Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 3

message: I haven't had time to do this yet, and I think it's something we have to jointly ask for. Felix, you and I clearly aren't going to agree independently - I've offered you more than eight compromises, and you've refused them all. However, when MuttGirl - an independent thrid party - intervened, we reached our first real compromise. it worked. So I think official mediation would help even more. We both, I'm sure, have better things to do than endlessly squabble over a frozen page, so shall we apply together for mediation? What do you say?
Please answer this Felix, we can't carry on like this. David r from meth productions 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the plan then, dave?Felix-felix 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, okFelix-felix 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wiki authorities have suggested mediation rather than arbitration at this point 

message: Firstly this talk page is too long, and archiving it is a little tricky as the discussion is all in one section. I propose creating sections ( such as ones corresponding to setions in the article), to make future archiving and editing of this talk page easier. If we do so from now-I'll archive the rest of this page shortly.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's archived now-let's try and keep discussion to topic so it's possible to follow and archive. if you want to discuss a new section-just make a new section here to do it!Felix-felix 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes/Edits 

message: When the copyright on the indy portrait picture is sorted out, I have no problem with it's inclusion in the article. I think that the present yorkshire camp picture should stay as well-as it depicts him at work, and looks more like him to my mind as well.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear about your broadband, dave-I wondered where you'd gone. Two editors support both pictures going in a true compromise, which I thought you would support.Felix-felix 19:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors favour keeping two photos, one opposes, dave. You may want to check the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry guidelines again.Felix-felix 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I watch this page, but the basic idea is that editors sort things out, and learn to be less adversarial. If you want my opinion, in abstract terms two pictures are better than one; but has the whole provenance business really been resolved? There is a whole rolling debate going on about free images. Charles Matthews 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do these discussions go on? (For my own interest, really.)Felix-felix 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the wiki-en mailing list is one place. See  for a fairly recent thread. Charles Matthews 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta muchly.Felix-felix 12:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, dave that's all in Archive 3, which I created-remember to avoid personal attacks, sign in and stick to sections. If the indy picture copyright can be sorted, then consensus was that both pictures would be included, as I think we have discussed before.Felix-felix 11:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, dave-it was consensus amongst editors. Please review the archives.Felix-felix 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And sign in! I will start removing unsigned edits soon.Felix-felix 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Really! It's a false picture now!C'mon, dave-you can do better than this. I'm perfectly happy for both pictures to be included, once the copyvio is sorted out.Felix-felix 11:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You couldn't make this stuff up.It's obviously him-even you thought so, and you seem to be a friend of his...Felix-felix 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why. but Muttgirl removed this (perhaps by accident?) on her last edit-I've just restored it.Felix-felix 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you serious? It's clearly Hari-you thought it was him, as does everybody else-he has at the camp the photo is labelled as him and he wrote about it. Muttgirl is clearly not a sock or meatpuppet-those are very easy to spot, dave.The photo should stay in.Felix-felix 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I'm afraid this picture is completely genuine-it was taken at the Camp for Climbate action at Drax power station in Yorkshire. The picture blurb is here , and here is Hari's article in the Independent about it . It's obviously Hari, and I think the picture ought to stay in the article.Felix-felix 10:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why. but Muttgirl removed this (perhaps by accident?) on her last edit-I've just restored it.Felix-felix 15:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? It's clearly Hari-you thought it was him, as does everybody else-he has at the camp the photo is labelled as him and he wrote about it. Muttgirl is clearly not a sock or meatpuppet-those are very easy to spot, dave.The photo should stay in.Felix-felix 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supposedly fake photo

message: As I've opined before-I think that alot of the criticisms added at the end of each para are pretty spurious and add nothing to the article, they're often from inconsequential bloggers (or comments boxes) and usually concern otherwise fairly non-controversial liberal pieces by Hari.Although many are not in the present frozen version-some still are.
Specific examples include;
*Prison polices-criticism by stephen Pollard.
*Nuclear disarmament-criticism by David Starkey.
*Global Warming-criticism by Bjorn Lomberg.
*Religious section-accusations of anti-semitism and islamophobia. (Although the Delai Lama calling him fat does have novelty value!)Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Opined' is teh word. Assertions, assertions, never any facts.  David r from meth productions 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep your hair on, dave. It is not a scientifically controversial issue-some climbate change deniers are knocking around, but that 'controversy' is manufactured. In any case, Hari is not an environmental campaigner, he's an op-ed writer and the 'criticism' that you want to keep is inconsequential, and of no interest.Felix-felix 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, dave-I'll remind you to sign in, and also to try and keep your temper. Personal attacks against me don't move the issue of improving this article forward. The basic point remains, that the article is overlong-not least because of spurious criticism bloating paras on non-notable aspects of Hari's writing. So the odd letter written by Starkey of Lomberg is of little interest to a reader (no matter what prospect magazine thinks of them) trying to get a feel for what Hari is notable for, especially as the page has about 50 seperate links to Hari's personal website, which carries all his stuff anyway. Nuclear disarmament is neither a remarkable part of Hari's writing or controversial.Felix-felix 09:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, dave try and stick to sections and avoid personal attacks, which you have been warned about (and blocked for) before. To reiterate-the article is massively overlong and gives an impression of gravitas to Hari who is a not particularly noteworthy op-ed writer. The whole article is padded with spurious criticism of Haris articles, many of which are not noteworthy, to give a false impression of controversy. Hari is not a noteworthy environmental or anti nuclear campaigner or even writer-and these are simply not worthy additions to an encyclopedia article about him. Your invokation of a prospect magazine list is completely irrelevant-if these people were as important as, say Chomsky or Foucault-they would still be irrelevant.Dave, please sign in, or I may start removing your unsigned edits.Felix-felix 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think tat an uncited prospect magazine list hits WP:NOT even if this historian and climbate change denier are on it. As I said above-it doesn't matter who they are, but what they said or did which is important-and this is certainly not notable-for anyone who is trying to find out about Hari. My New Year was fab, dave-I hope yours was too.Felix-felix 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they're not major figures, and the criticisms, as detailed at length and depth before are spurious.Felix-felix 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's the original point, dave. It doesn't matter who they are (I used Chomsky and Foucault as examples, remember?) if what they did is unimportant or unnotworthy, then it shouldn't stay in.Felix-felix 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, firstly, as you can see from the above, it's not changing the subject, and they both are minor figures, prospect list or not.Felix-felix 17:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And spurious is not POV, you may want to read that too. WP:POV Felix-felix 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You keep referring to some mythical "above" where you have offered facts, rather than assertions. Where is this "above"? I offered the Prospect list as evidence, along with the masisve veiweing figures for Starkey's shows. What referenced facts have you offered? David r from meth productions 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious Criticisms 

