Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 2

message: To User:David r from meth productions:-
From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. You have been entirely out of order. Where it says above that personal attacks and unsigned comments will be removed, what did you think that meant? Charles Matthews 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought I had signed. Doesn't it display my name if I am logged in? I'm not sure what a signed comment means if not that, please explain, i want to get it right.
You need to add ~~~~ to the end of each post, which becomes a timestamped signature.
You have yet again attacked another editor in your posting, so I have removed that. It is quite simple: every time you attack the credentials of another editor, you are breaking a fundamental policy here. You are quite entitled to disagree with edits made to the article; but you are not allowed to attack editors. There is the fallacy of ad hominem, which is clearly understood by most people, that who or what someone is does not detract from the truth or validity of what they say or write. I repeat: you are completely out of order. If you think the article can be improved, discuss that and not personalities. Charles Matthews 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: No more 'tyke', 'bloat', or 'sockpuppet' talk; let's have comment section-by-section, and a constructive approach to tightening up the article. Which I believe everyone wants. Charles Matthews 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Hari and Galloway on television with Clive Anderson, I don't doubt Galloway did appear on Anderson's programme. But there is apparently no quick ref for it being with Hari(?). So it can stay out right now. Charles Matthews 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still much work to do hereFelix-felix 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: He went to Harrow, the famous public school, which is the only notable one dave. His father was a cook when Hari was growing up, as it states on his website.Felix-felix 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's certainly more constructive, dave. 
Now, section by section;
*Monarchy;I can't see how it adds anything about his views on the monarchy, ie it being tough on the windsors.
- Fair enough; I'll concede on that.
*Class; I agree
- Good
*Prisons;  right wing, is a bit value laden, and doesn't add anything
- Fair enough, let's compromise on that
*Feminism; the 'superior bit doesn't scan very well with the rest of the sentence, could we do better?
- I think it's important, because otherwise it sounds like he is actually siding with sexists who say the sexes are different for pejorative reasons, which gives a v misleading picture. the 'superiority' statement is, I think, essential for giving a clear picture.
*Nuclear Weapons; I don't see how the addition of the extra text here makes anything clearer that the existing text and links do.
- If the extra text is not there, I think it begs too many obvious questions - why especially now? For what reason? it's too partial a picture as you have put it
*Congo; Likewise
- This is the area where quotes are most essential, since Hari is making quite a complex point. As you put it you didn't even mention that it was based on first-hand reporting. This is a complex argument and the summary you put was so bald I don't think the general reader would be able to udnerstand what he was saying. For example, you do not mention the core of Hari's argument: that it was a war for resources that were promptly sold back to the West.
*Free Speech and Postmodernism; Why is "At its core, he argues, is free speech, a principle which he controversially would extend to fascists and Islamic fundamentalists" better than "he believes in absolute free speech"? Why mention the enlightenment at all?-it's in the linked text and having it included in the article just adds length without giving the interested reader any extra information.Why the extra text about Lenin's Tomb?, it is, afterall linked to. 
- I agree with trimming the extra text about Lenin's Tomb. But the Enlightenment is at the absolute core of his ideas, and the free speech and opposition to postmodernism flow from it. To state them without the correcting thread leaves a very partial picture; why are they mentioned together, readers will ask.
*Galloway;the 'vehement' seems a bit extraneuos.The link doesn't support a claim about supporting stalinism.
- Fair enough, I'll put in a link about supporting Stalinism
*Religion; Atheist tells you what he is, and wikifies, militant anti-theist does not, and is supplied in the link.
- I disagree. There is a significant differnce between an atheist (somebody who simply has an absence of belief in God) and an antitheist (somebody who believes as Hari puts it the idea of God has been a disaster). The two terms are clearly not synonymous.
*Global Warming; What's the point of putting all that extra quoted text back in? It tells you nothing more about what he thinks than the previous text and links-the section looks a bit ridiculous with just the previous sentence in it, but why not merge the section instead?
- I disagee. The added text tells you somethign central about his views that simply baldly saying 'he has written about global warming' does not.
I hope we can agree, but if we cannot I suggest Charles adjudicates. I also hope you apologise for your howler about Harrow School (!) and apologise to Jessica for accusing her of being a sock puppetDavid r from meth productions 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not the only one who has noted that this link only tells us that Hitchens inspired Hari to become a journo, after writing how nasty mother theresa was, Charles noted this at the time to. It does not show us that he influenced Hari's atheism. I will delete it again.Felix-felix 11:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The school: it is unnecessary anyway to attach epithets when we have an article, since the article itself should have all the information. I don't think it was being said that the school was Harrow. The material which was in extended quotes can reasonably be divided three ways (inline weblinks, footnotes, verbatim quotes), as well as paraphrase. We should pick the quotes to give the proper flavour, and to represent any arguments that are not fairly routine. On the whole it is better to highlight the best bits. The article is now mostly in manageable shape. No doubt there will also be additions. Charles Matthews 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why didn't you cite them when asked, dave?Felix-felix 15:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's still not a country!Felix-felix 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling this to order

