Talk:David Rose

conduct of User:ThePowerofX
I don't get why he is so eager to remove mention of Johann Hari from this page, considering that the "David Rose" pseudonym was a very notable source of inquiry from very notable journalists (google "who is David Rose" for all the sources). I suspect User:ThePowerofX has some undisclosed conflicts of interest he needs to disclose, given his very combative attitude and suspicious behaviour and editing contributions. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 18:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stick to discussing the content only, and do not make accusations against other editors unless you have some evidence to back them up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am only referring to his very silent yet combative conduct; almost similar in temperament to david r from meth production's behaviour. WP:DUCK anyone? In any case, I have pointed out journalistic sources but the user still silently reverts me. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're doing the right thing now and discussing it here - but you simply should not make accusations about a person's motives purely based on your own speculation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems possible to me that there could be Conflict of interest involved. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have two options, then - present your evidence at WP:COIN, or shut up about it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The evidence would be too stale for CheckUser, thanks to our excessively strict CheckUser policy. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That leaves you with one option, then -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any such policy restraints on discussions of problematic user conduct. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many forums you can bring up allegations of misconduct, but article Talk pages are not appropriate. But wherever you do bring it up, the requirement is the same - present evidence! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite which policy states that user conduct cannot be commented upon in a talk page? elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 20:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does everything with you need to be a wikilawyering battle? Are you just not capable of discussing things in a non-confrontational manner? No, I'm not getting dragged into your wikilawyering pedantry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I attempted to start a discussion about this dispute 3 times, on user La goutte de pluie's talk page (diff 1 diff 2 diff3) but my comments were deleted on each occasion, with zero explanation. — ThePowerofX 22:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A neutral discussion about Johann Hari
There appears to be a disagreement over whether the pseudonym "David Rose" should be added to this disambiguation page, directing to Johann Hari. The pseudonym is apparently a Wikipedia username he has used, and I think the decision should depend on whether Hari is notable (he clearly is), and whether the pseudonym used is itself also notable (I have no current opinion, but will take a look later) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See "Who is David Rose?" elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the user does not reply within a week, I shall restore the addition. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get to set your own rules for discussion - you may reinstate the addition when and only when you get a consensus supporting it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I think my request is perfectly reasonable with BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If no one objects within a week, then a BOLD edit is required in order to make discussion move forward. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been fairer, yes, but it's not what you said - but now that you have clarified, and someone has responded, it's moot -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari is a notable journalist, yes, but everything he writes is published under his real name. "DavidR" is not his penname; it was merely the username he used to edit Wikipedia. As I said in my original edit summary, disambiguation allows for notable pseudonyms and variant spellings. However, the principle article for journalist Johann Hari is Johann Hari. There is no primary topic related to Hari's Wikipedia username (i.e. DavidR) therefore disambiguation is not required in this case. — ThePowerofX 22:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentatively Oppose the addition. That Telegraph article is only quoting a blog allegation, so it is not a good enough source. However, the New Statesman article quoted at Johann Hari states that he did confess to being "David Rose". However, I don't think that is a valid source for claim that "David Rose" is a pseudonym of Johann Hari - for that, I think it would have to be a pseudonym that he openly uses and is actually known by in real life, not just a Wikipedia username that he once used for nefarious purposes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please read all the references in Johann Hari? The references there make many citations to this fact. Can you cite which policy stipulates that the username has to be "openly used"? The only reason why I am making so much fuss about this redirect is because I searched for "David Rose" without knowing about Johann Hari and was frustrated to find that ThePowerofX had been involved in censoring the entry from the redirect page. Certainly I think the burden of evidence rests on ThePowerofX as he has reverted multiple people in particular.
 * Well, it's all about notability and due weight, and there can't be prescriptive policies detailing every possibility - so we decide such things by consensus, which is what we are trying to do here. As I say, my position is currently tentative, and I might change it, when we hopefully get more input from others - there is no requirement to decide this immediately, so please, can we allow some time for others to offer some opinions? (And no, for disputed content, the burden of proof usually lies with the person wanting to add the content) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many hacker pseudonyms which are used secretly without people knowing in real life, and yet we include those usernames in redirects and dab pages. This is no different. elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 20:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If people don't know them, how do we know them? I'd be interested to see an example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When they get caught? See pseudonyms weev and c0mrade. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 21:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, those are good examples - one obvious difference, though, is their hacker IDs refer to the only thing they're known for, so the "Due weight" thing is easier to decide. I think we need more input -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that the entire affair occupies 3/4 of his biographical lead I am not sure why WP:UNDUE is an issue. You could help by raising this on an appropriate noticeboard. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not occupy 3/4 of the lede, or of the article - his plagiarism, not his Wikipedia editing, makes up the major part of it. As for "You could help by raising this on an appropriate noticeboard", you could do that too, you know - I have asked for help at Talk:Johann Hari, which seemed like a good enough start -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
 * A major part of his dishonesty is intertwined with his plagiarism and his willingness to write negative articles on his colleagues. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 21:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a hacker. We don't start the article "Johann Hari aka David Rose", as Hari is not known as David Rose or DavidR or whatever. It is part of Hari's biography certainly but I see no reason to include it here. Generally on dab pages, particularly of people, it should be blue linked. Polequant (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that a link on the dab page is warranted. I was going to state my reason, and then noticed that Boing! said Zebedee had already said essentially the same thing: David Rose was an alias that Hari used for a short while, not really a pseudonym even. I can't imagine anyone but a rare (single?) Wikipedia editor thinking 'now who was that guy who was editing here as David Rose?' and then coming to the dab page to find out. He isn't known as David Rose, the way some hackers are known by their pseudonyms, or the way some authors are published under well known pen names. First Light (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's self-referential trivia. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The purpose of a disambiguation page is navigational rather than to list every every verifiable instance of the ambiguous term. It is a matter of getting users from what they type into the search box to a relevant Wikipedia article. The relevant question is: can it reasonably be assumed that someone searching for "David Rose" is looking for the page Johann Hari? It seems, for reasons expressed above by others, exceedingly unlikely; a user would type Hari's name instead. --2.102.43.146 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I was that "exceedingly unlikely" searcher. I just want convenience. As an Asian, "Johhannn Hari" is hard to spell, "David Rose" is much easier. So why oppose its inclusion? elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're claiming that Asian users of the English language Wikipedia are likely to misspell Hari's name as "Johhannn Hari", then you have a case for creating a redirect. If not, and you are the "anyone but a rare (single?) Wikipedia editor" mentioned by First Light, then it is the case that Wikipedia is not for your personal convenience.  Sorry, but I still oppose. --2.102.43.146 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the great harm in its inclusion? Furthermore, there were entire editorials and journalistic investigations on the topic who is David Rose? which led to his outing. Obviously, people were interested about his identity. elle vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing a valid reason for inclusion — "convenience" and "people were interested" doesn't qualify. And "what is the great harm in its inclusion" also is not a very helpful argument. First Light (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic?
Is there any indication that this David Rose is the primary topic that people look for? It is not at all clear to me.

Changing this DAB page does not require or imply moving any other pages, contrary to assertion made by, so I have no idea why s/he would think WP:RM is the appropriate discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but if there's no primary topic I think it would be standard for the dab page to be called "David Rose", and David Rose to be renamed to "David Rose (something or other)" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict - Boing! is right, but I'll post what I've written anyway, as it's more detailed)
 * Simple. David Rose is (currently) regarded as the primary topic, which is why the disambiguation page is at David Rose (disambiguation). Given that fact, the primary topic should not be included in the ordinary list of entries, but needs to be distingished in the way I have restored. See WP:DABSTYLE and MOS:DAB for the style to be used where there is a primary topic, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the determination of whether or not a primary topic exists, and if so which topic it should be.


 * If you think there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page has to be moved to David Rose, this latter page having first been moved to something else to make room for it. Standard practice for changes of primary topic. (BTW, Toddst1, please note the very prominent edit notice re talkbacks on my talk page) --NSH001 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit notice now noted. This edit completely bypassed that as it was done with Twinkle. Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation page moved as discussed. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Premature move
Toddst1, your moves are premature. The normal procedure in these cases is to start a WP:RM, unless it is glaringly obvious that the dab page is in the wrong place.

In fact, the evidence is that the musician was and is the correct primary topic. Page hits for the last 30 days for each topic are:

musician       6451 animator         81 basketball     1153 politician      207 producer        111 rugby            78 David S.        574 David Stuart    154

The musician gets 73% of the total hits. He also has the largest number of incoming links (mainspace only), approx 150. The next highest is the basketball player at around 60 (including those via redirects). All the rest are much lower.

Because this is the case, and because the moves leave around 150 pages incorrectly linking to a dab page, I think you should reverse your moves.

If you still think the dab page should be at the base name, then by all means raise a WP:RM request. Note that if such a request were successful, all of those 150 incorrect links would have to be corrected to point to the musician. This is a compelling reason to reverse the moves, i.e., in order to avoid unnecessary work of correcting the links.

--NSH001 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)