message: I'm all for a (bullet pointed?) section on awards he's actually won. I still don't see why previous nominations are of interest. No other orwell prize nominee has this mentioned.Felix-felix 09:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the Orwell Prize thing was removed with good reason. Charles Matthews 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.Felix-felix 16:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that I don't see why any nominations for awards are notable at all.Felix-felix 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I notice, dave, that you remerged the section with Galloway and Che Guevara, with the edit summary; Makes much more sense to have Che with Galloway; they are both crits of the communist left
I split the section as they have nothing to do with each other, and I'm confused by your summary. Neither are "critics of the communist left", one was a revolutionary communist, the other is an elected British MP. Galloway isn't, and never has been a communist, although he has criticised Hari, Guevara was and obviously never even knew about Hari.What on earth have they got to do with each other?Felix-felix 11:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Felix, you've failed to actually understand what I wrote, partly because I lazily used an abbreviation. I was pointing out that Hari's disagreements with Galloway and Che are +criticisms+ of the communist left, not critics. Sorry, thought this was obvious. Galloway is part of the communist left, check out the Guardian interview where he explicitly associates with the Soviet Union and says he would call himself a Stalinist if it didn't "make a rod for my own back."
I've offered compromises and consensus, you have so far offered nothing except an insistence that you get your own way and everyone else shut up. You continue to insist that the one set of critics you agree with should be the only ones given a lengthy quote.
I'm afraid it's hard to think of how you could be more obviously trying to impose your POV onto this article.
I think I've been quite persistently trying to compromise, and you've been quite persistently refusing and insulting other people who post here.
I've had a heavy workload over the past week and will have up to teh New Year. Let's try for anotehr week to get some compromises and then go for arbitration - can we at least compromise on those principles? I know givenm your track record of defying wiki rules (insulting other users, showing a clear hatred of the subject of the profile, attempting to insert POV, inserting libellous falsehoods into the entry) this will probably go against you and you will no doubt resist even this, but I can't see any other way forward86.129.145.129 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, Galloway is not, and never has been, a communist. The merge of these two entirely different strands makes no logical sense, and I suspect that you made the revert just because I had edited the tidy up. You have offered one compromise, consisting of a choice between two unacceptable demands. I think that the medialens quote is a good example of the criticism that he faced over his support for the invasion. If you can think of a better one, why not suggest one that we might incorportate. I don't think that diverging into issues already covered elsewhere is encyclopedic, and I would imagine would any other wikipedia editors. And why not give the personal attacks a rest, dave? You might notice that I didn't use your recent absence as a green light to have a go at you, as you did to me not so long ago. And don't forget to sign in.Felix-felix 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, dave-I must remind you to sign in. So do we agree that Galloway has never been a communist? Does that mean that it would be more sensible to have him in the section on domestic politics (as he comes from the UK) and Guevara in International (he was not)? I think that Galloway's support for the former USSR was from the viewpoint of opposing US imperialism the rest of the quote goes; If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe." The main point being, I suppose that if he hd stood on a chair and yelled "I love Stalin!" it would STILL not make him a communist. This just seems like common sense (unless you're trying to incidentally trying to get in a dig at Galloway).
We both have quiet and heavy days at wor, dave-that they don't coincide is not surprising. Bemoaning time wasted by admins on this site sem a little brazen, dave-when you have been the only one to ask for adjudication, rather than seek concensus, but no matter. lets try and keep the discussion to sections, as it gets hard to follow.Felix-felix 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about the Gallow bit in public disagreemants, and the Che part in inernational? (Although the Che part is pretty minor IMO) If you can't log in, you still need to sign your comments as you were doing before.Felix-felix 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See above-try and stick to he sections, and remember to sign in.Felix-felix 09:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Adjudication rejected, dave. Are we agreed about the Galloway section going in domestic politics? Is the Che qoute even necessary? It's unremarkable.Felix-felix 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Che line is completely irrelevant to anything-it's a line from one of his articles-the intro on politics underlines his soft left liberal politics. Deleting cited material is fine if it's irrelevant-for a 'wiki rules' stickler you certainly don't seem to read WP policies or guidelines  very much.Felix-felix 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote that line infrustration at your use of links which didn't support your overblown hyperbolic statements. And now anti-communism is another of Hari's core beliefs? He seems to have alot of them, doesn't he? It's irrelevent, dave-like about 70% of the article.How many different ways can I say it?Felix-felix 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's obviously not vandalism, dave-check out the guidelines.WP:VAND Felix-felix 13:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, more to the point, what's that got to do with Galloway or Che? Stick to sections, dave, your proclivity for inserting huge chunks of text is making this page very long again, and so these sections can form seperate archives, remember.Felix-felix 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, dave, the passage was neither, have you even read the vandalism page? Give it a spin.Felix-felix 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does it say that, dave?Felix-felix 17:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But it wasn't nonsense was it? Just a non-notable sentence.If you want to quote guidelines and policy-read it first.Felix-felix 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But it made sense didn't it? And it actually fitted the citation you supplied-about Wheen's (terrible) book.Felix-felix 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Galloway 

message: Minor I know in relation to some of the debates here, but seeing as the page is protected, please could someone correctly spell "renewable" in lieu of "renawable" in the Global Warming section? Many pedantic thanks. The Geography Elite 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The intro of this article needs to be worked on, at the moment it is a bit gushy in praise of Hari. (award-winning in first sentence?). Catchpole 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, although I'm of the opinion the entire article is far too long and gushy.Felix-felix 11:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, all that spurious criticism was put in by you to give a misleading sense of controversy. He's unremarkable and most of the sections in here fail notability.Every actual editor who has commented on this article has noted that it's either too long or to 'gushy' (I'm paraphrasing again..).Felix-felix 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Stick to sections, dave.Felix-felix 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See spurious criticisms section, dave.Felix-felix 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: This article doesn't mention that Johann Hari is openly gay (apart from category) - does anyone think that it would be worth including? I know it's not always appropriate, but given that he is a strong supporter of gay rights and has written many articles on the topic, isn't his sexuality an important piece of information for readers? 81.101.137.167 16:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but as above it seems obvious, much like, for example his weight. In these enlightened times, do we really need to spell this sort of stuff out?Felix-felix 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No strong feelings about it, you certainly can't tell his sexuality from his picture-but he does write about both his weight and the fact that he's gay-both of which are mentioned in the text of the article (or were at some point..). But, whatever, really.Felix-felix 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: The problem with your proposal for summaries, Felix, is that you've shown yourself to be incapable of honestly summarising Hari's views. I urge readers to look at this:
Hari wrote:
“The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).
The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster. Let’s look at the major mistakes-cum-crimes. Who would have thought they would unleash widespread torture, with over 10,000 people disappearing without trial into Iraq’s secret prisons? Anybody who followed the record of the very same people – from Rumsfeld to Negroponte – in Central America in the 1980s. Who would have thought they would use chemical weapons? Anybody who looked up Bush’s stance on chemical weapons treaties (he uses them for toilet paper) or checked Rumsfeld’s record of flogging them to tyrants. Who would have thought they would impose shock therapy mass privatisation on the Iraqi economy, sending unemployment soaring to 60 percent – a guarantee of ethnic strife? Anybody who followed the record of the US towards Russia, Argentina, and East Asia. Who could have known that they would cancel all reconstruction funds, when electricity and water supplies are still below even Saddam’s standards? Anybody who looked at their domestic policies.”
Felix tried to summarise this statement as “half hearted-apologising for Bush mucking up an invasion which he would have supported if it had been done better.” 
He defended this, even after being challenged. 
So I oppose summaries by Felix because his overwhelming hatred of Hari (who he calls a "little tyke", makes disparaging references to his weight, etc) makes him incapable of not imposing his POV on them.
It's also startling that you are now backtracking on the only compromise you have ever agreed to: accepting the section about Hari's views on the Enlightenment. After your arguments were shown to be factually wrong and almost comically ignorant about postmodernism, you accepted the facts; now you propose they should be cut.
I have offered several compromises Felix. Until we compromise, the page will not be unfrozen. Do you want to suggest a compromise for once? - Dave 86.143.155.116 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, you seem determined to make this page unreadable by repeatedly inserting huge chunks of text in for little reason, especially when they're still here on the same page-hence my splitting this off into a new section. The basic point you make above, dave-is irrelevant (even if you think my paraphrasing is inaccurate, which I don't) as that is a comment I made on a talk page, not in the article.Felix-felix 10:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraphrasing 

message: Can an admin please fix the lead bolding (or lack thereof) of the subject? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 14:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Khoikhoi 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you add  to the External links section, as there is a quote article available for this subject? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request 

message: Readers following this discussion may be interested to know that Felix-Felix has revealed his POV again in the discussion of the Medialens article, where he accuses Hari of advocating "the destruction of untermenschen."
He says above, "I don't know why you think I'm hostile towards hari". 
I am beginning to reach the conclusion that rational engagement with Felix-Felix is impossible, and that will affect the editing of this page quite seriously. I reiterate: this is a man who says it is not anti-Semitic to write, "[W]e must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world." 
I will no longer be engaging Felix in discussion. He ignores evidence, inserts lies into entries, and compares Johann Hari to Nazis while defending blatant anti-Semites himself. 
Instead, I'll wait for mediation. If (as I suspect) Felix refuses to engage with mediation, I have been told I will probably be accepted for adjudication. With a track record like Felix's, I am confident this will bring a conclusion that sides with those of us who respond to evidence and do not deny blatant racism when we see it. 
David r from meth productions 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoiding personal attacks again, then , dave?Felix-felix 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to sign in, dave, and to avoid personal attacks.Does this mean you're no longer interested in the mediation?Felix-felix 08:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Goodness, dave-keep your hair on-and remember about the personal attacks.Felix-felix 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the 'comparisons to Nazis' is mainly in daver's head, but comes from a fairly hysterical reading of a comment on the medialens discussion page which I thought was a fairly funny description of the so-called'pro-war left'. I've made no attempts to 'slur' Hari, and I've always said that his (partial)recant of his support for the war should be included, as you'll see if you bother to look back over the discussion. Apart from that,discussion should be about the article-not on unprovable ascribed personal motives.Felix-felix 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, dave, as far as slurring Hari, I've not even made anything of his questionable taste in Aussie dramatists, such as van Badham Felix-felix 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, dave-I'm waiting for mediation, as we have discussed before.Felix-felix 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Another example of Felix-Felix abusing people who defend factual descriptions of Hari, since it is highly implausible that he has he has seen the work of Van Badham. David r from meth productions 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felix-Felix describes Hari as an "advocate [of] the destruction of untermenschen" 

message: Felix persistently claims this article is too long. I was looking around and it seems to be the standard length for prominent op-ed columnists, and to include the usualy number of critics referenced. Check out Peter Hitchens, Ann Coulter or Polly Toynbee. Peter Hitchens' is remarkably similar to the original entry I laid out here that was subsequently shredded, contrary to the epxlicit instructions of the wiki authorities, by Felix. Nobody on the discussion pages of these entries has suggested they are too long. - Dave David r from meth productions 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all older and more notable than Hari, with longer careers. Pretty straightforward, really.Felix-felix 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, there is no policy or guideline about covering a subject in depth, provided that all statements are well written and comply with verification requirements, and that the subject of the article is notable.  See generally "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia."  Are there concerns about the sourcing of the article or "undue weight" concerns, or is this just an argument about whether Hari is notable enough to deserve a long entry? TheronJ 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This stems from a longer version of the article, the current version was protected after much trimming by me, and in the midst of much restoring by daver. Relevant comments from other editors can be found here  and mainly relate to WP:LENGTH but also to WP:NOT. My main objections are to a tedious repetition of the form 'Hari is a prominent defender of x, so-and-so said thats silly.' Felix-felix 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of the length of this entry 

message: ::Dave, you really must remember to sign in!FelixFelix talk 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been warned about personal attacks before, dave!Felix-felix 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example of a personal attack is calling the subject of an article you're trying to edit - after agreeing to a consensus period - "a self publisising careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that." David r from meth productions 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to sign in, dave. I note that the post you link to was on a message board unrelated to wikipedia. You appear to still be confused about the no personal attacks guideline WP:ATTACK ("Comment on content, not on the contributor", it's on the first line.) Felix-felix 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felix describes Hari as "a self publisising [sic] careerist, and a particulary unpleasant one at that." 

message: Both Felix and David have agreed to mediate.  Since many (but certainly not all) of the issues appear to be personal to the two of them, I have started mediation discussions on the mediation page, here.  Anyone else who feels that they have something to add is welcome to join in.  Thanks, TheronJ 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation update 

message: "He has reported from many parts of the world. These include Iraq, war zones in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Israel/Palestine, Venezuela, Rwanda, Peru, Syria, France and Northern Ireland".
When was he supposedly reporting from Northern Ireland?  I take that to mean that he was physically in that area witnessing events then sending copy back to his editors. It is also a stretch to call ireland a "war zone" post 2000-2001 (period his journalism appears to have begun).
Hi - you're right, the order in which they are listed is wrong, he has reported from war-zones in Congo - not warzones in the other places, as far as I know, so Congo should be listed last or it can be easily misunderstood. He reported from Northern Ireland when he was at the New Statesman, I believe, i recall articles from the IRA-dominated estates and an interview with Martin McGuiness, I'm sure this will be on his website www.johannhari.com - DavidR
:Hi, it wasnt so much the order, more like was he actually in those places or just reporting on them. I did look on his site (thanks) and found this story, which appears to place him in Ireland interviewing Sinn Fein supremo Martin McGuinness in early 2002. The article being reproduced in The New Statesman - 04/02/2002. Thanks for your assistance DavidR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.116 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported on or '''from'''? 

