Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 1

message: Somebody keeps changing it to 2005, which is factually wrong. Please stop.
:As of 2003 doesn't generally mean 'from 2003'; it means currently in 2003. I changed it to as of 2005, since currently, in 2005, he writes for the Independent. If you want to say he started in 2003, and still writes there, it should read 'he has written ... since 2003'. It is clumsier to do that, since the whole point of the 'as ofs' is really so that people can see when supposedly current information was put in the article. That is, it is mostly used as a timestamp with the present tense. Charles Matthews 15:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  He started at the Independent in 2003. 

message: If the DL called JH 'fat', we do need a source to include that. Charles Matthews 08:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalai Lama quote

message: Somebody posted malicious and factually incorrect claims earlier, so I deleted them. E.g. they claimed Hari had said non-Catholics were denied the vote in Northern Ireland prior to the 1970s, when in fact Hari said (in a protracted argument with protestant sectarians) that the constituency boundaries were gerrymandered to prevent the return of Catholic MPs to the Westminster parliament, a belief held by many observers of the Troubles. 
The poster also said that according to Private Eye, Hari had not known who fought in the First World War. This was not alleged by Private Eye (there was a vaguely similar allegation concerning Japan and the Second World War), and the claim itself seems implausible in the extreme in somebody who received a Double First from Cambridge University.
:That Northern Ireland discussion was linked to by several blogs at the time and Hari did say "There were no Catholic representatives elected because of gerrymandering"1. Which is false Noraid style propaganda, you are also lying when you say that he was arguing with "protestant sectarians" several of the people in the thread pointed out that they were either catholic or not from Northern Ireland. --195.93.21.104 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough a number of people with similar IP addresses to the writer above have made several pro Hari edits ( the only 'criticism' here appears to be the blurb from his own website), and added lots of dubious attacks on two journalists Hari has attacked, Mark Steyn and Richard Littlejohn, in articles which seem to give Hari's criticisms undue prominence. Also the link to the forum discussion seems to have died very recently, it is still available via google, This makes me suspect that 81.156.176.21  81.156.176.140 etc are Hari sockpuppets. --195.93.21.104 03:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual errors 

message: Why are the details of his private schooling being constantly deleted by the same anonymous user who is continually inserting spurious Hari related stuff on the medialens page (Who could that be...)?
Unless these details are wrong, they should remain, as they are of interest.
As an aside, I have removed extra links within his own website which is already linked to, and reverted the source watch link. This seems sensible to me, but as always, I'm keen to achieve concensus.Felix-felix 10:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, who ever you are, please sign inFelix-felix 10:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well "Dave", if you want people to take you seriously, perhaps you should log in, as you promised to on the medialens talk page. If you log in then you generate an edit history which can be viewed, also, if you were just forgetting to log in your IP address wouldn't keep changing-are you perhaps using a proxy server? Anonymous posting is seen as cowardly, no edit history therefore user lacks courage of their convictions. In the fragmentary edit histories of yours that I've seen, you appear quite the Hari fan, (at least from up here on my high horse)he must be thrilled..why not quell my anxieties as to your true identity, Dave and start logging on?Felix-felix 17:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Educational details

message: Felix-Felix, you are motivated clearly by personal hatred of Hari. You can hate whoever you like but its not reasonable to impose it on other Wiki users...
You have already had to be slapped down by the Wiki-regulators once before for your personal animus. - Dave
::Nonsense 'Dave', I'm just more critical of him than you are. I will get round to a cleanup on this article soon though, and will look forward to your edits.Felix-felix 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do, although I'm not really sure it adds anythingFelix-felix 12:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages"Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse (but not on articles) is not only good etiquette; it also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things."Felix-felix 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatred/Love 

message: Can anyone point me in the direction of the "vehement" criticism of Buddhism that this article claims Hari has made? I've only been able to find some subtle and implied criticism during the Dalai Lama interview. 82.32.35.58 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "vehement" criticism of Buddhism? 

message: As such it should be of interest to the reader, spurious additions of nominations or failing to win awards are not of interest. A cursory search of other journos on wikipedia unearthed only one mentioned nomination, that of Polly Toynbee who was nominated as islamophobic journalist of the year, which obviously had interest for another reason. Ask for adjudication if you like, although I think you'll find that you need to achieve concensus first, J. And that's real concensus, not another 'AngelaM', eh?Felix-felix 13:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I can't find a single Orwell Prize nominee who's wikipedia page mentions it, either book or journalism prize, not Jonathan Freedland, George Monbiot or Brian Sewell. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep it, I'm going to ditch this too.Felix-felix 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Orwell Prize nomination is inessential. As these articles build up, these things do become more like factoids that can be cut out without real loss. Charles Matthews 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cut to the quick, 'Dave'.(Note comment about signing below)Felix-felix 16:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've checked back: the Orwell Prize thing was added in 2005 when it was current, and can reasonably be dropped now. Do be careful not to personalise the discussion. And please sign. Charles Matthews 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Personal attacks are absolutely out of order. I'm not going to repeat this for ever. You have been warned. Charles Matthews 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a CV or a Vanity article