Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox 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."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest everybody refrains from edit-warring, and we agree on the minimal uncontroversial wording. Kraxler (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we actually have a discussion first? One editor posting paragraphs of text and then another editor asserting that anyone who disagrees is edit warring does not count as a discussion.

I have re-read the Talk page cited by Guy Macon in his edit summary. I still do not understand how anyone can summarise that as a consensus for Religon = None.

To take it point by point:

• The single word "atheist" more precisely classifies a type of non-religion. There are several different types, as I'm sure we're all aware. Is it a key fact about Johann Hari? Yes, he clearly and explicitly identifies himself as such.
• "No consensus" is not the same as consensus for anything else. As there is no consensus on the more general point, editors who wish to argue the case specifically in relation to Hari should argue their case here.
• "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." This is out of context. The full paragraph is:

"There is also a consensus that the phrase "Religion: Atheist" should not appear, being a contradiction in terms. The preferred phrase would be "Religion: None". This begs obvious questions. From the discussion below, I would tend to think that "Religion: Agnostic" should also be avoided but "Religion: Humanist" or "Religion: Secular humanist" would be permissible if based on a person's self-description from a reliable source; but there is no actual consensus on that point."

About the only thing everyone can agree on is that "Religion = Atheist" makes no sense. The closing summary makes few other clear explicit points, other than "no actual consensus". S Marshall doesn't even explicitly exclude Religion = Agnostic, although he suggests "I would tend to think it should also be avoided". S Marshall does not even mention the option "Religion = None (atheist)", even though it is discussed at some length in the actual discussion. All that we can really conclude about "Religion = None (atheist)" is that the summariser didn't feel able to say anything definitive about that option in the summary.

• I would say there is no consensus from any of that discussion except that Religion = Atheist should not be used... and we're not using that. Religion = None (atheist) was explicitly discussed on that Talk page, at some length. To ignore that discussion seems rather disingenuous to me. To give the precise results, "Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention" received the second highest number of !Votes. They were supposed to be exclusive !Votes, so if you include both the Religion = None (atheist) options, then it would have actually got 22 votes, double the votes for Religion = None. The results in order were: i) Do not use the parameter (22), ii) Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention (14), iii) Religion: None (11), iv) Religion: None (Atheist) (8). This was previously summarised below as "If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description include the word "atheist" in some form: Medium consensus for including the term "Atheist" (19 votes for, 8 against) {my emphasis}. A different summary was that "for non-religious affiliations (atheism, agnosticism, etc) the parameter should not be used at all." The latter was presumably based on the fact that 22 people voted for "Do not use". I would personally describe this as "No consensus", which was presumably the conclusion of the summariser, who didn't mention it at all.
• ":More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)".

I don't understand what the point of this is. We are using the phrase that there was significant support for in the incredibly in-depth discussion. Have you considered the possibility we're correct and the other pages are wrong? At best this is an "other stuff exists" argument.

• It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry".

I disagree. One extra word isn't going to kill people. And is there really that much debate about what atheism means?

• "It is highly objectionable to many atheists"

this is both questionable and irrelevant. Have you got a source for the fact that lots of atheists are offended by the use of "Religion = None (atheist" in Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia censor images of Muhammad?

• I'm going to leave the "Lady Gaga has a birthday of banana" argument. If anyone can tell me what the point of it is, please let me know.

To summarise: there is no broader consensus against using "Religion = None (atheist)", as long as there is a good source for it and it's relevant. It was actually one of the more strongly supported options in the incredibly long discussion. The fact that Guy is apparently on a one editor mission to remove the word "atheist" from Religion boxes does not change that fact. --Merlinme (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that thousands of editors editing hundreds of pages all came to the same conclusion long before i came along shows consensus. I am sorry that you are not willing to accept that. As for your "argue the case specifically in relation to Hari", WP:Consensus is not local, and there is nothing about Hari that his page and his page alone should be treated any differently than all of the other pages on Wikipedia.

Besides, consensus on this talk page is currently two to one against you. Stop reverting and continue discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to discuss. "Consensus is not local" is irrelevant, as there is no broader consensus. If there is such a consensus, could you please point it out to me where it has been clearly laid out? Other stuff exists is not consensus.

Re: consensus of 2:1 on this Talk page, numbers do not make consensus, arguments do; two editors versus one definitely doesn't make consensus; and in general I'd appreciate if you'd wait more than five minutes before assuming we have identified consensus.

Do you have any substantive arguments why Johann Hari should not be identified as atheist in the infobox, other than the assertion of a consensus which doesn't exist? --Merlinme (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I already gave you my arguments, and at least one other person on this page (and dozens on other pages where I used the same arguments) found them to be compelling. If that is not enough for you, I suggest that you stop trying to get your way with reverts, go to WP:DRR, and request help resolving this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Do you have any substantive arguments why Johann Hari should not be identified as atheist in the infobox...?" That's changing the subject. The question here is whether such identification belongs in the infobox following the "Religion" tag. And the fact remains that atheism is not a religion, and "Religion: None (Atheist)" still uses the term in a religious context, which it should not. Perhaps the tag should be changed from "Religion" to something else, like "Belief(s) or lack thereof". Failing that, I think the field should be dropped completely as there are too many edge cases, even among theists; there is no way to present such information well in an "infobox". Jeh (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I gave you my counter arguments. Do you wish to engage with them?

Jeh, I accept your point (and I have in fact previously argued for something along the lines of Religious views; see Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion_means_what.3F. However the current discussion here is whether it is reasonable to have "Religion = None (atheist)" in the infobox for Johann Hari. I think atheist is helpful; Guy thinks atheist should never appear; what is your view? --Merlinme (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I rather object to the assertion that I am "trying to get my way with reverts". A cursory review of my contributions history would show that I use reverts rather sparingly. On the other hand, in the last three days I count 16 reverts by Guy on the question of "Religion = whatever".--Merlinme (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I already stated my view: "'Religion: None (Atheist)' still uses the term in a religious context, which it should not." To be more clear: I believe it is not helpful, even actively unhelpful, to the reader to use the term "atheist" in that way, regardless of whether it conveys useful information about the article subject. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Regardless of what follows, thank you for expressing your viewpoint clearly!).

I disagree; what context is the rejection of the existence of god, if it is not a religious one? The subject is god, which is about as religious a context as it gets. Speaking as an atheist, in response to the question, "what are your views on religion?" my (short version) reply would be: "I don't believe in god." --Merlinme (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that "Religion" carries with it assumptions about organizations, doctrine, rituals, etc., etc. If the tag was "God believed in" then we might have "Yahweh", "Allah", ..., and "None", in which case "None (atheist)" would be accurate, though redundant. But no. The tag is "Religion", and while atheism does have a relationship to the fundamental belief of any religion, atheism is itself not a religion and is not on the same spectrum with Catholicism, Baptism, Judaism, Islam, etc. Yes, it would be pretty difficult to be an atheist with a religious affiliation. However it's certainly possible to be a theist with no religious affiliation.

Maybe the section head here, "Personal beliefs", would work in place of the "Religion" tag in the infobox. Or, better, "personal views", since atheism is non-belief. Of course any such proposed change to the infobox would be accused of being part of the "war on religion" (rolling eyes here). Jeh (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "it would be pretty difficult to be an atheist with a religious affiliation", the following religious groups and subgroups manage to do it to a greater or lesser degree: Atheism in Hinduism, Unitarian Universalism#Beliefs, Christian atheism, Nontheist Quakers, and Pandeism. That last one is interesting in that it holds that there used to be a creator deity who ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity and became the universe -- so they agree with atheists about the present universe and the present lack of gods, but disagree about the existence of a creator deity. This, ot course, just highlights the many reasons why we shouldn't try to cram fine religious distinctions into infoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I woulds say "mostly to a lesser degree". But anyway, this just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't try to cram fine distinctions of any sort into infoboxes. My father's birth certificate says "Catholic", but he actively avoided setting foot in a church of any sort since he was about 17, aside from other people's marriages and funerals. Similarly my mother believed in more-or-less the Christian god, but not in Christ's virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection, but she wasn't Jewish in any sense of the word. Neither of them would ever rate a Wikipedia page, but to list him as "Catholic" (referenced to the birth certificate) or her as any one-word label I can think of aside from "theist" (which is not a religion any more than is "atheist") would be grossly misleading. Besides, "atheist" could mean anyone from a staunch activist like Madeline Murray O'Hare, through many well-known examples like James Randi, Penn Gillette, Bill Maher, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, etc. (for whom atheism is not the most important defining point of their existence but who do or did argue for that position fairly often)... to those who are known to be or to have been atheists but you'd not have known that unless someone asked them. If one writes "Religion: None (Atheism)" different readers will put the subject person at different points on this scale. This is why it's misleading. Infoboxes are for things that are are simple, non-interpretable facts, like date and place of birth and death, not for things that may take multiple words to properly describe. Jeh (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been clearly demonstrated that "atheism" is not a "religion". That's a simple question of English language. Until the end of this discussion, the word stays out of the infobox. Consensus is demonstrated by the several-hundredfold non-use of the word in as many articles. I urge everybody now to stop being disruptive and pointy. I also urge everybody not to continue the edit-warring. May I quote from a well known template message? "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Kraxler (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Checking the closing statement at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, it is clear that the word "atheist" should not be used there. The consensus was assessed as not to use "Religion Atheist". To use "Religion: None (atheist)" is nothing else than trying to disregard consensus, and sneak in the not-to-be-used word on the flimsiest pretext. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement there has to be read in the context of the entire discussion which the summariser is trying to summarise, which was one of the most interminable discussions I have ever read on Wikipedia, and that is saying something. Towards the end of the discussion there was a straw poll, which was summarised by one person as showing "medium consensus" for including the word atheist in some form, and was summarised by a different person as showing consensus for not including Religion at all for atheists. "Religion = None" had fewer votes than either of those options.

The only thing there was a clear consensus on was that almost nobody liked "Religion = Atheist". As far as I can see, the summariser chose to concentrate on that point. In that context,the summariser wrote: "There is also a consensus that the phrase "Religion: Atheist" should not appear, being a contradiction in terms. The preferred phrase would be "Religion: None". This begs obvious questions. From the discussion below, I would tend to think that "Religion: Agnostic" should also be avoided but "Religion: Humanist" or "Religion: Secular humanist" would be permissible if based on a person's self-description from a reliable source; but there is no actual consensus on that point." I understand that to mean that Religion = Atheist should not be used, and I agree. Apparently the summariser thinks "Religion = Humanism" might be ok, which I have to say I think a lot people would disagree with, but it's not relevant to the matter at hand. As far as I can see the summariser has chosen to ignore the suggestion of Religion = None (atheist). That is fair enough, as consensus was not clear, and you're never going to be able to summarise every twist and turn of 40 pages of intricate debate.

Anyway, this is not "the hill I am prepared to fight and die on", as someone has characterised Guy's position on his Talk page. I believe Guy has now made the required hundreds of edits to eliminate every single example of atheist from the Religion box at least twice. He restarted on 1st April, after what is apparently a three month break.

I think that is borderline treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I was seriously considering raising it as such at AN/I. However, Religion = None (atheist) was only ever an imperfect solution. As I've previously stated, I had suggested renaming "Religion" something like "Religious Beliefs". By far the most interesting thing Guy has said on the subject was that although there was no support for renaming the Religion field, there might be support for adding a new field. What seems ridiculous to me is that you can call a person a Free Presbyterian in their infobox (see Ian Paisley) as long as it's relevant and referenced, but you can't call a person an atheist. Adding a new field might solve that problem.

On the basis that that is a more constructive way forward than to add fuel to current flames, I will try to propose that, as I have time.--Merlinme (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing borderline about it. He has treated this as you characterized it.

I hope you can come up with a solution that will satisfy those sharing Guy Macon's belief system on this issue, but doubt it will be possible. Religion isn't a topic typified by tolerance and acceptance of dissenting views. At present "atheist" is effectively censored from the infobox. I'm not an atheist or agnostic, but I have a problem with that. Red Harvest (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, specificly " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits.

Quotes from the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues:

• "The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behavior, and reminds me a bit of Collect." --Kraxler

• "The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear" --Rhododendrites

• "If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus." --Lukeno94

• "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. ... Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot." --Kraxler

I strongly suggest not edit warring to push a version that is clearly against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you quit bullying other editors and making false claims about consensus. The parentheticals were specifically not addressed in the closure. You can try to evade or spin that all you like, but that is how it rests. Folks are not violating consensus, they simply don't agree that one was reached on this specific matter. Red Harvest (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And I strongly suggest that you not falsely claim that there isn't consensus. If there's a consensus against throwing mud clods, you can't go throwing dog turds and complain that the consensus was specifically against "mud clods" so it's perfectly fine to throw dog turds. Atheism isn't a religion, so it doesn't belong in the "Religion" field of an infobox.—Kww(talk) 01:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Atheism is pertinent to the religion field. "None" is clear enough that it isn't being classed as a religion, while more precise information is provided to the reader by adding the sub-class of atheist or whatever. Whether you or Guy acknowledge it or not, this was not addressed in the template closure. Had it been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I will abide by an actual consensus on that, not bulldozing by an editor who has repeatedly used highly confrontational and insulting tactics. Red Harvest (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

So what other values do you have in mind? "None (delusional)" for people that say "I'm not religious, but I believe in ...?" "None (disorganised)" for people that say "I believe in God but I don't believe in any specific church's teachings"? Religion isn't some kind of universally valid organisational scheme that belongs in an infobox when someone doesn't have one. I don't even understand why people feel this compulsion to fill out the field at all: leaving it out of the infobox is a fine solution, "none" is second best, "atheist" is quite unnecessary, and we have a consensus not to do so.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given Red Harvest's current behavior at George Will and his previous incivility[18][19][20][21][22], it looks like I am going to have to take this to WP:ANI. Sigh. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Given your constant incivility, misrepresentations, wikihounding right after you falsely accused another of it on the George Will page, as well as your dubious ideas of what constitutes incivility...good luck. Your diffs show the concern I have about effectively censoring the term. A number of editors in this discussion object to the effective censorship. You've done your best to make this about me, but it appears you are projecting. Red Harvest (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus. Guy, could you please stop making edits like that? The referenced discussion is about whether your massive cut and pastes are a problem, and in general whether you are too aggressively pursuing the point, and attempting to win battles rather than help to achieve consensus. In that context, several editors in addition to myself expressed unease at the manner in which you are going about your campaign. In that context, the fact that you've selectively quoted four editors who were responding near the start of the discussion... means almost nothing. Here's five selective quotes:

"Guy's post at Talk:Christopher Hitchens was rather overwhelming." Cordless Larry
"Maybe the best thing for Guy to do would be to put the text on a page in his userspace or even as an essay in the Wikipedia namespace, and point people to that?" Rhododendrites
"Have to agree that it would be better for Guy to link to this text if it's basically the same thing, rather than to post it to many different places. 11 places isn't that many, but it is starting to get up there." Nil Einne
"The copy/paste edit summaries have been an issue... he either doesn't care that behavior is an extremely unproductive way of going about things or that he actually intends to agitate. Neither is great." GraniteSand
"I'm inclined to hope that Guy Macon will consider turning down the volume a little bit on this particular subject." S Marshall
Also note a rather crucial use of italics in the original here:
"That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus." --Lukeno94
Do I "win" by having more selective quotes? No, of course not. Not least because the discussion hasn't finished yet.
Guy, if you're going to claim a wider consensus, please at least try to give a fair summary of what people said, rather than a selective and one-sided summary. And if things are still being discussed, please wait for the discussion to finish before claiming anything consensus related about those discussions.--Merlinme (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Template talk:Infobox person) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is for you to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, consensus hasn't been clearly established. To clarify the way forward I will raise an RFC, as that was what consensus was for at Infobox person.

But in any case, you haven't really answered any of my points. And regardless of whether we agree or disagree, please could you drop the hectoring tone. We are not talking about one or two editors who think you should tone it down; half a dozen now have expressed some reservations about how you are arguing. --Merlinme (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Invoking WP:IAD now. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version of the info box that was stable for years before this edit war. Guy Macon is incorrect to suggest that Religion: None is preferable to Religion: None (Atheist). There was an extended template talk discussion on this, which Guy Macon participated in, which concluded that Relgion: None (Atheist) is prefectable acceptable, and many people prefering the mentioning of atheism provided it is not in the format Religion: Atheist. As a long time editor of this article I support retaining Religion: None (Atheist) which has been stable and uncontroversial for a long time. There has been no valid argument as to why to change it. Atshal (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I would like to point out the Guy Macon is being dishonest in his introduction to this issue, on at least two points. The first is his claim that the vast majority of articles use Religion: None and not Religion: None (atheist). What he fails to mention is that he has personally edited, on mass, dozens or hundreds of these fields to remove Atheism from them, reducing the number of times it was used. What he is reported here is actual just the result of his own edited, carried out over a prolonged period of time, and not some kind of wider consensus.

Secondly, the template discussion talk emphatically did NOT reject the use of Religion: None (Atheism). Quite the opposite in fact. I will post the summary I made towards the end of that discussion, which Guy Macon is well aware of:

On the question of whether to include the Religion field in general:

Strong consensus in favour of including the Religion field (By 31 to 5 votes)

Mild-consensus/split on whether to require "significant attention" to include religious belief (19 votes for requiring significant attention versus 12 for only a reliable source)

On the question of whether to include the Religion field at all for non-religious people:

Mild-consensus/split for including the Religion field (27 votes for, 16 against )

If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description include the word "atheist" in some form:

Medium consensus for including the term "Atheist" (19 votes for, 8 against)

"If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description be of the form 'Religion: Atheist' "

Strong consensus against (2 for, 25 against)

Atshal (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image out of date

Recent ted talk here - [23] No glasses.

Going to change image to 2011 File:Johann Hari.jpg. -- Callinus (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism and Wikipedia scandal

In June 2011 Hari was accused of plagiarism in his use of unattributed quotations in interviews, where he had used previously published quotes in place of his interviewees' recorded answers. The Orwell Prize, which he had won in 2008, was withdrawn following a comparison between one of the articles for which he had won the award and the original Der Spiegel article on which it was based. He was shown to have made misleading edits on Wikipedia under a pseudonym. Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was publicly criticised. 

Chivers, Tom (19 September 2011). "We Lefties shouldn't be so quick to forgive Johann Hari". The Daily Telegraph blog. Retrieved 21 September 2011. 

Seymour, Richard (16 September 2011). "The Johann Hari debacle". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 September 2011. 

Allen Green, David (15 September 2011). "The tale of Mr Hari and Dr Rose". New Statesman. Retrieved 22 September 2011.

It's difficult to verify text-source integrity with several citations bunched at the end of this paragraph, lacking any indication of which citation is meant to support which portion of the text. Also, the relevance of Hari's apology being "publicly criticized" is not clear—criticized by whom and for what? These things affect the neutrality of an article, which is especially important in biographies of living persons.

— Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

NB: wording of paragraph has been revised, but text-source integrity still needs attention. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Brian Whelan compared Hari's 2010 interview with Gideon Levy against Levy's previous writing. Guy Walters in the New Statesman compared Hari's 2006 interview with Hugo Chávez with earlier interviews with Chávez by other journalists.

This passage doesn't tell the reader what the results of the comparisons were, whether favorable, unfavorable, or neutral. Therefore, its relevance to the subject is unclear. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Did Hari harass "Wikipedia editors"?

@Coconutporkpie: on 17 February, you wrote that "Hari was also criticized for harassing, under a pseudonym, Wikipedia editors who were publicly critical of him". Is that really what you meant? From what I can read in the three sources provided, his victims were professional journalists, not Wikipedia contributors. Rocherd (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

An astute observation; that part was misleadingly worded. –Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Johann Hari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825110027/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/damianthompson/100096411/the-scandal-that-will-not-go-away/ to http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100096411/the-scandal-that-will-not-go-away
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314043143/http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11834 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11834
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320035609/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=39598 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=39598

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal views

I'm curious about the personal views section. The whole section seems irrelevant, especially the part about him being gay and his views on Iraq. I'm inclined to delete the whole section unless someone can clarify which parts are notable and why. Permstrump (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions expressed in articles he wrote are not private personal views, they are the publicly stated opinions, stated presumably so that he can advance those opinions. So his opinions on the Iraq invasion are certainly relevant for article content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Johann Hari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118175610/http://johannhari.com/2012/01/20/a-short-update/ to http://johannhari.com/2012/01/20/a-short-update/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100096411/the-scandal-that-will-not-go-away/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious article which apparently attempts to whitewash Hari

This article conspicuously seems to downplay Hari's fabrications, plagiarism and other scandals. He became known for fabrications and plagiarism, and has been compared to Jayson Blair and others[24]. His fabrications and plagiarism are established facts, not merely "accusations [...] which Hari denies". He is universally regarded as discredited as a journalist. --Tataral (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Orwell Prize was withdrawn, not voluntarily returned

No, Hari didn't "return the Orwell Prize, a decision which the Council of the Orwell Prize agreed with". This is Hari's own self-serving explanation of what happened. The record shows that Council withdrew the award, and told him to return it. Indeed, the Orwell Prize page makes this clear. 82.10.117.175 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Johann Hari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130126214020/http://www.johannhari.com/2004/03/17/a-simple-lesson-on-schools-money-works to http://www.johannhari.com/2004/03/17/a-simple-lesson-on-schools-money-works
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130903004728/http://johannhari.com/about/ to http://johannhari.com/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630124701/http://johannhari.com/2011/06/27/interview-etiquette to http://johannhari.com/2011/06/27/interview-etiquette
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115100148/http://www.intelligencesquared.com/people/h/johann-hari to http://www.intelligencesquared.com/people/h/johann-hari
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804025853/http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7075743/diary.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7075743/diary.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616191418/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=42532 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=42532

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oversight

The User:David Rose seems to have been over-sighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.161.45.115 (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

subsequent links broken

hello everyone I was reading through about the scandal about him editing opponents WP pages, i eventually found this article :

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/12/johann-hari-suspended-independent

within it is a link through from text that says " claims that Hari used a pseudonym to make unflattering edits to the Wikipedia entries for journalists including Nick Cohen" in the article, however this link is broken , and leads here :

http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7075743/diary.thtml

once the link 404's the URL text reloads without specification,

I'm off to go look into this Nick cohen guy and see if i can figure anything out on my own from another perspective,

Nolanpowers (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In case it's useful the archive is at https://web.archive.org/web/20110804025853/http://www.spectator.co.uk/politics/all/7075743/diary.thtml 83.59.215.146 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Propose semiprotection

There have been some edits within the last 12 months by anonymous users such as 92.21.144.130, 174.254.193.97, 109.149.191.234, removing text from the article which is embarrassing to Hari. One editor even justified their removals as "removed content because it is detrimental to society". These users have not edited any other articles. I propose semi-protecting the article. cagliost (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that Dlohcierekim has applied protection, but I'm unsure whether this was necessary as there doesn't appear to have been any recent disruption. Am I missing something? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies - it's pending changes that's been applied, not semi-protection. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dlohcierekim. cagliost (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is the introductory section about the scandal?

On most other pages I've seen of public figures with scandals, the scandal has been mentioned briefly in the introduction but then mostly discussed in its own section. The way the page currently reads, a reader would assume that the scandal was the thing for which Hari is most known - which is clearly not true (as a simple Google search of Hari will reveal; the first search result dealing with the scandal is on page ten). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B064:A60C:E5B7:4631:5D5E:B2E1 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this comment was made, I assume that someone overzealously removed all information about the scandal from the introduction, which is also not appropriate. I just re-added a single sentence, which feels proportionate. I wouldn't rely on current Google rankings as evidence of what is significant, though: they are dominated by promo write-ups for his more recent books, but this was a big deal at the time (and the chronology of the list of awards shows the major effect it had on his career). AndyBuckley (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's be honest here: the scandal was a big deal. No newspaper will hire him and in the UK as a young-ish left-wing commentator he's been replaced by Owen Jones. I notice the scandal has been removed from the introduction again, which as Andy has already pointed out is not appropriate. 79.154.253.127 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTE?

I do not understand why we have this article -- we usually do not do biography articles on journalists. Is he notable because of the scandals? Then it's WP:1E, and it may be better to do a page on the scandal itself than a biography page. As it stands, it smacks of {{selfref}}, i.e. a Wikipedia page about a Wikipedia drama. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does do biography articles on some journalists. See, for example, Nick Cohen or Cristina Odone, contemporaries of Hari who are referenced in the article. Hari is/was an award winning journalist, that was why he originally had an article. It then turned out his awards were to some extent based on plagiarism, and the resulting scandals created a lot of additional secondary source material for his Wikipedia article. Merlinme (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hari is a major British journalist of great note. 86.176.230.41 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism/Wikipedia edits

The Plagiarism and Wikipedia edits sections were a bit of a mess - the Wikipedia edits were mentioned repeatedly in the plagiarism section (with the implication they were part of the withdrawal of the Orwell prize, which as far as I can see wasn't the case), then there was a separate section that covered basically the same ground again.

After reading Hari's September 2011 apology, I've opted for combining them, given he apologised for both together, but I wouldn't be opposed to separating them; we just need to make one call or the other and not cover the same ground twice.

I've also condensed a little - all the same content should still be in, I've just removed repeated summarising paragraphs, which aren't usually part of Wikipedia style. TSP (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Incest section, and new content about allegations more generally

Hi @213.86.169.34:

I've once more deleted the 'Interest in incest' section. (Normal bold, revert, discuss conventions don't apply here - if content on a living person doesn't meet the WP:BLP standards, it must not be on Wikipedia.)

The second part of this section is a clear violation of WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Additionally, many of the sources you've given are blogs or similar, which don't come close to fulfilling Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.

It feels like you are trying to do investigative journalism here. Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. If you can find a reliable source that has specifically observed that Hari has an interest in incest, and connected him to that nifty.org story, then we can include it. If no reliable source has ever made that specific observation, then I'm afraid we can't either.

