most famous for, the other career stuff isn't really notable when you remove the prizes he had to give back. The plagiarism section does tail off into a bit trivia ish / listy style certainly the last 3 sentences could be removed GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the section that discusses the plagiarism is fairly unreadable and filled with fairly irrelevant opinions of various parties. If people want to leave it like that then fine, but I doubt anyone will want to trawl through and read it ever. Also, I do not agree that Hari is only famous for plagiarism - the very fact that his indiscretions were a big story was because he was a regular columnist in a major UK broadsheet for the best part of a decade, along with a bunch of other publications, and he was extremely well known for this. I think there used to be a bunch more about him and his career, but it has been deleted over the years.Atshal (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, he was a reporter for a the smallest mainstream national newspaper in the UK, aside from the controversy he'd deserve nothing more than a footnote. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, if he was not a reasonably prominent figure then the plagiarism/wiki scandals would have not had such an impact. He was a "darling of the left" and regularly published in a whole range of high profile publications - New Statesman, Guardian, Le Monde, New York Times - over the span of 10 years, was a common "talking head" on TV and interviewed a whole bunch of prominent people (e.g. Tony Blair, the Dalai Lama). Either he was a significant media figure, or the scandal was not significant - I don't believe it can be both ways.

What the case is, I am not really passionate enough about it to pursue it. I feel the article is fairly unreadable now and feel my shortened version is far better in that respect, but if people would prefer to leave it as is then there is nothing I can really do about it.Atshal (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not say "With all due respect". Also, creating another sockpuppet might help if you think your viewpoint doesn't have enough adherents. Just an idea. Of couse, it's against policy-schmolicy. --78.35.245.142 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand why you are posting here, if you have nothing constructive to say about the article. Or indeed, anything to say about the article at all... Atshal (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas you probably have too much to say about the article. I've asked you a simple question. Answer it. --78.35.245.142 (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Atshal has deleted said question without answering: [2]. --Merlinme (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous user accusing me of being a sockpuppet without any justification or evidence, other than the fact I have taken an interest in this particular article, is not really worthy of a response. Especially since the anonymous user seems to have a decent idea of the workings of Wikipedia editing (given his link to Do not say "With all due respect"), so is likely to have an account of his own that he is choosing not to post under. Ironic. Atshal (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

So are you Johann Hari or not? Further sidestepping the question defaults to "yes". I will not publicly disclose the reasons for my suspicion, for obvious reasons. Wouldn't want to educate sockpuppeteers on how to better avoid detection. --89.0.205.78 (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A 'yes' or 'no' answer is pointless, since the answer will obviously always be 'no' regardless of who I am. You do not have some kind of "secret" reason for being suspicious, other than the fact that I took an interest in this article and I feel the scandal section is too long in relation to the rest of the article. That is not a valid reason. If you actually suspect that I am a sockpuppet then I suggest you get in touch with an admin. They will look at the IP address I am making these posts from and find it is from an academic institution in the UK. Indeed, it will actually be possible to identify the department I am making these posts from in that institution. Unless Johann Hari has gone back to University to retrain as an applied mathematician and nobody knows about it, this means I am unlikely to be Johann Hari. Atshal (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A "no" would be particularly interesting in case it's disproven. I happen to have other, less obvious reasons for my suspicion. Anyway, I've asked the question and you have answered as openly as you would. --89.0.205.78 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I know that you have no other reasons, since I am not Johann Hari, and have never met him or communicated with him in any way. I guess you are just trying to cause trouble. I also suggest you sign in to your real account before making this kind of post. Atshal (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that you have no other reasons -- Nonsense. I said I have reasons for my suspicion other than the obvious ones you mentioned. That is the truth. I never said, as you are wrongly implying, that I have definitive proof. Otherwise I'd hardly be bringing this up on this talk page.

Also, you can hardly be surprised that someone would ask you that question. You are a very new user showing a strong interest in this article. This is one of only four articles you have edited, and one of only two which you have edited more than once. (This is not the main reason for my suspicion btw.) So please don't act all surprised. --89.0.205.78 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to choose to stop engaging with you after this post. I have already stated that I am making these posts from an academic institution, which Johann Hari would have no access to. Any Wikipedia admin can check this and can also see I am posting from a computer based in a mathematical sciences department. The other article I have shown an interest in is Gaia Hypothesis - perhaps I am James Lovelock in disguise? I believe my conduct during my short time here has been good, and any errors I have made have been due to unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia way of doing things - I have followed any helpful advice given to me by other editors. I find it mildly ironic that you are posting anonymously when it is likely you gave a real account, while at the same time accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Atshal (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to add to that; if you keep harassing Atshal, 89.0.205.78, you may find yourself restricted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My feeling would be that, while the article isn't perfect, the balance is actually pretty good. He was a reasonably prominent journalist for his age with a promising career ahead, but beyond the media bubble he wasn't really known. He certainly didn't have the prominence of a John Simpson or Charles Wheeler, say. Had his career ended for other reasons - accidental death, perhaps - I doubt his article would have been more than a few lines long, if he had an article at all.

The 'journalistic controversies', however, attracted attention beyond his normal audience and is quite possibly the primary reason a lot of people (maybe the majority?) know his name, if they do at all. The controversies themselves were quite interesting in their own right. His use of WP and other sites to both promote himself and attack others is an issue which is becoming increasingly prominent and discussion-worthy (several well-known authors have recently been caught doing similar, for instance), and the very unusual nature of his 'plagiarism' created a lot of debate, and will perhaps set a precedent. I don't think anyone had ever been accused of plagiarism in quote those circumstances. In both cases, it is either the first or one of the first prominent cases of its kind. And in both cases, the issues of exactly what happened were very complicated and need careful explanation if they're to be explained at all. Along with the fact that the controversies are probably the prime reason he's known suggests to me the balance is about right.

Also, the recent major edit reduced the article to little more than is contained in the lead. One must assume that if someone's read beyond the lead they have an interest in the detail of the subject, not just a brief overview. While that shouldn't be taken as licence to write endless pages of minutiae, if the article doesn't contain enough information to add anything more than cursory knowledge, we may as well not have the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, he is still little known outside the media bubble even after the scandal, he is simply better known within the Wiki bubble because this was a story involving Wikipedia - hence why that section of the article is so long. I might have a go at beefing up the career section at some point, and editing the controversy section to get rid of some of the fluff but leave more than I did last time. Atshal (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a less drastic cut than your previous attempt is probably the way forward. I was considering having a go myself, but I don't currently have a vast amount of time for Wikipedia. --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be worth discussing your changes, or your rationale for what is fluff, first. If you flick through the archives you'll see it's been discussed at great length by a lot of people and I suspect anything too blunt will be reverted. BearAllen (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Political views section

Just tidied up a bit; I took out the 'classical liberal positions' bit, as it seems that enough people were upset by it. I wrote it originally to mean liberal in a popular english language way, rather than a political history way, and it doesn't need to stay, so I've chopped it out. Also I've chopped out the gay rights bit with the accompanying citation, as the way I've restructured the para put the gay rights citation next to the gay man citation, making it seem redundant to my jaundiced eye. If anyone objects then the axed citation could go in as another cite in the gay man part (as if it needed another one...)FelixFelix ^talk 08:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Could Team Hari please stop revising this story in an attempt to hide Hari's professional misconduct and disgrace below boilerplate fluff about his "personal views", as if anyone cares any more. Hari is no longer a journalist - he is a former journalist who has published nothing since he was sacked by the Indie two years ago. Yrs, David Rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.52.181 (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the above comment to this section, as it was floating around at the top of the page. As for the comment itself, Hari had a ten year career and was a commentator of note, with a regular column in a national newspaper, a published book and regular TV appearances - the very reasons that the later controversy was of note. A short section on his career and views is entirely appropriate. As for not being a journalist any more, he has published at least two journalistic articles in the second half of 2012 and, apparently, is writing a book on the war on drugs in America. Clearly a journalist still. Atshal (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates?

Any news on whether Hari is returning to work at the Indie? I thought he was supposed to be coming back in January, and it's now March. A journalist friend suggested he's just been quietly shoved off to pasture. I was just wondering if there was anything citable shedding light? BearAllen (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, scrap that, failed to notice someone has updated. My error. BearAllen (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One of Hari's victims has referred to paedophile pornography written by 'David Rose'. Any indications of sources of this material? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100096260/i-fell-out-with-johann-hari-–-then-david-rose-started-tampering-viciously-with-my-wikipedia-entry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPWSmith (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a question or are you suggesting it goes in the article? If it's a question, I'm not aware of anything other than that blog post. I'd have thought a web search would be your best bet. If you're suggesting it goes in the article... are you kidding me? Claiming Hari has written paedophile pornography, using a pseudonym, in a WP:BLP? The main source being a 2011 blog post?? --Merlinme (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

An article in The Daily Telegraph as cited does seem a reasonable source. As with Jimmy Saville, once someone goes public with these allegations in a respectable news source, we should be wary of covering them up. MichaelPWSmith — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelPWSmith (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The actual source of this story is a bit tricky. David Allen Green, as part of his investigation into the David Rose thing, got a computer expert he knows to see if the email address David R gave out on Wiki was used anywhere else on the internet, and what that might reveal. Using means that are clearly beyond the average user, he discovered that the email address was used as a log-in to publish the above mentioned paedophile-incest story on some website. That's something of a BLP minefield.

Hari only opaquely admitted to being David Rose, never specifically or overtly. David Allen Green is a lawyer and likely to be rather careful about libelling people on his blog, so the details are likely to be entirely true but the source is still opaque and hard (impossible?) to verify. This is probably why the papers gave this aspect of the story a wide berth. Likely true but very murky and probably best left alone. BearAllen (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

1. According to this article in The Independent, Hari has admitted to being David Rose, the Wikipedia one anyway: [3]
2. However David Allen Green himself has now removed the detail of the porn connection from his blog: [4] noting: "There is a distinction between criminal acts and their fictional representation. A murder novel is not an endorsement of murder in real life. It is entirely right that sexual acts with minors are criminalized and harshly punished. But that does not mean, say, the novel Lolita should also be criminalized." In the same post Green specifically disowns the purpose which Odone used it for in her blog, i.e. to attack Hari. He also notes in the original article: [5] that "some porn connection to the email address {...} does not prove that he wrote it or was in any way aware of it in any detail."
3. So what have we got? A connection between an email address associated with Hari and some porn which many people would find distasteful but which was not illegal. There is absolutely no definitive proof that Hari wrote it, as Green himself acknowledges, and as a good liberal who believes in free speech Green personally does not think the writing of non-illegal porn is particularly noteworthy. In the end, in the absence of any definitive proof that Hari actually wrote it, this is essentially gossip.
4. I take your point about Savile, but as Green himself notes there is a very big difference between writing about something and doing it. In the case of Savile there were apparently lots of rumours and accusations that he was engaged in inappropriate behaviour with young girls. In the case of Hari we have an unproven connection with the act of writing some dubious but legal porn.
5. Even if this were the article for Savile, Wikipedia is never going to be the place to break stories. We don't have the resources for investigative journalism, we don't have the libel lawyers, and we certainly don't have the editorial staff necessary to decide whether something can be printed. The decision will therefore always err on the side of not printing anything potentially libellous, even more than in traditional media. --Merlinme (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a few sources for the story here, including one that was used in the Leveson Inquiry. Some of you might want to discuss it. I think that most of the problems discussed above can be resolved by careful wording. It would be inappropriate to write, "Johann Hari wrote online erotica under a pseudonym," but it would not be inappropriate to write, "There have been reports that Hari wrote erotica online under the same pseudonym that he used on Wikipedia." On a broader point, some people on Wikipedia seem confused on when blogs are an acceptable source. They are acceptable if written by a professional and subject to editorial control. Many newspapers have re-branded online columns as "blogs" in the last few years; that doesn't make them suddenly unacceptable because the word "blog" is being used. See here and here in policy. If you read carefully, you'll notice that blogs are not always unacceptable. Epa101 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy you cited is quite clear. To quote it here "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)". Note the word "Never". To quote the other Wikiepedia source you cited: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Again, note the word "Never".

If you still want to argue that because this blog is connected to the The Daily Telegraph it is therefore valid, if you actually read the article you will see that the author at no point mentions the claims you are making. Instead, he is very carefully to use only quotes from a different, entirely self-published, blog by David Allen Green to make this implication. Clearly this is not a valid source and cannot be included. As if this was not enough, David Allen Green has withdrawn the original blog post (as noted earlier in this very discussion) Atshal (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a few points on this. I feel that your post above is close to violating WP: etiquette. I'd like to discuss this calmly and politely please.

1. The Damian Thompson article is not self-published, so the parts of policy that you've quoted do not apply.
2. If you read on in the article of policy, you'll notice that this sort of blog (i.e. hosted by professional newspapers) are acceptable.
3. I posted more than just the Damian Thompson article. The story seems to have originated with Jack of Kent, but it was mentioned by other journalists.
4. Thompson does mention the online erotica to say that he's removed the link. If he disagreed with this part of the passage, one would expect him to state so here. His quoting of the passage can be interpreted as approval.
5. Jack of Kent did not withdraw the claim. He edited the article because some people had interpreted it as a condemnation of [certain sorts of] erotica, and he disliked how it was being used (including by Odone). See for example: "I was wrongly expecting people to treat in the civilized and liberal way I and the commenters on my blog treated it: as a bizarre piece of information which was part of an interesting story; but certainly nothing to moralise or really think-twice about." Epa101 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree that I am violating etiquette policy, but if you feel I have been rude then sorry - that was not my intention. I think the wiki policy is quite clear in this circumstance - all of the source material is ultimately based upon self published blogs, some (or all?) of which have been withdrawn. If you wish to update this article with the notable work that Johann Hari has published over the years then there are plenty of rock solid reputable sources you can find this in - I encourage you to take a look! Atshal (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To chip in, most (all?) of this is completely irrelevant. Using the pederast porn story in this article relies on connecting it to Hari. Rather than it being written under the David Rose pseudonym, as mentioned somewhere above, my understanding is that it was anonymous, but using some super-clever forensic IT technique, a colleague of David Allen Green's established that the David R from Meth Productions email had been used to log in to the site to post the porn story. The only source for this is DAG's personal blog. JH has denied authorship. Unless you can find an independent cast-iron link between JH and the porn, everything else is fruit from the poisoned tree.

BLP gives pretty strict instructions on handling contentious material. Everyone hasn't different views on what constitutes 'contentious', but I suspect paedo-incest porn ranks pretty high on most people's list and the threshold for using it would be about 99.9% certainty. BearAllen (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely with BearAllen here. The original source is David Allen Green; even if his blog is acceptable as a reliable source, which is debatable, and even if you accept the technique used to make the connection (which is beyond most people's ability to verify), Green himself is very careful to say that just because a particular address associated with Hari was used to publish porn does not prove that Hari wrote it. There's plenty of "reasonable" doubt, if you will, that someone associated with Hari might have been able to do the submission instead of Hari, or that his account might have been hijacked, or whatever. So it's a story is based on a debatable source, using a debatable technique which is difficult to verify, and which didn't even prove Hari wrote it anyway. Any one of those would probably be enough to exclude it from a BLP. The only way I can see it going in is if Hari said "Yes I wrote it", and even then it might be questioned as to how relevant it is to his Wikipedia biography, which is almost entirely about his journalistic career, not any porn he might have written in his spare time. --Merlinme (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's time for me to give up. I accept that the consensus is against change. Epa101 (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought you gave up after you took it to the RSN and got told the sources were unacceptable. I'm glad you're finally ending this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It took me a few days to respond because I had distractions in real life, sorry. Epa101 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I saw the dates and misunderstood. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Balance

This article remains plagued by pro-Hari bias and weasel words. Despite the efforts of some WP editors to highlight what is most notable about his career -- his plagiarism, quote fabrication and wikipedia sockpuppeting -- the reverted article as it stands is shamefully biased. For a start he is no longer a journalist, but a former journalist: he has published nothing (in a newspaper or elsewhere) since he was sacked by the Independent in 2011. Also Hari's cheerleaders here on Wikipedia now seem determined to paint him now as a "writer" in anticipation of a supposed forthcoming book that no-one has yet seen or agreed to publish. The journalistic controversy is once again buried beneath pages of fluff about his early life and purported political views. It is not "balanced" to bury the main point because you happen to agree with Hari's political or sexual orientations, it is shamefully dishonest and WP has a responsibility to present the facts, not a whitewashed version of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.68.187 (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved your comment to be contained within the 'update' section, not above it. You are incorrect that Hari has not published elsewhere since 2011 - I have read articles by him in GHQ and Le Monde Diplomatique in 2012, and there may be others. As for the balance comment, the vast majority of this article is about the plagiarism/sockpuppet scandal, going into it in great depth and detail. If there is anything wrong with the article it is that there should be more about his career, which was high profile and 10 years long, which is the very reason that the later scandal was significant. If he did not have a significant career, then the scandal is hardly worth mentioning (in fact, he would not even have a wiki page at all)... Atshal (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Disgraced journalist" in lead

I've just deleted "disgraced journalist", added by User:SwinginDigs. I'm not convinced observer.com is a reliable source (who's the editor? what's the correction policy?), although huffingtonpost.co.uk seems fair enough. My main issue though is that "disgraced" is a very emotive word to be using in the opening sentence of a WP:BLP. Unless a living person is universally known by such a negative word I would have thought we should err on the side of caution in a BLP. The second sentence of the lead clearly states what he has done; I would have thought we could let the facts speak for themselves, without using such emotive language. What are other people's views? --Merlinme (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Entirely agree. 'Disgraced' is very subjective too. Atshal (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Clear cut non-standard practice in using "disgraced" in the opening sentence. The Manual of Style on the opening summary of articles the BLP section states: "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves. Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable..."

Observer.com is The New York Observer, clearly a reputable non-tabloid source. Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion?

Concerning this edit, does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion? I Think it does. Does it tell the reader something that ""Religion: None" does not? I think it doesn't.

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• The religion is "none". The explanation is "atheism". Some may treat atheism as a religion on a personal level, but I haven't seen us do so here on a professional level, particularly since "atheism" is a very broad category that encompasses many different viewpoints with only one common aspect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I do not think atheism is a religion, but I don't think the article implies that it is. I struggle to see how the word "None" could be misunderstand. However "None (atheist) gives information that "None" does not; the obvious alternative would be agnostic, there may well be other varieties of non-belief that Hari (or anyone else) could have. Atheism is a particular type of no religion, and I think it gives useful information here. --Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agnostic ≠ atheist. Atheism is the certainty that deities do not exist. Agnosticism is either the uncertainly of the existence of one or more deities, or sometimes, stated apathy about the subject matter as a whole. Very different philosophies: One is a fixed belief, the other is not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case I wasn't clear, I think agnosticism and atheism are separate types of non-religion, which is exactly why I think "None (atheist)" provides useful information about Hari's type of non-religion. Speaking as an atheist, I get mildly annoyed when people insist that I must be an agnostic! --Merlinme (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• The question is not whether the article should make such fine distinctions, but rather whether the infobox should. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." This isn't the first article where good-faith editors who have been working on it want to cram as much information as possible into the infobox, and it won't be the last, but whenever someone cares enough about it to post an RfC, the decision is usually that the article should clearly explain such distinctions and that the infobox should either have the one-word less-specific version or perhaps not have the infobox at all. So I ask the following question, again lifted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?" --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One additional explanatory word looks fine to me as "summary information". Hari has clearly identified himself as atheist, and it informs his work. So in other words, it is a key fact which appears in the article. --Merlinme (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Weighting of article

I believe this article is extremely poor at the moment, and contains little informative information about Hari's career, and an overwhelming amount of information regarding the journalistic controversy. Wikipedia BLP is quite clear concerning material on controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons): "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved"

At the moment the article has grossly imbalanced weighting towards controversy - the section on criticism of Hari's apology alone is the same length as the section on Hari's entire career. Based on word count alone in the main body of the article, 82% of the article concerns controversy and 18% on everything else to do with Hari. Hari has had a career in journalism and in the public eye for well over a decade, and more needs to be included on this, and less on the controversy.

The reason I am making this posting before making any edits is that this has been a controversial page in the past, and one that many editors seem to feel quite strongly about. I think opening a dialogue here is an important step towards improving the article, and deciding a proper weighting for the controversy section. I would appreciate input from other interested editors, particularly on how to improve the article in general, and specifically on the key features of the controversy to include, and events in Hari's career to include. Atshal (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hari was editing this page himself to increase the entry content about his journalism. Many (actual) editors thought this was already too much for an otherwise undistinguished op-ed column writer. Post 'controversy' Hari is mainly notable for his journalistic (and WP) malpractice. This, in my opinion, is what should be the main focus of this page.FelixFelix ^talk 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The current weighting clearly violates BLP policy. The page reads like an article on that particular controversy rather than an article on Johann Hari. Either the content needs to be moved to a separate page on the incident, or needs to be deleted. The fact that Johann Hari previously edited this page is irrelevant. Atshal (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous editors would disagree with you, and BLP has been hotly discussed on this article over 7 (now archived) talk pages. Hari is now chiefly notable for his journalistic malpractice, and secondarily for his WP shenanigans. These need to retain a central place in the article about him. FelixFelix ^talk 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass artidles. Are they improperly weighted? Perhaps the subhead "Controversy" is a problem, suggesting that his "retirement" and the reasons for it were controversial and disputed. That was not how I recall the consensus about it. The other articles use terms like "affair" and "aftermath" - perhaps less POV. But this was one of the great journalism scandals in recent history and the article properly reflects that. Straw Cat (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Apology

Not sure why this section got deeted without discussion; Hari's apology was, and remains weasley, and it was criticised prominently. This remains worthy of inclusion in this article.FelixFelix ^talk

I "deeted" it as being UNDUE. We cover Hari's sins at length and in detail, and to give a section on "we still hate the guy" is not only Ossa on Pelion, it is contrary to WP:BLP as it is not neutral in nature nor tone, is aimed at causing harm to the subject of the biography, and invites "criticism of criticism of ..." sections in biographies where "criticism sections" are considered ill-formed. I know you find the person "weasley" but that is not why we write articles - our task is to abide by policies and guidelines and making sure every readers knows a person is "weasley" is not what we do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect! The section does certainly not violate BLP, as I'm sure you're aware. It's cited, from independent sources, and concerns the most notable period of Hari's career. Therefore I'm restoring it again, please don't 'deet' again without achieving consensus here first. 'Cheers'!FelixFelix ^talk 10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It violates UNDUE, it presents trivia as being important, and is not neutral in tone nor content. Three reaspns. Cheers. ASK at an RfC before making this addition again. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't violate UNDUE; it's not trivia and reporting properly cited text by prominent journalists is neutral. So your three 'reaspns" aren't so great. Removing citaed material from a WP article without consensus (RfC still inprogress) is bad, Collect, hence my restore.FelixFelix ^talk 12:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note the onus is on you for gaining consensus for the addition of the criticism, not on people properly following WP:BLP to remove UNDUE material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing through protection

I've just expanded the article with some new material. I used my administrative rights to edit through the current full protection as the material I am adding is unrelated to the content dispute being discussed above—I have added material about Hari's statements to the press now, but the edits being discussed above are primarily about whether or not to include discussion of the response to his apology back in 2011. I am neutral and undecided on the merits of including that material. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is definitely warranted. Actually it was this article and the accompanying one in the Guardian discussing his new book that brought me to Hari's Wikipedia page in the first place. Wikimandia (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is an extended section on "Criticism of apology" proper in this BLP? 12:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

discussion

The section is UNDUE, is trivia, is clearly written in a non-neutral manner, and is not even a "criticism of (person)" section which is generally deprecated in the first place. The current BLP goes into substantial detail about the sins of the person, but "criticism of apology" is a full step past what is reasonable per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. (However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful ) Where a "criticism section" in an article which already has substantial "criticism" in it, the use of a "criticism of apology" section is clearly pushing the NPOV envelope to the bursting point. More than 90% of the BLP is currently critical of this abhorrent person, which is already past sufficient. Collect (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree, the issue of Hari's plagiarism and his malicious wikipedia editing are the most notable things about his journalistic career, and a number of notable independent sources criticised his apology, as it was far from complete; the section that Collect has been unilaterally deleting details this. Hari has recently released a book to much media attention, some of which focuses on the plagiarism and wikipedia scandal. A full account of that in his wikipedia page is therefore helpful to the interested reader and currently relevant. The suggestion that the section violates either NPOV (including UNDUE) or BLP is patently absurd, as even a cursory reading of either of these policies will confirm. Hari is not abhorrent, but this WP page is there to inform the interested reader about the notable events in his public life, and this is the core of it, like it or not.FelixFelix ^talk 10:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently the BLP is more than sufficiently weighted to show "the issue of Hari's plagiarism and his malicious wikipedia editing ." In fact, the vast majority of the BLP seems aimed at particularly making sure the reader gets the point by making the article almost entirely about how evil the person is. Alas, the policy requires that we use a "neutral point of view" and on policy grounds we already grossly overweight our pointing out how absolutely atrocious Hari is. Or, if he is not so horrid, then our article is even further already well past the limits required by the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note further that the material is clearly contentious in nature, and thus its addition requires an actual poisitve consensus here per policy. Collect (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Improper Fact is that Hari apologized, which is stated in the proper section. The "reactions" to his apolgy are not something that he did. Bios should contain what the person was or did. What other people thought about the subject is interesting in a historical context, especially in the case of great personages who have influenced History. In this case, the bashing of Hari is POV and UNDUEWEIGHT and needs not be added. Here the deleted section serves as a WP:COATRACK to hang dirty laundry on it. We must draw a line somewhere to avoid that this encyclopedia becomes an internet garbage dump. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Cut down section substantially I think it is appropriate to briefly discuss how Hari's apology was received, using one or two of the most significant examples. All those articles were written about him after all, and if his apology generated significant activity in reliable sources then we can report that. However, four paragraphs is too much, and it doesn't need its own section. I would have thought one or two sentences at the end of the apology section, along the lines of "Hari's apology was criticised by other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him", and reference maybe David Allen Green and Toby Young as two of the more significant names to criticize him. (And I don't have a problem with giving Hari's response to the response, provided he made one and it contains any substance.) An entire section of four paragraphs is far too much, however, especially bearing in mind every single one of the criticisms seems to come from the blogs section of those newspapers, rather then making it into editorial or a main newspaper article. --Merlinme (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   The BLP already has Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was publicly criticised.[20][21][22] which would appear to indicate that none of the new section is utile. Collect (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   A fair point. I would therefore change that sentence to something like: "Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was criticised by some other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him." I believe that's a reasonable summary of what people were mainly complaining about. I would then delete the "Criticism of apology" section.--Merlinme (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, I might move that and possibly some other sentences around a bit to fit the sections better. But the important point is that I think the appropriate amount of space for criticism of the apology is one or two sentences. --Merlinme (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   A single relative clause like "but his apology was criticised by other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him" sounds reasonable, as a compromise, to be appended to the text. But I'm afraid somebody will then add fifty sources, so that the reader can get linked to the bashing, which would still be a questionable state of things in a BLP. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

   That sounds OK to me.FelixFelix ^talk 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

   We already have Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was publicly criticised.[20][21][22] in this article at the start of the "Plagiarism and Wikipedia scandal" so why add the same sentence twice? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Agree with deletion of section. Yes, this is a guy who did something unethical, got busted and publicly apologized. An additional section devoted to people's opinions on the apology itself is excessive. If he got caught on tape saying "Ha ha I'm not really sorry!" or "I'm only sorry I got caught" etc, then criticism of the apology would seem warranted. The compromise sentence doesn't ruffle my feathers too much, as long as it's basically a sentence. Wikimandia (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Per WP:BLP restoring the material at issue requires a positive consensus. The proper weight is being discussed, and such matters fall into a category of "contested edit". Collect (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by RfC bot. Honestly, this article made my skin crawl. Not only is the subsection in question over-weighted, and properly removed, but I'd say the entire "ohmygosh he edited Wikipedia!" bit is grotesquely over-weighted in this article. It seems that every time Wikipedia looms in article that editors go ape and take out their shivs. Disgraceful. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

He edited Wikipedia under a pseudonym to attack other journalists, adding defamatory and untrue statements to their Wikipedia articles. If you read the sources, there is this sort of thing: "At the same time, a mysterious person also started tampering with Hari's enemies' Wikipedia entries. Mine started featuring all kinds of inaccuracies: I had been embroiled in rows over my anti-semitism and homophobia (not true); I'd been fired from the Catholic Herald (not true)." This is unusual behaviour for anyone, let alone an award winning journalist, and is reliably sourced. I think his Wikipedia editing currently has due weight. --Merlinme (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Coretheapple about overweighted.... Three paragraphs about the Orwell Prize seems a bit much. Also, he's getting very good reviews and is doing appearance sand promotion for his new book. There is an article devoted to the book, but his own article should at least have a paragraph about the book as it relates to his career and thus biography. It would be an overall improvement to the balance of the biography if more current news not devoted to this scandal were added to the page. Yes, he did wrong things, but it's not like he's a serial killer. Wikimandia (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is close to being an attack piece because of the weight of negative stuff, and that is what is bothering me. Not saying omit, but it has to be more proportional. If that is the sum total of his life, then perhaps he is too insignificant to have an article at all. But if he is notable as a writer, then that has to be properly weighted. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are being slightly unfair to judge the article so harshly based on its current state. Yes it needs to be updated to reflect recent events, but the scandal dominated his life from 2011 onwards, and the article reflects that. There is more to report now he has published a book and is promoting it, but the book was only published in the last few weeks (January 2015). I've stated above that I think the "criticism of apology" section could be replaced by a sentence or two, and the article could probably now do with rebalancing to move away from the furore of 2011. But the controversy is still probably the most notable thing about him, and the article reflects that. Until recently it was unclear whether there would be anything else of note to report after the controversy; it could have sunk his career completely.--Merlinme (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit that the plagiarism aspect,and withdrawal of the Orwell prize, is troubling, and the self-immolation aspect of this guy's career definitely has to be given due weight. But there was a career before it was immolated, and that is what is not given sufficient weight. Spiro Agnew is a good analogy. He was disgraced more than this guy (and yes I know "other stuff exists") but compare the two bios and you can see my point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the Spiro Agnew article, and I'm not convinced it necessarily proves the point you want it to, as in a large article, his life after the scandal gets about four paragraphs.

If we're on "other stuff exists", have a look at Stephen Glass, where in a large article, it's debatable whether any of it apart from the two paras on his early life are about something other than the scandal.

Sometimes the scandal is the most significant event in someone's life, and Wikipedia is allowed to reflect that, provided it's noteworthy, reliably sourced, etc. etc. --Merlinme (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's the crucial question. In the case of Glass it definitely is. But Glass is sort of in a special category, as an entire movie was made about his disgrace. Would you put Hari in that category? As for Agnew, as you can see there is comparatively little about the scandal that made him a metaphor for crooked politicians. In his case, he had a legitimate career before his downfall, whereas Glass, as I understand him, was just a fake from day one. Was Hari a fake from day one? Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a question we should (or need to) get into here, especially for a BLP, even on the Talk Page. Certainly however Hari's career takes on a rather different light if you realise that people were questioning his journalism as early as 2003, i.e. the year he won "Young Journalist of the Year". --Merlinme (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned Glass in this before (I think) - I don't think you can put Hari in the same category. For years Glass completely fabricated entire stories, people, organizations, and events, and lied at every step of the way, even when confronted. He is so tainted not only will he never have a career in journalism, he was denied a license to practice law from both the NY and CA bar associations. Hari screwed up by stealing the quotes from other people, and the wikipedia trolling, but having good quotes in your story is not what makes a journalist or writer successful. Obviously some people will never forgive him and I can understand that, but from the support he's gotten from his new book (and that he was able to get a book deal in the first place), it seems some people are able to accept his apology and move on. I'm not lobbying that he's amazing, but the point is, there is more to his career than what his bio currently reflects. Wikimandia (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to say that we do have to get into it here. It's a simple question. We have three paragraphs on his career, many more on the scandal. Is that a fair representation of his career? Apparently it is not. Coretheapple (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already said the article needs to be updated and rebalanced to reflect the new book. I haven't read the new book (or even a review), but it has apparently got sufficient attention to get its own Wiki article already, which is quite impressive. I used to enjoy reading Hari's stuff, he's a talented writer. I didn't necessarily agree with what he said all the time, but then I wouldn't expect to when reading an opinion piece. I think it's fair to say though that his career has been damaged by what appear to be some pretty significant character flaws. In terms of balance in his article, I have previously compared it to the Nick Cohen article, who is somewhat older and I guess didn't have the "buzz" that Hari managed to generate, but was probably in an approximately similar position of being a respected writer on the left in the UK who wouldn't however have been particularly known if you didn't read the left wing press in the UK. Cohen's Wiki article has one paragraph on his views and three paragraphs on his most significant book, which was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. That would probably be about the size of the Hari article if it weren't for the scandal. But the scandal brought Hari much wider attention, and I'd imagine is still the only reason people who don't read the left wing British press would ever have heard of him. With that in mind, I'd say having at least half the article devoted to the scandal is reasonable. At the moment it's somewhat more than half, but assuming his career continues then this will change over time. I would personally probably add a paragraph or two on his new book (assuming it's sufficiently noteworthy) and perhaps cut down some of the detail on exactly what happened in 2011. But I don't think the current article is particularly unfair to him, especially if you were considering it a month or so ago, before the new book was published. --Merlinme (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As with all Wikipedia articles, I would encourage people to read the sources rather than just the Wikipedia article before making up their mind about fairness and balance etc. For example, as early as 2003 it was suggested by Private Eye that Hari had made up an article about taking the drug Ecstasy; Hari had never taken the drug and phoned a friend to ask them what it was like. Similarly major doubts were cast on Hari's account of having seen the body of Carlo Giuliani, who died in the G8 summit protests in Genoa. [6] Re: his dispute with Nick Cohen, Hari seems to have reviewed Cohen's most significant book without having read it properly; for example he attributed views to Cohen which were diametrically opposite to those Cohen expressed in the book. Re: Hari's Wikipedia editing, when Cohen brought the inaccuracies in the review to Hari's attention, Nick Cohen's Wikipedia article was updated by "David r from Meth Productions", with allegations appearing that Cohen "was a probable alcoholic, a hypocrite and a supporter of Sarah Palin". [7] --Merlinme (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But these are things that are speculative - "suggested by," "doubts were cast" etc. They can't be given weight at all. And it's not a fact that he vandalized Cohen's page - I'm sure it wasn't random, but was it definitely Hari? Couldn't it have been a friend of his trolling these people? These are things people can just kind of form their own opinions about. We can't give any credence to it at all... and even so, vandalizing someone's wikipedia page... is that really noteworthy? It's immature and unprofessional, but how does it really relate to someone's biography? It just seems so silly to me. If he's a pathological liar or a fabricator of tales then he's going to get busted again, eventually. I'm not familiar enough his work going back to 2003, but it would seem to me that the Independent had its reasons for not firing him outright. It should be pretty easy to go through his library of work and find out if this happened a few times or was a chronic thing. I would be shocked if they didn't go through everything with a magnifying glass. Anyway I think his article now is pretty OK - it doesn't seem like there was a consensus to add back in the whole thing about the criticism of his apology section. Once it opens back up it should be easier to add a paragraph about the book/promo info and then it will be more balanced out. Wikimandia (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way @Merlinme: I looked at Nick Cohen's article and IMO it really should be a more thorough. I've never heard of him but it seems he's had a fairly substantial career. But in looking at the talk page, there was drama before the vandalism with people writing too much about his political viewpoints and updating the article "every time he wrote a new column." At some point someone made a decision to hack it down to just a basic summary and remove everything else. So if you compare the two, I think Cohen's article needs to be expanded as well. Wikimandia (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The slight irony of the Nick Cohen article is that it used to be more substantial, but I believe (based mainly on Hari's apology) that Hari may have been one of the more significant contributors. Initially there was a lot of information added by IP addresses who appeared to know Cohen's work; it was only after Hari and Cohen had their public falling out that the "Alcohol" section got added. Hari addresses this in his public apology, and there appears to be a confession there about adding the Alcohol section to Cohen's article: "Using that user-name, I continued to edit my own Wikipedia entry and some other people’s too. I took out nasty passages about people I admire – like Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot, Deborah Orr and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I factually corrected some other entries about other people. But in a few instances, I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious: I called one of them anti-Semitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk. {emphasis added} I am mortified to have done this, because it breaches the most basic ethical rule: don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally." [8] I repeat, that's pretty odd behaviour for anyone, let alone an award winning journalist. I think it's reasonable to have it in the Wikipedia article. Your statement "I've never heard of {Cohen} but it seems he's had a fairly substantial career" is to a large extent my point; unless you were a reader of the Independent or similar newspapers in the mid 2000s I doubt whether you would have heard of Hari either. It's the scandal which has made him somewhat famous, so it is reasonable to spend a significant chunk of the article on that scandal. --Merlinme (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I heard of Hari through his book and various publicity he's done for that. So IMO if he were able to get a substantial book deal and not be fired outright from the Independent, I have to imagine his career as a whole is definitely more than this scandal. I also think the Wikipedia thing is silly though - not everybody takes Wikipedia as seriously as others do. I don't think it needs to be expanded ad nauseam. Wikimandia (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hari probably wouldn't have written his book if he hadn't had to leave his job as a full-time newspaper journalist, and he wouldn't have got the same type of publicity for the book if he hadn't previously been involved in a scandal. E.g:'Chasing the Scream "is the prodigal fruit of that work, and with it redemption, if that was needed"'. However we are now essentially discussing what is due weight when discussing the man's career, i.e. a matter of emphasis, rather than what is included and what is not. I would hope therefore that we could find consensus fairly quickly when the article is removed from lock-down and we can actually start editing again. --Merlinme (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the shocking history of Hari editing this page, I think that *any* revisions made to the version that has existed for the last 3+ years need to be scrutinized extremely carefully. I was involved in trying to make this page less of a hagiography of Hari back in 2007 until 'David R' (Hari himself as sockpuppet) wore myself and others down. It is vital that it remains faithful to the most relevant facts about his life: that he was a reasonably successful journalist who was exposed as a chronic fraud and liar, who took great effort to improve his wikipedia entry and vandalize others and, when exposed, never adequately explained his actions and offered an apology that was roundly criticized as insufficient and insincere. None of that is POV. It is fact. That he has now just published a book that may or may not turn out to be successful or influential is not hugely relevant to his standing or stature as yet. -SamuelSpade79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.232.26 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

reflist

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)