message: 
there is a place where a space is needed after a full stop and the headings do not meet with WP:Manual of Style (only the first word should be capitalised. Itsmejudith 20:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the headings.  I cannot see where the space is needed after a full stop - it's a big article, please say where this is. Proto::► 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedits 

message: This article has been locked for ages; it's getting rather annoying. Is there any point in the future when it will be open for editing? — Emiellaiendiay 05:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Is it possible to block this user? — Emiellaiendiay 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What was that about personal attacks, dave?FelixFelix talk 08:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, many of the statements you've made above are false (the 'vendetta' and 'libellous comments' as well as 'weird pictures'-whichever those were..)-although even if they were factual, would still violate WP:NPA.You have been warned about this before, dave.FelixFelix talk 14:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, dave-WP:NPA and why is mistakenly saying that Hari went to Harrow boarding school, when he went to the associated John Lyon day school (which is 'nearby' what, precisely?) libellous? It would be nice if you entered into the spirit of the mediation..FelixFelix talk 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dave, we're supposed to be in mediation-try and calm down. I think you're wrong about the 2 schools, as a quick look on their entries will reveal.FelixFelix talk 07:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, dave-I think that cooling down would help with the mediation and the spirit in which we will need to go forward together in editing the Hari article. A simple look at the articles for the 2 schools will show how closely associated they are, mistaking one for another isn't the end of the world, or a smear for that matter. I'm not really sure how posts on unrelated messageboards is relevant to the article, either, dave.FelixFelix talk 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked 

message: ===Description of dispute===
This is a dispute regarding whether this image is appropriate for inclusion in the body of the Johann Hari article.  The previously involved editors may offer more details below, but basically, the dispute is this:
*Felix-felix would like to include the picture.  He thinks that it is a good illustration of the subject, Johann Hari, pursuing his profession (journalism), and would therefore be a positive addition to the article.
*According to its posting on Flickr,, the image is licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0 attribution license, which means it's the only GDFL-compliant image currently available.  (The editors are working on obtaining releases for more images, and hope to get a copyright release on this image shortly.  In addition, the editors could probably come up with fair use rationales for "promotional" images if the free image at issue is not usable).
*David r opposes the use of the image at issue.  Dave reports that Hari has confirmed to him in e-mail that (1) the picture isn't him, and (2) the clothes in the picture aren't his.  In addition to believing that the picture isn't Hari, Dave also opposes the picture because Dave believes the picture to be unflattering.  Dave has offered for Felix or I to e-mail Hari and confirm the e-mails, but we believe him.
*Felix believes that (1) the picture is clearly Hari on its face (see generally the other Hari photos on Google images); and (2) the Flickr caption  identifies the photo as Hari, and reports that the photo was taken at a protest in the UK.  (Hari wrote a piece about this protest, so there does not appear to be much dispute that he was there).  He is concerned about the implications of allowing a subject of an article to veto a photo that he believes clearly is the an accurate photo of the guy in question.
*The question of whether to use the image therefore raises a number of sub-issues:  (1) Given that the photo resembles Hari, but that it's disputed, what are the WP:ATT requirements, and have they been met.  (2) Does this raise WP:BLP issues, and how can they be resolved?  (3) Does the existence of this photo prevent the editors from using promotional images under the fair use guidelines?  
Thanks for commenting, TheronJ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear to me that the photograph is one of him. See this one for a comparison. Its existence does preclude us from using a fair-use one. Hari can send us one he regards as more flattering if he wants to, then the problem will be solved. Interesting issue, though, and not one I've come across before, where the source was saying the clothes weren't his. He needs to stop stealing other people's clothes if that's the case. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure the photographer is anonymous, I could try and contact him/her, I suppose, if this would help.FelixFelix talk 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Disputed Photo 

message: This is a dispute regarding whether this image is appropriate for inclusion in the body of the Johann Hari article.  The previously involved editors may offer more details below, but basically, the dispute is this:
*Felix-felix would like to include the picture.  He thinks that it is a good illustration of the subject, Johann Hari, pursuing his profession (journalism), and would therefore be a positive addition to the article.
*According to its posting on Flickr,, the image is licensed under the Creative Commons 2.0 attribution license, which means it's the only GDFL-compliant image currently available.  (The editors are working on obtaining releases for more images, and hope to get a copyright release on this image shortly.  In addition, the editors could probably come up with fair use rationales for "promotional" images if the free image at issue is not usable).
*David r opposes the use of the image at issue.  Dave reports that Hari has confirmed to him in e-mail that (1) the picture isn't him, and (2) the clothes in the picture aren't his.  In addition to believing that the picture isn't Hari, Dave also opposes the picture because Dave believes the picture to be unflattering.  Dave has offered for Felix or I to e-mail Hari and confirm the e-mails, but we believe him.
*Felix believes that (1) the picture is clearly Hari on its face (see generally the other Hari photos on Google images); and (2) the Flickr caption  identifies the photo as Hari, and reports that the photo was taken at a protest in the UK.  (Hari wrote a piece about this protest, so there does not appear to be much dispute that he was there).  He is concerned about the implications of allowing a subject of an article to veto a photo that he believes clearly is the an accurate photo of the guy in question.
*The question of whether to use the image therefore raises a number of sub-issues:  (1) Given that the photo resembles Hari, but that it's disputed, what are the WP:ATT requirements, and have they been met.  (2) Does this raise WP:BLP issues, and how can they be resolved?  (3) Does the existence of this photo prevent the editors from using promotional images under the fair use guidelines?  
Thanks for commenting, TheronJ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear to me that the photograph is one of him. See this one for a comparison. Its existence does preclude us from using a fair-use one. Hari can send us one he regards as more flattering if he wants to, then the problem will be solved. Interesting issue, though, and not one I've come across before, where the source was saying the clothes weren't his. He needs to stop stealing other people's clothes if that's the case. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of dispute

message: ====David r from meth productions====
It's worth bearing in mind three other factors:
(1) My understanding is that the picture was taken at a very crowded protest event where hundreds of people were milling around, and clearly the photographer has picked out somebody who looks a bit like Hari.
(2) There is a perfectly good and undisputed picture that we are getting copyright clearance on in the next few days - DavidR
====Felix-felix====
(1)The camp had only 600 people as recorded both here  and (by Hari) here , so the chance of finding a doppleganger seems a little unlikely, to put it mildly. 
(2)The picture is not unflattering and shows Hari at work.
(3)No-one is against the indy portrait mugshot going in when it's non-copyvio, I (and other editors) just want this one too.FelixFelix talk 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: (1)The camp had only 600 people as recorded both here  and (by Hari) here , so the chance of finding a doppleganger seems a little unlikely, to put it mildly. 
(2)The picture is not unflattering and shows Hari at work.
(3)No-one is against the indy portrait mugshot going in when it's non-copyvio, I (and other editors) just want this one too.FelixFelix talk 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Felix-felix

message: * While images do have some exemption from the rules of WP:ATT, that's not a total exemption.  Usually, we'd be able to assume that the subject of an image is what is claimed, but I think the fact that a dispute exists means we'd now have to have a reliable source to cite that claims the image was of Hari before we could use it in this context. JulesH 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure the photographer is anonymous, I could try and contact him/her, I suppose, if this would help.FelixFelix talk 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by other editors

message: We don't care if people are criticised by bloggers - everyone has been criticised by bloggers - they are not notable. Secretlondon 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from a blogger 

message: Under the section "Other issues", in the last sentence:
:Hari has written about about his experiences of clinical depression, and Seroxat.
Please change the link to clinical depression.
Thanks, Smalljim 14:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Harryboyles 12:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He has also written critically of the Catholic Church's stance on birth control and Christian evangelicals who believe in the Rapture.
Please change the "evangelicals" link to be evangelicals.
Edit reason: Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!
Thanks from me too -- Paddles TC 11:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I unprotected the page, so you can make the edits yourself.  Hopefully the protection is no longer needed after 4 months. CMummert · talk 13:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks, I'll make the change. Paddles TC 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for disambiguation 

message: Probably worth signing in, and then we can discuss changes to the page rather than studiously ignoring each other, which whilst that may have it's plus points, is likely to end up in edit warring, methinks.FelixFelix talk 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave 

message: He doesn't argue that the belief in alternative medicine is due to increasing irrationality and, to be fair, he doesn't assert it either. He doesn't even mention the Enlightenment or irrationality or indeed anything increasing at all. He dissaproves of alternative medicine, which is sensible. And not terribly noteworthy.FelixFelix talk 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, dave, you started making edits to the section on the war and the Orwell prize,(without signing in , I note),which we also agreed on-so after I noted that a section was factually incorrect-I changed it. Are you going to start signing in now?FelixFelix talk 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to change it to something a bit easier to remember then dave, as this seems to be a recurring problem. You added the stuff about Hari being the youngest nominee, which we had discussed and agreed not to put in, if you recall-and I think that trimming is a generous way to describe those edits.FelixFelix talk 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Dave, remember to sign in, I don't want to have to start removing unsigned edits from this discussion page. The war para that I've restored is by far the better one, as discussed here already. Medialens are hardly obscure (they get a much better page ranking than Hari's homepage, for example), but the point in using them here, is that their public correspondence with Hari encapsulates his position on the war-as we've discussed before. The reference to Chomsky is misleading and incorrect, again, as I've said before. So suggestions would be gratefully received as to how to make the para more factual and representative, but the current version is certainly clearer and more concise (not to mention more factual!) than the last. FelixFelix talk 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative medicine 

message: Dave, I've cut back this section again, as I don't see what it adds to the article (which still reads like a hagiography!) that the links in the current version don't. Not to mention that the whole thing wasn't that remarkable to begin with. I'm sure you'll disagree, but arguments and suggestions would be welcome this time. And don't forget to sign in! FelixFelix talk 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and don't forget to sign in....FelixFelix talk 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niall Ferguson etc 

message: Adjusted as per helpfully supplied link. FelixFelix talk 07:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award 

message: Hi, since most of the article was unsourced I've blanked it. Please do not revert me :) Schiste 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what exactly are you up to? It is not the case that the article was largely unsourced. Charles Matthews 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Charles Matthews's comments. — Emiellaiendiay 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into this: it was based on an OTRS ticket, which I have seen. Charles Matthews 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "blanking" 

message: I added the reference to Wheen writing the "Hackwatch" column in Private Eye in the magaine's WP article; it is slightly dubious to link to it as if it is an external source; I do not now recall my reference. 'Close friend' is difficult to substantiate, and given that it is a reference to an article in a magazine given to code words (part of the Eye's appeal) is likely to be taken the wrong way in what is intended to be a purely encyclopedic article. Philip Cross 12:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David R, you simply used the shift key in the wrong place. Philip Cross 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Philip Cross 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hackwatch", Nick Cohen and Francis Wheen 

message: I snipped this out on the basis of irrelevance-any objections?FelixFelix talk 14:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Depression 

message: Mr Hari has emailed asking if anything can be done about some of the rubbish that keeps being put back into the article. This one needs severely hard-arsed BLP attention for highest-quality sources. (e.g. Private Eye, though responsible for some top-notch investigative journalism in the back, mostly runs industry gossip in the front sections, so some bits are good sources and some are much less so. If the page number's in single digits, I suggest treating it with a very jaundiced eye and looking for a better source.) Soonest attention possible to this one would be best, I've been meaning to get around to it for ages but haven't managed it. (I've also pointed Mr Hari at this notice.) - David Gerard 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I'll point out that if we're detailing the Private Eye allegations themselves, then the Hackwatch reference is the primary citation, and as such is the correct one to use. As long as we're careful to make sure that it is allegations that we are describing, then there is no BLP vio.FelixFelix talk 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please apply standard hard-arsed BLP requirements 

message: Felix, I'm afraid the sentence you are trying to insert is not a proper summary of Hari's argument. You want to put, "Hari pointed to the violence of colonialism." But everyone accepts the violence of colonialism, including Ferguson. Rather, Hari was arguing that Empire was a totalitarian system, on a par with Stalinism. It's a very different point, and it's what he and Ferguson were arguing about. Your attempt to abbreviate it is actually ironing out the key element under dispute. - DavidR  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.156.202 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idiosyncratic ideas about the published dispute are all very well, dave, but not supported by the said published articles and letters. In the argument, Ferguson conceded nothing about British violence in India. He may well think so, or have published opinion to that effect elsewhere-that is irrelevant as far as this entry goes-and constitutes OR. I'll revert to the previous, more accurate edit.FelixFelix talk 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niall Ferguson controversy. 

message: I stumbled across this page yesterday for the first time and couldn't believe its vacuity, so tagged it for lack of neutrality. I'll briefly explain why. Firstly, the range of subjects on which Hari's views are cited as in any way relevant or authoritative is far too wide: clearly, anyone who thinks that Hari's views on the enlightenment (he is not a philosopher) and on the environment (he is not a scientist) carry any weight whatsoever is not a neutral observer but a big fan of Hari and big fans shouldn't be writing Wikipedia entries. They are merely records of Hari's subjective views and presenting them in this manner lends them a credence that they do not necessarily merit. Were Hari to write an acclaimed book on the enlightenment or the environment this should definitely be noted, but not his individuated political views. Presented in this manner, the entry just looks silly. Second, the tone in the encounter between Hari and his critics is also largely irrelevant and misrepresented. The Nick Cohen section is  presented in an oddly pro-Hari way and the very critical article in 'Private Eye' undermined by hearsay (that Francis Wheen wrote it) and innuendo (that Wheen's motives for writing it were suspect). All things considered, this is a very poor Wikipedia entry and the writer(s) should be ashamed of themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.186.206 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no judgements by admins that private Eye can't be used, nor that 'Hackwatch' is unreliable and unsuitable for BLP-David Gerard-the admin in question suggested "treating it with a very jaundiced eye and looking for a better source"-and that was presumably when it was used as a secondary source, rather than a primary one. As for the hagiography like style of this article, and the multiple criticisms you make above, I can only agree, and shamefully admit that I've failed to improve this page from it's current sad state. Dave r (aka Niko, ) is a personal, and determined friend of Hari.FelixFelix talk 15:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, do you think they'd be interested?FelixFelix talk 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I have edited the Hari page in accordance with my worries about its non-neutrality. The changes i've made have mainly involved slimming down the entry, making it far more concise and integrated and removed of the irrelevant material that renders it so hagiographic. I'll leave the POV tag on for the moment until I get some feedback on my changes and whether these changes meet the neutrality requirement. Dave, I would appreciate it if you refrained from altering this page until we have some feedback on my changes and whether they are regarded as neutral. I am very interested to see whether anyone except you regards the changes as expressing a POV rather than removing one.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.186.206 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent start, and much improved. His journalistic practice was also criticised by Carol Lipton in Counterpunch , in the run up to the invasion of Iraq-perhaps this is also worth a mention?FelixFelix talk 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Draft based on POV concerns 

message: Per WP:BLP, statements and claims about living persons must be sourced and sourced well. Unsourced statements are subject to immediate removal. Poorly sourced statements are subject to immediate removal. Repeated addition of unsourced or poorly sourced statements about living people make be viewed as disruptive and can result in a block or topic ban. This article has been tagged and cleaned up per BLP concerns. Any unsourced edits will be removed immediately. Thank you for your understanding. Vassyana 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources are required 

message: WP:BLP violations are also being removed from this page. The policy applies to all spaces on Wikipedia. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana 13:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This talk page

message: This is concerning allegations inserted by the user Felix-Felix. To give some context, as reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described the British journalist Johann Hari (recently named as journalist of the year by Amnesty International) as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" , inserted into his entry fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced and legally disputed claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. 
::Dave, as I've requested you do before, please stop these personal attacks which range from grossly misrepresenting my edits to outright falsehoods. Please provide links to my edits if you disagree.FelixFelix talk 08:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already linked to your insults directed at Hari and the edits that flow from them. You called him "a self-promoting careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that" on the Medialens message board, as discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johann_Hari/Archive3#Felix_describes_Hari_as_.22a_self_publisising_.5Bsic.5D_careerist.2C_and_a_particulary_unpleasant_one_at_that..22 You called him "a little tyke" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johann_Hari/Archive1#This_is_not_a_CV_or_a_Vanity_article You accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MediaLens#.22Weasel_words.22 . I have also included many links to your edits, if people click on 'Archive3' and scroll to the bottom, they will find a directory of the falsehoods you have inserted into this entry. I will stop exposing your intense personal hatred of Johann Hari when you stop trying to impose it on this wikipedia entry.David r from meth productions 10:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, this is really poor-the first link is to an accusation that you made about me, and a false one at that. The second is to me calling him 'a little tyke'-which isn't an insult or smear, but slang for a child (or Yorkshireman, which I didn't know), and as you know the third referred to the 'pro-war left', and remains a pithy observation that I stand by. You appear to be unable to demonstrate that I have a personal hatred of Hari, for the simple reason that I haven't. The COI here is yours, not mine. Will you stop your personal attacks against me now?FelixFelix talk 15:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously denying writing that on the Medialens message board? At the time, following me pointing it out in the wiki dicussion, you actually went back to the message board and posted an entry saying: "We are being watched", with a link to my statement! You cannot have forgotten; you are deliberately lying, as you have so often on this page. When you accused Hari of advocating "the destruction of Untermenschen," you were explicitly discussing Hari and (ironically) Cohen. Anyone can click on the link. I am shocked by the blatant lies you are prepared to tell, it is appalling.David r from meth productions 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly am denying it, as its untrue, as I suspect you know, dave.The link above works, dave-and anyone can see that the discussion on the medialens discussion page was about the 'pro-war left' in general . When are you going to stop these personal attacks, dave?FelixFelix talk 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can see it is in direct response to somebody talking about Hari and Cohen, who you are in the process of attacking. I am really shocked by your lies about the Medialens message board. You know you are lying; I don't know how you can do this with a straight face. Don't you feel embarrseed to do this?David r from meth productions 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: His 'correction' was no such thing, it was a 'rider' added to the bottom of the article n his website saying that Joseph was 'probably a bullshitter'.FelixFelix talk 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I cannot think of a more unambiguous correction than that. The Independent does not have a corrections section, but Hari's website - the only site he controls - does, and as soon as he was informed of it, he printed a plan statement saying the guy was a liar and, indeed, linking to the very Counterpunch article you are talking about that criticises him.David r from meth productions 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, its an award winning website; Harry's Place, which is more notable as Hari used to be a regular contributor there.FelixFelix talk 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh come on. By any standards a blog read by (on its own account) 8000 people a day is obscure, and the fact that Hari wrote a few posts for it is neither here nor there. You're gettign even more desperate now.David r from meth productions 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As before, I support the removal of the reference to Private Eye. It is essentially meaningless if Private Eye gets onto a journalist's case, as Dave suggests. Charles Matthews 10:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference in Private Eye is twice in 4 years, for the same thing, is alot, especially for one of Hari's short career. And, contrary to dave's assertion, Hackwatch and Street of Shame don't attack individual journalists most of the time, it's usually the newspaper titles (for example, this issue has one reference to an individual journalist (Linda Lee Potter) in a 2 page spread). As the accusations in Private Eye are the same as the one in CounterPunch, mentioning them together seems appropriate and notable. That the Harry's Place legal bunfight is about the same accusation, again, it all seems notable and reasonable to have them in the same section. The para as it stands makes no mention of what that accusation is, to avoid a WP:BLP vio, although I could reword the para to make it clearer that the accusations all concern the same thing, if that's helpful.FelixFelix talk 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Come off it. Private Eye sniping at someone is well below the encyclopedic threshold. Twice in four years? That's clutching at straws. What would be helpful, here, is if you'd leave it at the Nick Cohen spat, which seems quite enough for us. Charles Matthews 16:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP and NOTE dispute 

message: We have tried mediation, we have tried requests for comment, both have failed so fat. This is not fair on other wikipedians who might want to contribute to this entry.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee to find out more info. Perhpas more people commenting, or wiki administrators reiterating what they've already said about your unacceptable sources, will help.
But if not, do you agree we should give it a week then apply?David r from meth productions 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think arbitration will help you; the arbitration committee covers editor behaviour and not the contents of articles. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, okay. Sam, is there anything you can recommend to resolve this once and for all? Is there a wikipedia mechanism to get a definitive decision on this? Obviously this could drag on for a long time...David r from meth productions 10:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way of brokering agreement on article content is formal mediation. As far as I can see there is a consensus that Private Eye and the other websites are not reliable sources for the paragraph. It is possible there may be better sources for a more moderately phrased version of the same argument (I have not checked). Incidentally a letter in this fortnight's Private Eye roundly criticises their coverage of Johann Hari; although it is from a declared friend of his, it does reinforce my doubts about the sourcing. Sam Blacketer 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, why don't you think that the sources aren't adequate for the para as it stands? Phil seemed to think it was fine.FelixFelix talk 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Phil explicitly stated "the sources being used for criticism - Private Eye, Counterpunch, etc - are ones of questionbale [sic] reliability and notability". Such concerns about the sources have been raised by multiple experienced and respected editors. Please consider their comments and concerns. Strong sourcing from clearly reliable sources is non-negotiable for contentious or derogatory material about living people. Vassyana 15:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the passage either contentious or derogatory?FelixFelix talk 15:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, to quote Phil, "Yes, I agree - which is why I'm OK with a "was criticized by" approach - it seems to address the notability of the source without getting into the question of quality. Phil Sandifer 23:50, 23 September 2007"  FelixFelix talk 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He still clearly impugns the reliability of those sources, along with other editors. I would recommend that perhaps running this by the folks at WP:BLP/N may be helpful. It's largely monitored by experienced editors with a solid familiarity with BLP. Vassyana 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wilco.FelixFelix talk 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit, that response made me smile. :) Vassyana 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, Vassyana. Who thinks sources of "questionbale [sic] reliability and notability" should be the basis for wiki statements and links? Thanks for the BLP tip, I have posted a description of our problem there, Felix you may want to go and put your side of the argument there too.David r from meth productions 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felix, I suggest we agree that if we do not have a resolution in the next week we should go for arbitration. 

message: I was just purusing the article history, and found a version of the article where the Private Eye allegations were sourced to the paper copy, not to a web reprint. What do people think of this as a compromise? Just note that Hari has been criticized by Private Eye, cite the paper version, and leave it at that. (As we really shouldn't be linking to random mirrors of copyrighted content anyway).
Is this acceptable to people? If so, what other issues would that leave? Phil Sandifer 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, you may not be really familiar with Private Eye. It is a British institution, and has got some big stories right (Robert Maxwell); but it has very low standards for inclusion, and pursues feuds with quite a vindictive edge. It fails WP:RS by a mile - it is fun to read, but WP should just ignore it. What is more, Hari is very active at OTRS, and WP:BLP must be scrupulously followed here. I have watched Dave and Felix-felix slug it out numerous times. We might get somewhere, if they stopped needling each other. But in this case I fear Felix-felix is just after getting the maximum of derogatory material into the article. I think a strict cut-off at the yellow press end of the spectrum is not really negotiable. Charles Matthews 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a little unfair, Charles-I certainly believe that Hari's journalism deserves to be criticised, and the cited articles were, I thought, a good, and encyclopaedic way of reflecting a serious concern that many hold about his reporting. I think my history of edits on the article simply don't reflect the idea that I try and get the "maximum of derogatory material into the article", as numerous good faith edits ought to demonstrate. As for the idea of cooling off-I'm certainly game.FelixFelix talk 11:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all agree criticisms of Hari's journalism should be included, and indeed I inserted criticisms from such distinguished figures as David Starkey and Bjorn Lomborg, which you sadly edited out for reasons I never could understand. The question is whether the specific criticisms you are trying to insert meet BLP or NOTE. There is a clear consensus here that they don't. You have produced no evidence at all that it is "a serious concern" that "many hold"; by contrast, the evidence to the contrary - being named Amnesty International's journalist of the year, to give one example - is absolutely overhwleming. I am afraid it is clear to anyone following this discussion that you are indeed, as another wiki administrator has said,  trying to get the "maximum of derogatory material into the article", and I'm grateful to everyone who has posted here to stop this from happening.  David r from meth productions 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, as you know these spurious 'criticisms' are inserted by you to give Hari's writing an impression of controversy, as I, and other editors, have repeatedly pointed out, they are not serious criticisms of his work, like the CounterPunch article for example. I've offered a 'cooling off' period above-don't take advantage of it if you don't want to.FelixFelix talk 05:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are criticisms by some of the world's most distinguished intellectuals of Hari's views "spurious"? I thought a cooling-off period would mean you stopped throwing insults and began to listen to wiki administrators. Please start. David r from meth productions 08:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough - I'm not really familiar with it - my knowledge of it comes from David Gerard's earlier comment that the back half is OK, the front half is very dodgy. Which, for me, was putting it in the awkward category of "notable but not reliable." I defer to you on this one, though. Phil Sandifer 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with everything Charles says here, including "and" and "the". Meanwhile a lowering of the temperature and of the tendency to drag up past sins by both David R and Felix-Felix would be helpful. Sam Blacketer 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a totally fair point Sam. I will stop discussing Felix's past; I think my point has been made. Apologies if you think I've gone too far in making this point, I thought it was important but I can understand if I've been too shocked and irate.David r from meth productions 11:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible compromise 

message: Please see Civil Disobedience on the Web by Michael Weiss. Sam Blacketer 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this again I think the section in the article at the moment is misleading. It gives the impression this was a spat over opinions of George Orwell, rather than a dispute over whether Nick Cohen's book was accurately described. The Slate article, although it is written from a perspective hostile to Hari's actions, could perhaps be used to discuss the incident's more substantive implications. Sam Blacketer 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to add that reference, but it was removed. I assume coverage by the mainstream media makes the above discussions moot. What is the current objection to it's inclusion? -- 67.98.206.2 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Michael Weiss is an associate editor for Jewcy; he is not just "some blogger". Slate Magazine is a WP:Reliable Source, which found Hari's threats of a lawsuit against a blogger notable enough for an article. That he made such threats certainly isn't a "falsehood." If someone from WP:OFFICE shows up and says this information can't be in his bio, fine, but I don't see anything in the achives of this talk page to suggest this has ever occurred before. -- 67.98.206.2 23:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I take that back, there was this office edit. Still, that's not really relevant as this material is sourced. -- 67.98.206.2 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The point about the Harry's Place comment is that it was explicitly made in connection with Nick Cohen's response to the review, but commented speculatively about what would happen if a journalist acquired a reputation for fabricating. Presumably the Independent lawyers got involved because of the implicit connection between the two, but it was an implicit connection and not a statement that Hari had actually acquired such a reputation. I think we have to be aware of the fact that it's also a WP:BLP violation to claim, without supporting sources, that what was written on Harry's Place was actually defamatory of Johann Hari. The author of the piece strongly asserts that it was not. Sam Blacketer 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is that to refer to Harry's Place as being written by "friends of Cohen" is a little like "poisoning the well". At the very least the friendship between Nick Cohen and the author should be cited. Sam Blacketer 12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're rewrite doesn't seem to reflect what the source actually says about the incident. I have rewritten it slightly, with what I hope would be an acceptable gloss of what the blogger said, just not in so many words.. I don't believe, as an encyclopedia, we have much to worry about in repeating what a reliable source says. Hari would be better off suing Slate.com first, and when they print a retraction, then it would be fair enough for us to remove the information. -- 67.98.206.2 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As David R says, we need to make sure that we do not repeat the substance of the removed blog post. I have sort of reverted to David R's version but removed the 'peacock terms' and also changed the description of Harry's Place from 'friends of Nick Cohen' to 'supporters of the war' because it seems better to explain their position in political rather than personal terms. Sam Blacketer 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In the U.S. you can certainly say "Mr. Blair threatens to sue Mr. X for claiming Mr. Blair was a pedophile," and in fact that would be the headline on page A12 of the New York Times, and our encyclopedia could certainly take note of that. As my former President Nixon learned, it's the cover up that gets you. Wikipedia (do y'all spell it Wikipaedia?) has it's servers based in the state of Florida, last I checked, and our laws here aren't such that the landed gentry can simply force the courts to shut the peasantry up. -- 67.98.206.2 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage in Slate 

message: I have been told things were settling down. Let me unprotect the page then. Hope it is really settled :-) Anthere 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So there was no office action then? I presume I can re-add the reliable source to the article. -- 67.98.206.2 06:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I was looking for a WP:3 on this. -- 67.98.206.2 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: All I know about Mr. Hari, from the other side of the pond, is his part in the whole libel brouhaha I read about on Slate. I don't have any opinions otherwise as to what is or is not in the article. I'll still advise you that letting his blog be a source is a double edged sword, but that's not my concern here. -- 67.98.206.2 21:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hari doesn't have a blog. He has a website, which simply consists of reproductions of articles that are published in places like the Independent, the New York Times and the New Republic. If you'd prefer you can find all the articles on their respective sites instead and link to them there, it'd take a while but it might be worth it if you're concerned about using Hari's website as a source.David r from meth productions 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just think of me as 67.*; I'm the only one with that prefix here. I've restored the discussion about the Slate article which was recently archived. The coverage by Slate makes the previous decision that Private Eye wasn't a reliable source moot. It's certainly a complicated situation when someone becomes notable for threatening libel lawsuits, especially when such a lawsuit would be dismissed as frivolous in a heartbeat in any U.S. court. -- 67.98.206.2 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You keep saying it was the Independent who threatened to sue the blogger, but you've yet to provide a source to back up that claim. The Slate piece states repeatedly that Hari was the one who threatened to sue ("standing up to the threats of Johann Hari and Alisher Usmanov" and later "his libel threat"). The piece isn't simply regurgitating what was in the less-reliable source; it doesn't even mention Private Eye until the eighth paragraph. The Slate piece also notes that the so-called libel has a basis in fact ("Chief among Hari's whoppers in the Independent piece..."). I seriously doubt calling someone who lies a liar can be a basis for a libel suit anywhere. Again, look at Alisher Usmanov; we repeat a so-called libel there too. The circumstances are no different. -- 67.98.206.2 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the Private Eye source  says: "Hari went ballistic, demanding that unless these “libellous comments” were taken down immediately he’d take legal action. The lndie lawyers, he revealed, had assured him that he could sue and win." So, again, it was Hari threatening to sue, though he may have walked down the hall and gotten legal advice from the Independent's lawyer. Private Eye may have been one source for the Slate article, but story was all over the blogosphere and it would be completely uncharacteristic for Slate not to do the footwork of rechecking the facts here regardless. I'd also be surprised if Private Eye didn't print a letter to the editor from Mr. Hari rebutting their article's conclusions, if that's the "letter" you are referring to (again, I wasn't around for the last round of debate on this); and I'll concede there could have been a conflict of interest with the Private Eye's reporter. I wouldn't have a problem putting that in the article to balance POV concerns. But those facts don't undermine the conclusion that at the end of the day, as Slate put it, "Hari has gone from being a critic unhappy about a meticulous and unflattering fact-checking to being held up as an opponent of free speech." I suppose though that the issues here have enough levels of complexity that we can ignore the contents of the original blog post which got all this rolling if we leave open the question of whether the threatened lawsuit could have had any merit. Although, to be honest, I can't see how Hari could pull the trigger here (by suing the foundation) without absurdly compounding his original mistake. But fair enough; I don't feel like gambling upon his learning curve here. -- 67.98.206.2 16:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh. Thats SO Johan Hari!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.217.207 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: Ok, if David R agrees to cease his attempts to preserve this currently hagiographic entry, I think the page can be unfrozen for editing towards a neutral, sensibly sized entry that flows better and does not represent the subject as an authority on matters that he is not or contain spurious criticisms designed to further his high profile. Any thoughts SamuelSpade79 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, discouraging others from editing is not compatible with basic site policies. Especially when carried out by personal attack - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please try to edit without laying about you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another try 

message: Blimey, admins only! What a controversial guy he is! Anyway, I've uploaded a fairly low grade pic of Hari for your consideration. Laurence Boyce (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: can somebody check the IP addresses please?
Jess.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.162.18 (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, that's a bit rich coming from you! FelixFelix talk 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Samuel Spade' is SO Felix Felix 

message: As a compromise, I'm prepared to (a) use the template suggested by Sam, (b) ditch the Galloway section, (C) accept the extensive trimming of the environment/nuclear sections involved in Sam's template, and (d) relabel the Enlightenment section and cut the references to Derrida and Negri interviews.
In return, I think it's essential to (a) not alter the Cohen and Feguson sections, which are balanced fairly and neutrally between the views of the people of involved, (b) include a sentence about Hari reporting from Venezuela (which is what he was nominated for the Orwell prize for, making it clearly pass WP: NOTE) and interviewing Chavez, (c) include a note about his extensive reporting from gaza and the West Bank (with links to his critics on the Israeli right if you like), and (d) include the following short note about Congo:
"Hari has reported from the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in which 4 million have died. He argued that "armies of business" had invaded Congo to "pillage its resources" and "send them back to the West.""
Fair deal?David r from meth productions (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise discussions. 

message: I removed that text from the article on Steyn, since the controversy such as it is, is Hari's mistaken accusations. When this page is unlocked feel free to add it here. Lobojo (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Steyn 

message: Can somebody please unfreeze this page so we can build on the consensus about using my alternative version as a framework with the additions agreed on in the conversations above. SamuelSpade79 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to contact User:Bastique in order to lift this protection, as it is under lock by the Wikimedia Foundation. --wL<speak·check> 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfreeze PLEASE 

message: The OFFICE process is not a ban on editing: Jimbo Wales said it should operate like this;
"I would recommend protection or semi-protection at this point, but with the idea that even if protected admins are (as compared to normal protection) actually encouraged to come help with the article."
The template says "Please discuss changes on the talk page first."
Rich Farmbrough, 16:01 12 February 2008 (GMT).
If you had looked above, you would see that we have had very extensive discussions on the changes - we just want to actually add them now. SamuelSpade79 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improve this page 

message: As has been discussed ad infinitum above, libels must not be inserted into this entry. It's a bit disappointing that the first thing that happens after the page has been frozen for four months to prevent libels, is somebody tries to reinsert the libels. If you do this, the page will juyst be frozen forever. Please stop exposing wikipedia to the risk of beign sued, and preventing any other wikipedian from posting here.
David r from meth productions (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the passage about Hari working for Archer, which isn't libellous, and was sourced, to boot. I'm afraid I can't see how this can be construed as libellous. Also replaced the POV tag.FelixFelix talk 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I hope the new year finds you well. I'm still baffled as to why you find the passage libellous-it's sourced (I don't see how you can construe this as 'sniping'), there's no doubt that Hari did work on Archer's book, and your OR musings about his work details are neither here nor there. Thus I've replaced it-if you have a different source to cite, lets use it. Don't edit war , Dave-let's improve the article.FelixFelix talk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hello, I'm the author of several of the anonymous bits here, my name is Richard, I don't have an account and I don't want one. It's highly amusing to read the level of paranoia exibited by some users,   - I've never had an account and never been banned. Incidentally,Dianna wasn't murdered and man did land on the moon. Do some of you think it might be an idea to, you know, get a life?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.143.26 (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the passage about Hari working for Archer, which isn't libellous, and was sourced, to boot. I'm afraid I can't see how this can be construed as libellous. Also replaced the POV tag.FelixFelix talk 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, I hope the new year finds you well. I'm still baffled as to why you find the passage libellous-it's sourced (I don't see how you can construe this as 'sniping'), there's no doubt that Hari did work on Archer's book, and your OR musings about his work details are neither here nor there. Thus I've replaced it-if you have a different source to cite, lets use it. Don't edit war , Dave-let's improve the article.FelixFelix talk 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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