The same goes for other edits - we don't have to include every allegation ever made against Hari, only those that have appeared in reliable sources; so I'll also be going through and trimming out some content currently only supported by blogs or forum threads. TSP (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you consider this Telegraph article as a reliable source for the fact that Hari's sockpuppet was associated with the incest story? https://web.archive.org/web/20110711130905/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100096195/johann-hari-wikipedia-and-a-porn-site-an-extraordinary-new-development/

213.86.169.34 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a lot stronger; but it still feels to me like there's a leap, from a WP:BLP point of view. My personal view of the evidence would be that it all links up, and if I had to give my opinion, it looks to me like Hari wrote that story; but the Telegraph post (as well as being a blog post, quoting another blog post, not actually a Telegraph article) also dates from before direct connections were made between "David Rose" and Hari; so doesn't specifically make that direct link from Hari to the story.

Ultimately, even if an observation is true, if no reliable source has ever felt the need to publish it, Wikipedia's position is that we shouldn't either. WP:NOR:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

To say "Hari wrote this story", we need a reliable source that specifically says "Hari wrote this story". I don't think we have that. And, if no-one else in the world, writing in a reliable published source, has ever felt it was important to say "Hari wrote this story", that suggests that it isn't considered a significant enough fact that Wikipedia needs to do so. Our task is to report the significant reported facts about a subject; which we determine by whether they appear in published sources. If it's not in any source, apparently the world doesn't consider it a significant fact, whether or not it is true.

There's also a separate leap to connect it to his earlier column in order to make a section implicitly asserting that these two constitute a pattern; again, that would really need to be backed up.

I think there's a fine investigatory journalism article in there; feel free to write it, and if you can get it published, it can be the article's next source. But at the moment that source doesn't seem to exist. TSP (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph editing by Hari or his reputation management team?

It seems like every edit that mentions Hari's plagiarism and fabrications in the first paragraph is reverted with flimsy excuses. The first paragraph is what is excerpted by Google when you search for "Johann Hari".

It is clearly important to mention that Hari is a plagiarist as that is what he is best known for (at least in his native UK). The argument that his malpractice was 10 years ago so is less relevant does not hold water, since there are experts on the record in credible sources saying that he is still fabricating and distorting evidence.

I believe that Hari or Hari's reputation management team are editing this article as part of their effort to keep mentions of his malpractice of the first page of Google results. It is also possible that they are paying Wikipedia editors to manage his reputation. How can I request an independent review of the rejected edits that does not involve the editors who are doing all the suspicious reversions? 89.213.33.52 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you share here the sources for "experts on the record in credible sources saying that he is still fabricating and distorting evidence"? Not sure about your proposed "independent review". Perhaps you could open an WP:RfC here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See the “Later career” section in the Wikipedia article itself for examples of experts criticising his current work. Also see https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/too-few-of-us-are-paying-attention-to-the-problems-with-johann-hari-s-new-book-1.4775651

He is still best known in the UK for his plagiarism and fabrication so I think it’s wrong to whitewash the article to keep that off the Google results page.

talk) 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.33.52 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The recent edits to the lead section, which which you seem to disagree, may be less about "whitewashing" and more about not trying to cram everything into the first sentence. Yes I agree that article, by Hugh Linehan in The Irish Times, is pretty much up-to-date. But it says nothing about plagiarism in Hari's latest book Stolen Focus. The criticism is more about lack of evidence. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph actually has two sentences, so the reason is clearly not about avoiding cramming everything into the first sentence. It could have another sentence about the plagiarism, misconduct etc. It’s suspicious to me that any mention is being cleansed from the first paragraph, so it doesn’t show up on the front page of Google. Don’t forget Hari is a proven user of sock puppets to edit Wikipedia. The first paragraph of any other journalistic hoaxer mentions what they did. 89.213.33.52 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also you are focusing on “plagiarism”, but ignoring the fact that Hari was also disgraced for “fabrication”. The point that experts make is that Hari is misrepresenting evidence, ie fabrication. You’re acting as if I’m making the claim that Hari is currently plagiarising, which I’m not. My point is that his past misconduct (plagiarism and fabrication and smearing enemies and using libel threats against critics) should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and the issue of fabrication is certainly still relevant to the question of whether his current books are credible. 89.213.33.52 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

quote from Orwell Council

Hello, I am adding a citation to this article on Johann Hari, because it's important. As it stands, it's written to suggest Hari returned the Orwell Prize of his own volition whereas the Orwell Prize themselves say the prize would have been withdrawn from him any way, whether he returned it or not - making the decision theirs, not his. This is clearly important.

But someone keeps removing my addition which reads:

The Media Standards Trust instructed the Council of the Orwell Prize, who had given their 2008 prize to Hari, to examine the allegations ...

[...my insert here: with the Council concluding that 'the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell Prize-winning journalism']

[19][20] Hari returned the prize,[21] though he did not initially return the prize money of £2,000.[22] He later offered...[etc]

Here is the quotation in question from from the Council of the Orwell Prize included in a report by the Guardian 27/09/2011:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/27/johann-hari-fresh-plagiarism-allegations

a report also covered here: https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/09/27/johann-hari-did-not-deserve-orwell-prize-say-organisers/

- so can someone please explain to me why this piece of information - which clarifies rather than distorts - is being removed as soon as it's being put up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.251.145 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The above is further evidence that Hari or Hari’s reputation management team are editing this article to downplay his misconduct. 2A02:C7F:F6BE:F00:6197:8B17:2C56:90D0 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Misleading content in 'Later Career' section

"Burnett admits to not having actually read the book in question" is a sentence, or phrasing at the very least, that would appear to be misleading, implying that the reviewer had not read the work under review. Burnett's review was not of the entire book, but of the published extract. An argument could be made that the language in this article should be particularly precise, given the article subject's documented history of plagiarism and sockpuppetry . Therefore, the article ought to refer to the review as a review of a published extract, an not imply that the reviewer did not read Hari's writings. SquattyRoo (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The insertion of this misleading content is further evidence of Hari’s reputation management team trying to downplay criticism of his work. Burnett was criticising an extract of the book, I believe before the book was even widely available. He found evidence of distortion in an extract of the book; saying he “admits” to not having read the book is irrelevant unless there is something elsewhere in the book that shows Hari was not distorting the evidence. Hari has a track record of editing Wikipedia for professional advantage and sockpuppeting, so these suspicious edits need to be looked into further. 2A02:C7F:F6BE:F00:6197:8B17:2C56:90D0 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality / POV concerns

Possibly this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'd argue there's a lack of objectiveness in this article. Hari's lack of professionalism should of course be covered, along with his atrocious sock puppetry behaviour. But, nevertheless, it's now 2021, the events are 10 years in the past, and I believe they have undue prominence.

I don't believe anything should be removed, but I think we could definitely be more balanced. For example, we could include a quote or two from this Guardian article where Hari expresses strong remorse. There's also other information in there which is relevant, such as his practice now of publishing the audio of all interviews he carries out in order to be as transparent as possible.

Let me know your thoughts. If there aren't any objections I'll add some of this material at some point to try and balance it out a bit. ---Panser Born- (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I object.

His 'remorse' appeared in a widely-criticised promotional article about a new book. Everyone apologises when their malpractice is exposed - it's not significant enough to mention or quote.

The fact that he publishes audio of his interviews is simply because no one would believe a word of his writing if he didn't. It is not 'balance'. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the article already contains a somewhat lengthy quote of Hari's earlier apologies, which should suffice. And the argument that "the events are 10 years in the past" and should therefore be deemphasized in favor of current happenings doesn't hold water, per WP:NOTNEWS. Besides (as the article already mentions) in 2018 he was criticized again for making false claims and passing off discoveries as his own.

Hari's various and repeated violations are highly unusual and notable for someone in his profession, which relies on public trust, and knowing about this history is relevant for readers of his newer work. For example, Hari just published a new article (again the Guardian) with strong claims about the effects of smartphones and social media, which at least in the first part relies heavily on Hari's credibility in relaying various personal anecdotes and observations (about the failings and misdeeds of his teenage godson and Hari's heroic attempts to rescue him from Snapchat and texting, the alleged stupidity of a couple Hari observes in a museum etc.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the article could be toned down a little. Totorotroll (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

TSP altered the agreed edit after the RFC process to play down what Hari did

So after the whole RFC process above, the rewrite agreed included the sentence "In 2011, Hari was suspended from The Independent, and then resigned, after admitting to plagiarism and making pejorative edits to the Wikipedia pages about journalists who had criticised his conduct."

TSP claimed that they had made the agreed edit. But what they actually put in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johann_Hari&type=revision&diff=1073988891&oldid=1073058580

was "making critical edits to the Wikipedia pages"...

There is no dispute that the edits were perjorative and not just critical. For example https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/02/johann-hari-interview-drugs-book-independent says "Using a false identity, Hari had maliciously amended the Wikipedia pages of journalists he disliked – among them the Telegraph columnist Cristina Odone and the Observer’s Nick Cohen – accusing them of antisemitism, homophobia and other toxic falsehoods."

Why did TSP modify the text that had been agreed? It seems like they are one of a small group of editors to this page who are determined to play down what Hari did and make sure that no mention of him being disgraced ends up on the first page of Google results.

167.98.45.36 (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not part of any "small group" here. I am not determined to "play down" anything. Could not care less about what Google does. Just looking for a fair and chronological summary in the lead section, which has consensus. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2022‎ (UTC)

Hi 167.98.45.36, please Assume Good Faith and refrain from personal attacks. This is a non-negotiable part of editing Wikipedia. Alleging conspiracies on the part of other editors, as you are doing, is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Stop it.

I made the edit by moving the existing sections of text around, in order to preserve the references, as the version in the proposal had removed them. In doing so, I missed that there was also a changed word in there. Feel free to make that edit. You do not need an RFC for every edit. TSP (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it a 'conspiracy theory' that Johann Hari edited his own article and the articles of rivals using a sockpuppet? It would be surprising if he hadn't hired a reputation management company to try to hide his past misconduct. It's demonstrably true that any edit that produces a mention of Hari's misconduct in his Google results is being reverted, with flimsy excuses or no reason provided at all.

167.98.45.36 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not disputed that Hari has used a sockpuppet in the past. That does not justify you accusing every editor who disagrees with you of being one. Please read the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, it's really quite clear.

A number of similar edits, which clumsily shoehorned duplicated content into the first sentence, were reverted by several editors, because they were badly-written edits that made the article worse. Once a form of words that concisely summarised the subject in one paragraph was proposed, it was swiftly adopted without opposition, and is in the article now. That would have happened a great deal quicker if the debate and edit comments had stuck to discussion about the content, rather than wild accusations that everyone who dares to disagree with you is either Johann Hari or his publicity company. (Feel free to read my 17 years of edits that have nothing to do with Hari and decide whether that's a plausible accusation; if you really think it is, the correct course is to report it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not to use it for clout in edit discussions.)

Again, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. They are core behavioural policies of Wikipedia and are not optional. TSP (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Combining early career section

I combined the multiple sections having to do with the subject's early career into an 'Early career' section for better formatting and readability. I think it looks much cleaner, is better organizationally, and just makes common sense. SPA editor MedianJoe stated my edit was "another reputation management move to try to keep these showing up in first page of search results". First of all, I don't care where the sections/subsections turn up in search results, and secondly, I don't appreciate the implication that I am somehow a "reputation manag[er]" by making edits I think benefit an article. I have been editing for almost 9 years and to my knowledge had never even read this article before coming across it last week. What I do care about is making WP articles better. It seems as is SPA MedianJoe wants to punish the subject for the plagiarism scandal, which will obviously follow the subject forever. What we do not need to do on WP is actively contrive to manipulate search results to further punish subjects because editors don't like what they've done. I think combining the subject's early career into an 'Early career' section just makes sense. What are other editor's thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - happy to hear proposals for other article arrangements, but having 13 top-level categories and only three second-level ones makes the article disorganised and hard to approach. (Any alternative proposal would need to take into account WP:CSECTION, just to get that in now.) Placing the plagiarism and similar incidents in the context of the part of his career when he did them seems a reasonable approach.

Also, sympathy over baseless conflict of interest accusations - I've put AGF warning messages on relevant users' talk pages, if this continues we may need to call in admin support. TSP (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's very odd to include the sections about plagiarism and fabrication within 'Early career'.

(a) chronologically, the plagiarism and fabrication and smears came to light in 2011; although the misconduct was going on throughout his early career, the revelation of it started a new phase of his career. Look at the articles for Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke.

(b) it is not entirely clear that he has stopped fabricating or at the very least misrepresenting sources, as you can see from the criticism of his books. So it may be inaccurate to put all his misconduct under 'early career'.

Maybe the best solution is to have three top level sections: 'Early career', 'Plagiarism and fabrication scandal', 'Post-scandal career'. Then put 'Plagiarism', 'Fabrication', 'Misuse of Wikipedia' etc within the 'Plagiarism and fabrication scandal'.

I am going to assume good faith but I do find it a remarkable coincidence how many edits are made that have the effect (if not the intent) of downplaying what Hari did and making it less obvious if you Google him that there was ever a scandal. Even the heading 'Misuse of Wikipedia' seems euphemistic when a more accurate title would be something like 'Malicious editing of Wikipedia'. 167.98.45.36 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@167.98.45.36: You are not AGF if you are finding "intent" to downplay "what [the subject] did". I don't care what happens in the rankings of Google. My goal isn't to punish the subject; my goal is to make articles better on WP. Like TSP stated above, "13 top-level categories and only three second-level ones makes the article disorganised and hard to approach." I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. And regardless of when the allegations came to light, the fact of the matter is the topics were written in his early career, making 'Early career' the perfect section for those points. --Kbabej (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if your goal is to affect Google algorithms/Google results by editing WP, I believe that goes against WP policy. Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Kbabej (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support having a combined section called “Plagiarism and fabrication” or something like that. The plagiarism scandal was a huge very notable event, not just a detail of his early career MedianJoe (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there is probably a reasonable case for breaking out the period of the collapse of his journalistic career into its own top level section, as it seems from what I can see to have taken place over a fairly confined time period?

(It would be a lot easier to sort that out if more of the article had chronology associated with it - currently there are an awful lot of statements in the article like "Hari falsely claimed...", "He was also reported to have", without any information about when Hari's actions took place, when the accusations were made regarding them, or who made them.)

Care just needs to be taken with titling, to avoid it seeming like a WP:CSECTION violation - basically, it needs to be a section covering the events of that period when his actions were uncovered; not a POV section, where all controversies from whatever period get put shorn of of context from the events that surrounded them. TSP (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Reputation management campaign"

(Breaking this out of the above section in the hope that we can keep that productive) TSP (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am not contriving to manipulate search results, but there is a clear reputation management campaign to make people forget what Hari did. A lot of people editing this article seem to be non-Brits who aren’t actually familiar with Hari. He’s a notorious liar and plagiarist, putting that in his Wikipedia isn’t “punishing” him, any more than putting that in Jayson Blair’s article is “punishment”. MedianJoe (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi MedianJoe, that isn't acceptable; you must stop making personal attacks on other editors, and failing to assume good faith, by repeatedly accusing other editors of being involved in a "reputation management campaign". You are not helping your case, and are very likely to be banned from Wikipedia if you continue to approach discussions with the assumption that all editors who disagree with your edits are involved in a conspiracy against you or in favour of Hari. You must read and follow Wikipedia's conduct policies, like every other editor.

Please accept that sometimes you are wrong, sometimes your edits do not improve the article; and work in good faith with other editors - as you (eventually) managed during the RFC - to address any concerns you have in a way that results in a good article. TSP (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)