message: The article is now in fair shape. I've supplied another citation about Hitchens. Perhaps the self-definition vis-à-vis Marxism could go back in, but it's not crucial. Call a halt for a while? Charles Matthews 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak for yourself ... Charles Matthews 13:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the section on Global warming is too long-Hari is indeed pointing out that it exists and is dangerous, he hasn't advanced any knowledge of the mater, and apart from one blogger, no one is disagreeing with him. A lengthy quote of him saying that global warming is bad (a fact with broad concensus)makes for a slow reading, poor quality article-hence the deletion. Beware personal attacks, dave-hese are good faith edits.Felix-felix 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've worked on the 'environment' and 'international' areas some more. Dave, just leave the admin threats to me, OK? Charles Matthews 11:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summing up

message: It just occured to me (well, over the weekend..) that the picture here is an Independent byline picture isn't it? (Image:40837437 johann hari indy 203.jpg|thumb|Johann Hari) That would make it a copyvio would it not? I have another couple of public use ones of him, the first of which I'll substitute now, the other I can upload later, if people want. Should I tag this one for deletion?Felix-felix 07:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, who are you? I'm pretty sure I've seen this used in the independent, and the image name even indicates it's from there. An email from Hari doesn't make it ok, and I think that wikipedia guidelines state that even fair use pictiures (which this probably is not) should be replaced with free use ones (like this one) if possible.So I've replaced it.Felix-felix 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, you need to sign in. If it's copyright is owned by someone else, then it's NOT OK, take a look at the image use pages. This public domain one is much better for wikipedia-free use trumps fair use which trumps copyright.Hope you're enjoying your trip, is LA nice at the moment?.Felix-felix 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to hear you're there for a funeral. I have another image from flickr which is definately public domain, I will upload it tomorrow. The only concensus about this article was from your puppets, dave-and as I've said before, I won't be bound by false concensus.Felix-felix 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The pic is public domain unlike the other 2 pics, so-with your evident concern for wikipedia-I expect that you will demand nothing less than this proper public domain photo of Hari, unlike the other 2 copyright pics posted before.Felix-felix 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What compromises, dave? You just keep making wholesale reverts.The picture is easily recognisable, and, importantly, public domain, unlike the picture you keep posting. Wikipedia guidelines state that pictures are desirable in articles, and these pictures should be public domain.You may not like the picture-but that is not the point.His views on nuclear disarmament are, in fact commonplace-I don't think that these passages should be in the article at all, my edits are thus compromise edits.Felix-felix 07:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That picture isn't public domain if Hari owns the copyright. Take a look at the guidelines. And plese sign inFelix-felix 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you're signed into your account now, you need to sign your edits on this page by putting four tildes after each edit, as has been explained to you ad nauseum.Remember that unsigned edits can be removed. The picture I posted is public domain, dave, yours is not. I am thus restoring it, and will keep doing so until you provide a better public domain one. Why not read the picture guidelines rather than make wholly incorrect assertions about copyright and public domain status? False consensus achieved by meat and sock puppets is non binding, as I've repeated before. You might want to take a glance at the 100-edit rule pertaining to sock/meat puppet disputes.Two other real editors stated on this page that the article is far too long (even though you tried to remove one of the editors comments) so the editing will go on.Felix-felix 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The pictre is absolutely fine, dave. He's recognisable and working in the picture too. More importantly it's public domain. I'm putting it back. You may want to peek at the Three reverts rule whilst you're bored in front of your monitor.Oh, don't forget to sign in. This page is geting very long again, but it would be a pity to start removing your unsigned edits.Felix-felix 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't be bound by false consensus, dave.Your deletion of the picture has been reverted by 2 (real) editors now. And are you suggesting that Hari is to nuclear disarmament what Mandela was to the fight against apartheid?Felix-felix 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture