Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 2

To User:David r from meth productions:-

From Talk page guidelines: ''Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. From No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.'' You have been entirely out of order. Where it says above that personal attacks and unsigned comments will be removed, what did you think that meant? Charles Matthews 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To User:David r from meth productions, once more:-

Where the policy says Comment on content, not on the contributor, why do you persist in saying that you are entitled to attack the contributor? Where it says above that unsigned contributions are to be removed, why do you think you are some sort of exception? I have added the standard header to this page, and it asks you to sign. There are rules here and until you conform better to them, you are wasting your time. Charles Matthews 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought I had signed. Doesn't it display my name if I am logged in? I'm not sure what a signed comment means if not that, please explain, i want to get it right.

You need to add ~ to the end of each post, which becomes a timestamped signature.

You have yet again attacked another editor in your posting, so I have removed that. It is quite simple: every time you attack the credentials of another editor, you are breaking a fundamental policy here. You are quite entitled to disagree with edits made to the article; but you are not allowed to attack editors. There is the fallacy of ad hominem, which is clearly understood by most people, that who or what someone is does not detract from the truth or validity of what they say or write. I repeat: you are completely out of order. If you think the article can be improved, discuss that and not personalities. Charles Matthews 14:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up
I propose a clean up of this article which reads rather like it's been written by committee, with lots of pointless Hari quotes in the turgid main body of the text which could be cut, and a fair few repetitions. I don't think the 'controversy' section is terribly useful or informative, and is lifted from his website. Lastly a criticism section would be useful-although this would all have to be sourced to comply with the living persons biography guidelines; I think that a distinction should be made between criticisms of Haris journalisic practices/integrity and criticisms of the content of his journalism, the former would be of import as well as interest, the latter could easily be spurious.Felix-felix 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article reads pretty well. The quotes, far from being 'turgid', are essential for explaining. It's a real relief to read a wiki entry that actually quotes the subject and his critics rather than trying to ineptly summarise them. You're right there are a few repetitions, but the 'controversy' section certainly is of interest. Indeed, I notice the Daily Telegraph quoted it in full on Saturday, suggesting it is of interest to their million or so readers.

A criticism section would be welcome. I'm not sure what you mean by the practices/integrity section since as the Sourcewatch entry on Hari shows, the two sets of accusations against him contradict each other. Littlejohn accused him of being on drugs on his show, Private Eye accused him of pretending to have taken drugs when he hasn't. They seem to me like a contradictory jumble of accusations, none of which come from credible sources.

If you are looking for wiki entries that need tidying up I can think of hundreds that need it urgently. However, if you proceed to edit this pretty balanced and reasonable one based on the personal prejudices you have expressed several times here I will look forward to sparring with you on it!

(Oops, forgot to sign David r from meth productions 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Dave)


 * I've made two more sections. That is usually a step towards upgrading an article, with the basic aim of getting material sorted out into topics, I did spot a split infinitive. The basic structure seems reasonable, to me. Charles Matthews 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There, made a start, mostly non controversial, and I think that reads a little better now. i have saved potentialy more controversial changes until other editors have had a chance to react to these ones.Felix-felix 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you pausing for discussion here, Felix. I think the new section headings are useful but your deleting of the people Hari has been attacked by is, I think, wrong. You may not think it is interesting to show who he has been attacked by, although you provide no argument for this assertion; I do. So did the Daily Telegraph this Saturday, which printed it for their one million readers. I've restored it until you produce arguments (please more sophisticated than your abusive claim that hari is a "little tyke") for removing it rather than assertions.

The argument for keeping it is that it shows Hari has been criticised by both left and right, and has a fairly high profile, and gets under people's skin. All interesting facts, I think. Given there are no psace limitations to a wiki entry, why deprive wiki readers of this information? What's your response? David r from meth productions 15:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm partly intrigued and partly concerned to read the above comments on the criteria for editing a Wikipedia article. David r's comment that it is worth showing 'Hari has been criticised by both left and right, and has a fairly high profile, and gets under people's skin' is valid up to a point. But I feel Felix-felix takes this too far when he refers to 'criticisms of Haris journalisic practices/integrity' as if these should obviously and evidently be a component of any entry on Hari. In a necessarily fairly limited (despite the above comments, it can't be a book) summary of the salient facts about a public figure, one would expect references to their integrity to be made only if there had be a recent or widely debated event which had cast serious doubt over this integrity, as there has been for example in relation to John Prescott. There has been no such event relating to Hari. The only genuine public controversy about him has related to his initially pro Iraq War views (a subject on which he later publicly changed his mind), which were in turn notable only because they appeared in a left of centre broadsheet. What journalist worth their salt has not had something unflattering written about them in Private Eye? Does anyone whose name has appeared in Private Eye in an unflattering light automatically have a question mark over their integrity? To emphasise (or arguably even to mention) such light weight criticisms of Hari's integrity seems to me to imply a worrying bias on the part of Felix-felix. Is it really appropriate for potential bias to have a place in Wikipedia which, as rightly pointed out above, is now viewed as an authoritative source by many? Thelionforreal 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Had a day off work so decided to beef up the article, adding more detail on Hari's positions. Will add some more tomorrow if I get time. I totally agree with Thelionforreal, you might as well quote the National Inquirer's stories about Tom Cruise in the entry about him David r from meth productions 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(Rob Blackhurst, 20:28, Monday 23rd October) I've just stumbled across the Johann Hari entry which, as a reader of his work since his first pieces in the New Statesman, seems to me to be balanced and accurate. There's hardly a shortage of critics of his work displayed in the links here. I do however think that references to criticisms of Hari's "journalistic practice/integrity" are appalling. As far as I know, none of these criticisms have appeared outside the pages of Private Eye - not even in a media diary of a mainstream publication. Since Private Eye are curiously immune from libel laws, I hardly think this is evidence of any genuine question marks over Hari's conduct. Robblackhurst 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what Thelionforreal says as regards the Private Eye and Littlejohn criticisms. It seems to me that criticisms of a subject should be included, with appropriate context, if they have been part of a reasonably substantial debate, and not if they constitute mere mud-slinging or muck-raking. Incidentally the Private Eye allegation seems at best unverifiable...? Quinefan 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens! So many interested people with so many red names, do I detect a whiff of sockpuppetry?Felix-felix 06:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you see what I mean, Charles? Now Felix has been proved wrong in his bizarre idea that everyone else is Johann Hari, he now becomes convinced everyone else is a sockpuppet... Why not check the IP addresses of these various posters? I think you will find they are from computers in totally different places, probably different countries. Can we have a serious discussion of the article, rather than Felix-Felix's endless paranoid accusations? Whenever the consensus is against him he imagines a vast conspiracy. Could it just be, Felix, that most people disagree with you? David r from meth productions 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a sockpuppet and would be happy to provide my full contact details to anybody who wants them. Felix, did you take David r up on his similar suggestion last week, by the way? Charles, you've strongly emphasised that personal attacks on editors are not acceptable on this page. I must confess that I am a little surprised that somebody (like Felix, but please don't delete this - it's meant in the spirit of improving the article on Hari and I can't think of a better way to phrase it) who seems motivated partly by the desire to discredit the views of other interested parties (also note that Felix has not declared what his own interest is) and also, majorly, by the desire to attack Hari's reputation as a journalist and his personal qualities (the 'little tyke' comment deeply shocked me) should continue to be allowed to edit a highly reputatble publication like Wikipedia. Thelionforreal 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone should know that we can check IP numbers. However, accusations of sockpuppetry are not very helpful. There should be plenty to say about the article content. I have made it quite clear that this page is not to be used for attacking other editors, and have handed out one 24 hour block already. Think about it. Charles Matthews 12:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, please could you check the IP numbers and print them here? It will show Felix that he is totally wrong (again!) and we can get on with the serious business of discussing the article without fake allegations being thrown around... David r from meth productions 13:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be quite improper to disclose checked IP numbers. We don't do that. We have a strict protocol of access to our CheckUser program, and the results are only summarised for internal administrative consumption. We encourage people to log in, so that they get privacy that way, and it would be counter-productive to do otherwise than keep IPs confidential.


 * That being said, in case of disputes, IP numbers will be checked, and the existence of abusive sockpuppetry is an exacerbating factor taken in account when handing down sanctions. Charles Matthews 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now totally understand you can't publish IP addresses. But to reassure Felix-Felix, could you personally check the IP addresses and then explain to Felix that he is being both abusive and libellous when he calls us all sock-puppets? I think it would make this a more sensible discussion if we could knock down these paranoid accusations and actually discuss the substance of the article, as all of us but one want to. It's interesting Felix has responded to none of the substantive points made, not one, preferring instead to fall back on his usual tactic of false allegations instead. (Ironic, when he is trying to accuse Hari of lacking integrity and honesty). I'd really like to resolve this once and for all, Charles, and you have a simple way to do it and we need never discuss it again David r from meth productions 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I really appreciate your saying, above, that accusations of sockpuppetry are not helpful. Such accusations are also very frustrating (a frustration that is exacerbated by the fact that all of us are devoting considerable time to the issue of the accuracy of Hari's entry) given that the nature of the net is such that none of us know who anybody is (though I must admit I am becoming increasingly curious as to who Felix-felix is and why he seems to desire to edit the entry in order to present a negative impression of a perfectly respectable and many would say middle of the road journalist) and a certain assumption of good faith is, it seems to me, necessary from all parties for an enterprise like Wikipedia to work. Just as it seems wrong to accuse Hari of lacking integrity on the basis of a comment in Private Eye, it seems wrong to accuse people of being sockpuppets just because they all happen to hold different views from you. Thelionforreal 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles, if you could also check the IP addresses for AngelaM and the people in the archived discussion accused of being sock-puppets by Felix and confirm that they were in fact totally different people, that would be great too. I note Felix has not tried to verify my identity despite repeated offers. I hope he will apologise for the false accusations against me and everyone else here, or maintain a dignified silence on this page from now on so we can actually discuss the article seriously David r from meth productions 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say on the matter dave is that I will not be constrained by false concensus and IP addresses prove nothing.Felix-felix 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The current edit
In the spirit of our new perestroika, dave-I am going to voice my criticisms of your magnum opus before I go about the monumental task of turning it into something approaching an encyclopedia article rather than a hysterical love letter.

I find many faults with this edit,not least of which is its preposterous length, made up mainly of pointless quotes in subsections, which without said quotes would boil down to single sentences like 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea'or 'Johann Hari thinks that Global Warming is bad'. These lengthy quotations all need to be chopped out-links are quite sufficient to take the interested reader to Hari's articles. The links are also very badly applied-I counted a total of 62 external sourced links, 47 of which were to the same website, Haris own-thus one link would have sufficed quite well. Not only that I found one dead link (number 11) and at least one that doesn't support the text (number 44). There is also plenty of spurious criticism of journalistic content (and only content!), much of which could be ditched-presumably this was put in to bolster the image of Hari as a controversial writer, it reads very tediously. There are also plenty of unsourced assertions which are far too numerous to point out here, but which I will tag after you've had a chance to read and digest this criticism, dave. I also notice that the spurious 'hari boasts he has been attacked..' sentence made it back in, dave. I removed this as it is 1) uninformative 2)unsourced 3)a direct lift from Hari's website. The fact that the Telegraph used it tells us that the Telegraph employ lazy journalists, and little else. Also the sentence about not winning the 2005 Orwell prize is still inappropriate and thus still needs removal. I think that will do for the minute, dave-as I said, i'll give you time to digest this before I start editing. Oh. and as above I won't be bound by false concensus.Felix-felix 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, don't go about cutting out well-sourced things for the sake of it. That is not how we operate. Some things in the article may be superfluous. I'd have thought the Controversy section is now past its best-before date. Not because it was wrong to include it in the first place, but there is enough and much more interesting and specific discussion of contentious matters in other sections. In any case it would be a great help if further discussion could be section-by-section, on the merits of the material. It is quite right that there are unsourced things up there now; but the etiquette would be to point them out, with the tag if necessary, and wait for some adequate response. Unless you feel certain that something is defamatory, or not actually possible to verify, there isn't the urgency. Also, cut out words like preposterous and hysterical, could you? We edit collectively here, and rhetorical flourishes don't improve the atmosphere. Charles Matthews 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Felix, it seems that your definition of a 'false consensus' is one that disagress with you. (And please remember: it's 'consensus'). IP addresses prove nothing? I know from an e-mail communication I received after I put up my e-mail address for you to verify my identity (which you have chosen not to do) that AngelaM is in Germany, as her IP address will show. Do you think I am so determined to set up sock-puppets that I take flights to other countries? Checking the IP addresses will show they are all in very different places, I expect. And therefore different people. And therefore this is a real consensus, because you are being motivated by personal animus and most people think there's no place for it in Wikipedia.

Only somebody with an extreme bias against Hari could think an encylopedia entry in which he is accused of being an anti-Semite, an Islamophobe, "overweight, overintellectual", "alarmist", "startlingly wrong-headed", "like a lazy student" and an apologist for paedophiles is a "love letter."

If you think the quote from Hari about global warming can be boiled down to 'Johann Hari thinks that Global Warming is bad', then I'm afraid your reading comprehension skills are poor and you simply don't understand the quote.

To deal with your arguments: "The links are also very badly applied-I counted a total of 62 external sourced links, 47 of which were to the same website, Haris own-thus one link would have sufficed quite well." You have misunderstood the nature of links. They are there to show a quote is correctly sourced, so they must lead to the precise article. Simply linking once to Hari's website would leave the reader to browse through thousands of articles to find the correct quote and check it.

You then say, "There is also plenty of spurious criticism of journalistic content (and only content!), much of which could be ditched-presumably this was put in to bolster the image of Hari as a controversial writer, it reads very tediously." Two points. First. It was put there because in an enclopaedia entry, it is important to list significant criticisms. You may think it is tedious, I don't, and I suspect others don't either. You keep asserting personal judgements based on personal animus as if they were fact. They are not. Second. You complain people have actually criticised the content of Hari's writing (oh how terrible!) rather than his integrity. As has been explained by others, his integrity has been questioned once, by a scandal magazine that questions every journalist's integrity at some point. (Unless you are referring to another story I have not seen, in which case please show it). It is like saying an actor's integrity has been questioned because he was 'exposed' in the National Inquirer.

I am afraid I can only conclude from the hysterical abuse you have thrown at Hari ("little tyke" etc"), your abusive attitude to other posters here, and your plainly unhinged belief that an article containing such drastic criticisms is a "love letter", that you are determined to vandalise this entry. To that end, quotes that are cut will be restored one by one, because they give important information about Hari's perspectives and those who criticise them. I will appeal for adjudication if you persist on vandalism. David r from meth productions 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You must do as you see fit, dave, I will proceed as set out above.Felix-felix 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to actually respond to my points, Felix? This is meant to be a discussion, not just you making assertions and then, when they are proved wrong, simply saying "You must do as you see fit."

Please answer in turn:

(1) IP addresses showing people in very different geographical locations reveal that they are, in fact, very different people. Therefore there is a +real+ consensus against you, which you are deliberately defying. True or false?
 * Proxy servers, or indeed simply using other computers are easy ways of operating sockpuppets with different IPs.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(2) An encylopedia entry calling someone an anti-Semite, an Islamophobe, "overweight, overintellectual", "alarmist", "startlingly wrong-headed", "like a lazy student" and an apologist for paedophiles is not a "love letter". True or false?
 * Depends on context, dave. In this case, it is.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(3) Quoting is the best way to give an accurate summary of a person's views, provided there are also quotes from critics. True or false?
 * No, summarising it is.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(4) Almost every prominent journalist is attacked by Private Eye at some point in their career. Hari was attacked three years ago, and Private Eye has never mentioned him since to my knowledge. No mainstream publication has ever repeated these allegations. Yet these are the sole basis for your attempts to question his integrity. True or false?
 * No, and that doesn't mean that allegations in Private Eye may not be serious. He has also been acussed in Counterpunch and also on Lenin's Tomb. So no. Again.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(5) By calling Johan Hari "a little tyke", you have revealed that you in fact motivated by personal animus towards Hari for whatever reason. True or false?
 * No. It was affectionate. If you think that 'little tyke' is a term of abuse, then I envy your upbringing.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(6) Read the following paragraph - "Hari argues that nuclear disarmament must not been seen as an issue from the past. Indeed, he argues the world is now embraked on a Second Nuclear age that may be more dangerous than the first (the Cold War): "We are entering a world of rapidly multiplying nuclear stand-offs... India vs Pakistan. Iran vs Israel. America vs.China. Within decades, North Korea vs Japan and South Korea. Not one Cold War, but many - and the risk is doubled each time...It is wildly naïve to think that all these stand-offs between highly volatile countries can continue until - when? forever? - without, sooner or later, a bomb being used. Even the minimal protections of the Cold War - like hotlines between leaders - are not yet in place in most of these countries. How many reruns of the Cuban Missile Crisis should we risk over the next century?" "

It would be a ridiculous over-simplification of this view, and deprive wiki readers of the actual argument, to simply write, as you propose, 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea'. True or false?
 * Dave, you have a point there; 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea, especially now.'is what I should have written.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the answer to any of these questions is 'false', please explain why. There is no place for unargued, undefended personal hatreds on wikipedia. David r from meth productions 12:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will make a start on the edit, hopefully tomorrow.Felix-felix 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've read all the comments with interest and wanted to offer a few opinions. I actually agree with both David and felix-felix on different points. Firstly, I certainly don't think that the length of the present article is preposterous, or that the Hari quotes should be stripped out. This might be true in a print-encyclopedia, but one of the advantages of an online source like Wikipedia is that more detail can be included. I think it's indispensable to quote from the writer himself - it means the reader gets an impression of the writer's style, and avoids the kind of banal formulaic precis often found in print-encyclopedias - "Johann Hari has been an outspoken critic of X, for which he has been attacked by Y..." etc.. Including quotes gives the reader a much better feel both for the detail, and also the tone and colour of the writer's views. Again one might not expect this in print - but it's of real value here on Wikipedia. Also note that other journalists' entries include verbatim quotes - Polly Toynbee, Christopher Hitchens e.g..

I actually think the Orwell prize nomination is of interest also. Isn't an Oscar-nomination a big deal, even if the actor in question doesn't win it? I think I saw a book the other day which proudly displayed its Orwell prize nomination on the cover. But particularly because he was the youngest ever - I don't see why a reader shouldn't be interested in this kind of precocity. Also cf. Polly Toynbee's entry, which arguably includes less important accolades than this.

However I strongly agree with felix-felix on the so-called "Controversy" section, for a few reasons. (1) The entire article is full of controversy, so a separate section doesn't make sense. (2) It contains a lot of double-quoting - Hari's website quoting other people, which is (a) stylistically odd and (b) simply accepts the website's choice and framing of these quotations. (3) As I said in my previous post, criticism should be included with appropriate context. I still agree that Private Eye gossip is too trivial and lightweight for inclusion here - but that also rules out the adolescent mutterings of Busted. (4) It's not quoted from Hari's published journalism - Charles rightly described it as "blurb".

I should congratulate all involved on an excellent article - it's certainly much better structured and more informative than those of the other journos I've looked at.

Quinefan 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I was glad to see after posting the above that Charles has made the same points above on cuts and the "Controversy" section - I agree we shouldn't cut well-sourced things for the sake of it.

Quinefan 15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that anyone contributing on Wikipedia will have difficulty in providing objective information about someone like Johann Hari, whose writing career has largely been Op/Ed journalism. He writes from the perspective of his own centre-left politics, and the contributions of those on Wikipedia will be necessarily coloured to a greater or lesser degree by their own politics. I am sure Johann Hari inspires contempt in those whose loyalties lie with figures as diverse as George Galloway, Ann Atkins, Fidel Castro and George Bush, but the internet has plenty of room elsewhere for invective, and it is not appropriate on Wikipedia. It is notable that those who have sought to edit the Hari article in a negative manner have sought to defend their actions by claiming (in my view spuriously) that it is in furtherance of objectivity, or in the interests of good-writing. I cannot agree. Frankly, if someone has something factual to say about Johann Hari, then they should put it here, and let the readers make up their own minds. If they have polemic and propaganda, there are plenty of recourses for them elsewhere. Peter Marshall Pccmarshall 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful to Charles for stopping Felix-Felix from cutting out great chunks from this article, and I am also conscious that when he tells Felix-Felix to stop using inflamatory language like "preposterous" I have also been guilty of using overheated language as well and I'd like to apologise to everyone involved and adaopt a more conciliatory tone.

On point (1), Felix-Felix, as a genuine question, what can the posters do here to reassure you they are not sock-puppets? I am not a tecchie but presumably I sitting in a flat in london could not post something from an IP address in Germany, so presumably that's AngelaM proved not to be a sock-puppet for one. Could the other posters perhaps give an e-mail address where you can e-mail them and exchange telephone numbers so you can speak to them and find out they are real? I am very keen to resolve this issue because I know this is not a false consensus and I want you to be able to understand that too. We really need to find a way to resolve this.

On point (2) I am afraid you have answered my questions mainly with assertions, not arguments. I am sorry, but I don't understand how somebody composing a love letter could include charges of being an anti-Semite, an Islamophobe, "overweight, overintellectual", "alarmist", "startlingly wrong-headed", "like a lazy student" and an apologist for paedophiles, amongst others. Can you explain?

On point (4), re: Private Eye, I agree that just because Private Eye has said something doesn't mean it is false, but it hardly means it is true either. But are we going to add to literally every leading British journalist's wiki entry a postscript called 'Private Eye allegations'? If not, then I think it is unfair to single one particular writer out. Wiki is a serious source, an encylopaedia, and if you put really serious allegations from a notoriously unreliable source (Private Eye has made more libel publications than any other British publication in history) in one entry but not others, then I fear you give a very distorted picture of Johann Hari.

I have googled around for fifteen minutes and I think I have found the two other articles you are referring to. (If there are more and I'm wrong, do include links). The Counterpunch article accused Hari of repeating a story covered in all major newspapers, including the New York Times, that was later shown to be a hoax. When Hari found out it was a hoax, he printed a correction. This seems to me to be a very trivial affair. No columnist checks stories that are so widely reported with their original sources, they'd never write anything. If this is the only reputable source you have impugning Hari's integrity then his reputation seems fairly safe to me. Why do you think it merits inclusion?

Re: Lenin's Tomb, I could find two critical pieces. One was a generalised critique of Hari's position on Hamas, which was quite interesting and as it happens I agree with. It would be worth including a link to it and perhaps a summary in the 'Israel/Palestine' section. It does not have any bearing, however, on Hari's integrity. The other is a piece defending George Galloway from charges Hari made against him in a review of his book. The author is a prominent member of Galloway's RESPECT party and a friend of Galloway's, and the very well written review seems to me part of the general political argy-bargy that writers throw at each other and again hardly something that seriosuly impugns Hari's integrity as a writer. I don't think these three very weak planks make a sufficient case for including a whole section casting questions on the integrity of a writer in the world's most widely used encyclopedia.

On point (6), I still think your summary - 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea, especially now.' - deprives the reader of basic information. Why now? In what way? It is very unclear. A proper summary would have to say, 'Johann Hari thinks that nuclear disarmament is a good idea, especially now, since he argues we have entered a Second nuclear age more dangerous than the first (the Cold War). In this second age, he argues, there is not one cold war war but many, each holding out the prospect of its own 'Cuban Missile Crisis' or even nuclear exchange." By the time you've said that, you may as well have just quoted him, it takes pretty much the same amount of space.

On a final point, I would prefer to keep the 'controversy' section but since the consensus is clearly against me I will obviously give way. I hope this spirit can spread over the article more generally, especially since the moderator has now intervened to stop Felix-Fleix from proceeding with his plan to delete chunks of well-sourced and balanced material it took me quite a long time to assemble. I hope we can get all this resolved in a friendly and courteous manner. David r from meth productions 16:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Controversy section is now no great loss - thanks to your work on building up the rest.


 * On one major point. There is great advantage in letting writers speak for themselves here. Readers can judge for themselves, to the extent that quotes are representative. So, that is a criterion: pick out quotes, and preferably not very long ones. If well done, one gets a précis that is good enough to allow readers to decide whether to look further: job done. The alternative is indeed to summarise. That works better with academics, one could say. Charles Matthews 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, 'consensus' in Talk page discussions is a mildly tricky concept here. My job of 'holding the ring' certainly includes supporting good suggestions from all sides.Charles Matthews 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the issue of consensus. Firstly, I'm happy to respond to david r's invitation to exchange contact details - mine are Jesse on 0161 256 1624, thelion.forreal@virgin.net. I would suggest that Felix-felix either take up the opportunity, which david r and I have now both offered him, of contacting us to verify our separate indenties, or stop, once and for all, accusing people who post on this page of being a) Johann Hari; b) Sock puppets of david r or; c) participants in a false consensus that any Wikipedia article about a person who has not been involved in any wrong-doing should not be denigrated in Wikipedia on the basis of positions taken within the mainstream of British politics.

I continue to find it hard to believe that Felix-felix's 'little tyke' comment, which he now claims to be 'affectionate', does not reveal him to be motivated by a personal desire to denigrate Hari, rather than by the pursuit of editorial accuracy. The phrase IS abusive, obviously there's a sliding scale of registers of abuse but it could hardly be characterised as a compliment. Rather, it seems to be a reference to the second main area of controversy about Hari (the first being his support for the Iraq War, which I mentioned in an earlier post) - his age. Hari is clearly a highly intelligent thinker and gifted writer who has been lucky enough to have his intelligence and gifts recognised at an age (his mid twenties) when many similarly gifted people have struggled in obscurity. This has generated a considerable amount of resentment against him in the journalistic profession and further affield from those who were not so lucky, and view him as a pretentious upstart, or 'little tyke'. For this reason I think that the fact that he was the youngest person ever to be nominated for the Orwell prize is interesting and relevant, and should be included in his entry.

I agree with Peter Marshall that Wikipedia is entirely the wrong forum for polemic and denigration, and remain concerned that the Hari article is continues to be edited by Felix-felix, whose aim appears to be primarily denigration. Perhaps we could discuss the possibility of achieving some consensus on this point? Thelionforreal 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it says at the top of the page, This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. That is in addition to the strong deprecation of comments on editors rather than their edits.


 * Can we move on? We do have an Orwell Prize page (I didn't know that until just a moment ago). It doesn't list nominees (I'm not saying it should or shouldn't). The standard sort of comment is to say that you are welcome to give that page some help, also. There is a gap at 2005 (why?), but in any case the current page doesn't really help me to assess the point about Hari's nomination. Perhaps more work over there and return to this later. Charles Matthews 12:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I think these subject arrangements look excellent, Charles, makes the piece look much clearer than I inexpertly did - D David r from meth productions 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

New changes
Made a start after a weeks cooling off period. I've removed quite a few hyperbolic words mainly changing "strongly criticised" to "criticised" and the like. I've also changed the weasel words that made it into the various 'criticised by..' bits-which were generally of the form "criticised by many on the right" and then supported by a citation from one blogger. I have changed all these to more accurately reflect the citation. Also removed some presumtive bits like the parts saying that so and so informs his love of.. to a more neutral and factual account. Finally added a number of Fact tags to statements that I felt were unsupported, or those that a citation would be more interesting.Felix-felix 11:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Felix. I think your edits have been perfectly reasonable this time, I've filled in most of the facts you asked for but I'm at work and my boss is giving me a dirty look so I'll have to do the rest tomorrow... I'm glad you have cooled off and are abiding by the principles of consensus at last - D


 * I've made a few changes, mainly with citations which didn't support the statement they were in, and simply removed most of those, which on the whole were fairly tangential. The Telegraph review ought to have a Telegraph citation, although I couldn't find one on a quick search.I have always respected consensus, dave-real consensus at any rate. Also, don't forget to sign in.Felix-felix 13:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Felix, anybody reading thjrough this discussion page can see you have disregarded consensus on this page repeatedly by calling people sock-puppets, until you were forced to pipe down when they provided their identities and contact details to verify who they were. Jessica, did Felix call you by the way? has he apologised for his insults against you?

No on both counts. Thelionforreal 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to check through your changes just now Felix, I'll take a look tomorrow. The Telegraph website doesn't seem to store theatre reviews going back that far so I pulled this off of Lexis-Nexis, it's the full review:

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON)

August 17, 2001, Friday

Real promise in a debut that's personal, political and powerful The find of the Fringe in an ambitious first play

BYLINE: By Charles Spencer

SECTION: Pg. 22

LENGTH: 667 words

Theatre Going Down in History GARAGE THEATRE Our Bad Magnet ASSEMBLY ROOMS Creation ST MARY'S CATHEDRAL TO BE honest, I only checked out Going Down in History because its author, Johann Hari, a recent Cambridge graduate now working for the New Statesman, is an absolute master of the flattering begging letter. I can't have been his only target - those thanked in the credits include Lord Archer, George Steiner and Julie Burchill, and one can't help wishing that Hari had written a play bringing this splendidly improbable assortment of characters together - preferably set on board a doomed aircraft with poor old Jeffrey at the controls. Nevertheless, Going Down in History turns out to be a real find, a notably ambitious first play that combines politics and personal feeling in a manner that bodes exceptionally well for the future. One has the uneasy feeling that, 30 years from now, Johann Hari could be the new David Hare, though in my painful experience Hare writes far nastier letters.

The play's premise is that, in 1997, John Smith was elected as Prime Minister, only to die two days after taking office. The leading candidate to replace him is James Hennessy, a cunning amalgam of Messrs Blair and Brown, who is intent on modernising the party. Hennessy has a couple of skeletons in his closet, though: a troubled teenage daughter who idolises Margaret Thatcher, and a youthful romance at his public school with a hardline Marxist who went on to star in porn movies. The drama moves backwards and forward in time, between the Sixties - which James spent at Eton and in Paris during the great evenements - and 1997, as he faces the biggest political challenge of his career. Hari is equally capable of low comedy - the dramatic opening scene offers a delicious example of gross-out humour - and strong emotion. The scenes between the older James (Andrew McDonald) and his distraught sex-and-Thatcher-obsessed daughter (excellent Kelly Williams) are powerful and deeply felt, while the evocation of public school pashes, though a touch too reminiscent of Adrian Mitchell's Another Country, is both sexy and affecting. Hari is also admirably grown-up about the futility of political extremism. Though well acted, the piece is clumsily directed by Pauline Walsh-Burke, with a ridiculous number of cumbersome scene changes. The production could also make more telling use of the music of its two contrasting periods. Nevertheless, Going Down in History is entertaining, intelligent and touching, and I will watch Hari's progress with great interest. Last year, Douglas Maxwell scored a big hit with Decky Does a Bronco, a moving, highly original exploration of lost childhood innocence performed on swings in local recreation grounds. Unfortunately, Our Bad Magnet explores almost identical dramatic territory rather less inventively, as a group of adult friends gather to remember a traumatic event in their childhood on the Ayrshire coast. Guilt and recrimination build nicely in Jim Twaddale's production, but the dialogue isn't always clearly audible, and the piece turns worryingly lachrymose in its portrait of a troubled kid called Giggles with a penchant for insufferably twee fairy tales. The National Youth Music Theatre is celebrating 25 years with Creation, a brand new oratorio by Richard Taylor involving a company of more than 120 in the gloomy, Gothic-Revival grandeur of the Episcopalian Cathedral. I wish I could be more enthusiastic about this ambitious cycle of creation myths, whose sources range from Hesiod to Hardy. But Taylor's plinkety-plonk modern score is exceptionally miserly with memorable tunes, and the dismayingly bland production, with its all-singing, all-dancing cast of streetwise, stage-struck teenagers put me in mind of a United Colours of Benetton advert. Going Down in History (0131 221 9009) and Creation (0131 226 0000) until tomorrow; Our Bad Magnet (0131 226 2428), until Aug 27 [PS]Features: [ES] Edinburgh reports:

SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT & ARTS (89%); POLITICS (74%); PORNOGRAPHY & OBSCENITY (69%);

PERSON: DAVID HARE (69%); MARGARET THATCHER  (54%);

COUNTRY: EUROPE (58%); ENGLAND (58%); UNITED KINGDOM (58%); FRANCE (55%);

CITY: PARIS, FRANCE (51%);

LOAD-DATE: August 17, 2001

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

By the way, why have you repeated the 'citation needed' in several instances when I have provided citations? Was it a computer error on my part, or are you alleging the links I have provided don't back up the argument in the text?

Do let me know, if you disagree I can go through them one by one and show why they do back them up.

You seem to have deleted the reference to Hari visiting the 'bloodiest parts of the civil war in Congo'. Have you read his article? Go to the latest Amnesty report on Congo, it only took me a minute of googling to discover they describe the Kivus, which Hari seems to have spent most of his time in, as the most bloody areas, along with a place called Ituri. Please try to do some research before you delete things, Felix.

Also, I have restored the section you deleted on influences on hari's atheism. This clearly contravenes Charle and the Wiki authoprities' plain instructions to you, based on your clear personal animus and extressed desire to vandalise this entry by cutting out huge sections of it, not to do so. I appeal to you, Charles, to instruct Felix on this matter.

So do I, Charles, as I have done repeatedly. You have told me that we should be focusing on the substance of the article's edits rather than on general issues surrounding individual editors. But surely the general issue of whether an editor is motivated by personal animus rather than a desire for accuracy is highly relevant to the entire editing process and ought to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Thelionforreal 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual influences are clearly an interesting part of any encyclopaedia entry.
 * Fair enough, dave-although the inclusion of this 1)is tangential and 2) needs supporting with citations-not just interviews with said people.I have added appropriate tags.Felix-felix 15:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actual influence is not so easy to establish. If A agrees with a prior opinion of B, there are two points. Firstly, it is easier to say just that they agree, because unless there is a smoking-gun type quote, how do we know that there is a (direct) influence? Second, these things can fall foul of the policy against original research. We are not supposed to originate claims of influence. So, if you come up with citations saying 'C believes A was influenced by B in the areas of P and Q', that is OK, for what it is worth to anyone. As you see, it gets convoluted. Charles Matthews 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, I have spent much longer on this than I intended and now my boss is giving me very dirty looks, I have to get back to work. David r from meth productions 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did add Fact tags to a couple of citations that you provided,dave-as the citations did support the text, I thought I'd made this clear in the edit summaries. The Littlejohn citation (again, the original Sun citation would be beter) doesn't say that hari is a drug adict at all, which is what the text says (and remember that as Littlejohn is alive, WP:living people applies). I can't find a reference to Kivus (as opposed to Lake Kivu) or Ituri in the citation provided, if you have found a reference that says these places are 'the bloodiest in the war' (presuming he has been there)then why not provide this as a citation? Perhaps you ought to do a little research before writing things, dave. You also supplied a citation which didn't even mention Andrea Dworkin, let alone the influence of radical feminist thought on young Hari, supplying insted a pice about some feminists, hence the deletion.

- In fact the 2 quotes supplied say nothing about feminism at all-the first is about (pseudo-)comparitive biology, the second about fashion models being too thin. - If the Telegraph review of his play isn't available online, we could still use it-by changing the referencing format to give a table of references at the bottom, which can be links or not, this also gives the advantage of being able to cite books and other offline sources.Felix-felix 15:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea about references to non-websites - could you add that felix, I'm not sure how to?

Re: feminism. I'm sure Hari wrote about Andrea Dworkin, a long piece, but I can't find it anywhere, will keep looking but have a big project at work and my colleague is sick so I'm the only one doing it at the moment. Feel free to take the Dworkin reference out until then if you like.

Re: feminism, you have a very odd view of feminism if you don't think talking about the superiority of osetrogen and female biology, and opposing the fashion industry's warped view of female beauty, aren't feminist. That's the whole careers of Naomi Woolf and Goermaine Greer out the window already! - Dave
 * I'll sort out the reference formatting-I've also just removed a couple of the new citations that didn't support the text-both the Hitchens and the Singer ones.

Feminism is many things-but pseudo-scientific claptrap about oestrogen and slagging off fashion designers weren't issues that the suffragettes grafted for methinks. Remember to sign in.Felix-felix 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix, that's a remarkably ignorant comment. I suggest you read 'The Whole Woman' by Germaine Greer, they are two of the biggest issues she discusses (citing Nobel-prize winning scientists about oestrogen, who are a world away from 'pseudoscience'). The idea that the only feminist agenda is that of the Suffragettes who died more than a century ago is historically and philosophically illiterate. - Dave

Also, Felix, can you please stop deleting links without reading them? For example, you asked for a citation showing Hari has been influnced by Hitchens, so I put a link to an interview in which he is asked, "Which writers were you inspired by?" and he replies, "There were people that made me want to be a journalist; when I was 14 I read Christopher Hitchens’ exposé ‘The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory and In Practise’. It basically showed that far from being this lovely humanitarian figure, she was quite a repellent religious fundamentalist and a terrible hypocrite. She gave people dying in her hospitals in India aspirin because she said suffering was beautiful and that’s why Christ did it on the cross. But when she got ill she went to the most expensive private clinics in the world. She said divorce was evil and terrible and she campaigned in Ireland against allowing divorce to be made legal, but when her rich friends like Princess Diana got divorced, she just said if it wasn’t working then it was fine. She also said things like the biggest threats to world peace were abortion and homosexuality. Christopher’s book was one of those where someone holds up something that everyone takes for granted and shows how completely wrong it is."
 * I'm aware of this ,dave-but this has nothing to do with atheism, hence deletion.Felix-felix 11:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Similarly the Singer interview clearly indicates he has been an influence on Hari's thought.
 * No it doesn'tFelix-felix 11:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your deletions are once again bordering on vandalism. You have been instructed by the wiki authorities to stop deleting well-sourced material, and you persist in doing so. Charles, I hope you can deal with this. 86.142.31.103 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created a footnote for the Hitchens thing, to clarify. This may be the way to go on anything contentious: gives room to have comment without making the piece unreadable. It's easy syntax and the numbering takes care of itself.
 * It seems you guys are determined to have your knock-about remarks. I don't condone this, naturally. Keep it about the article content. Charles Matthews 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just miles too long
I'd never even heard of this guy - I don't read the Indy - but I surfed over here from the Little Britain article. Jesus - five-and-a-half thousand words? That's five hundred words more than George Orwell, who I think most people would consider to be a great journalist who has stood the test of time. Can anyone see any good reason why I shouldn't hack the whole thing down to about 500 words? I've no particular axe to grind about this guy, but I don't like to see Wikipedia full of bloat like this....Bedesboy 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. There are perfectly good policies about all that. By all means add to Orwell, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone to cut articles on topics they have never heard about. We would have a wreck of an encyclopedia if that had anything to do with it. Charles Matthews 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the WP article size guidelines say that 32kb/6000 words is a good maximum size, unless the subject is really of huge importance. It's under the 6000, but well over the 32kb. I don't see that Johann Hari, however good a journalist he may be, merits such a bloated article. I'm going to leave you chaps to it, but I don't think writing at this length on a relatively minor subject - and, if I may say from what I've seen on this talk page, getting so het up about it - is ultimately good for WP. Bedesboy 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)]


 * The article needs concision work. But not the 90% cut you were suggesting. You could afford a more considerate approach to the contributions of others. Charles Matthews 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've maintained that this article is far, far too bloated, with lengthy quotes which could easily just be linked to, and a massive over-reliance on one source, the Hari website.Felix-felix 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual criterion should be: what would people want to refer to? In some cases, a passage is good. In other cases, a reference is all that is really needed. The length of the article is also going to correlate to some extent to the number of incoming links. Charles Matthews 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I came across this article by clicking on a link in another, completely separate, article that I was reading. I thought Hari sounded an interesting chap from the reference in that article, so I thought I'd read a bit more about him. As soon as I saw the length of this article I was put off. Because the summary at the top is very sketchy, the average reader such as myself - that is, someone who wants *some* information about the subject, but not loads - is forced to skim through the whole thing putting together a picture of Hari's life and work. That's my practical objection to the length. As I've already said, I also disagree with the length on what you might call moral grounds: he doesn't really merit this kind of in-depth analysis. I mean, the bloke's only in his twenties. How long is his article going to be when he's forty? As Felix points out, half the quotes could be linked rather than written out in full. Charles: I am very mindful and appreciative of the efforts of all Wikipedians, and I do apologise if I have given you offence - such was not the intention. However, we can't edit WP simply on the basis of being appreciative or otherwise of the efforts of individual contributors, especially when it seems to us that their contributions, however much effort has gone into them, are resulting in ineffective articles.Bedesboy 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So write a better intro. If you look at, say, Mark Steyn, you can see another very short intro. Sometimes these are used of figures of controversy6, because the simple facts are safe and anything else looks like editorial comment. Charles Matthews 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bedesboy about the intro, which should be much better (but not at the expense of deleting the rest). Part of the problem, Bedesboy, is that every attempt at a quick summary, like pointing out Johann Hari is a left-wing commentator, is vandalised by Felix-Felix, who weirdly denies Hari is left-wing, etc etc. Any intro should clearly point out Hari is a leftie who believes in x.y and z, but Felix-Felix just removes it, and disregards the consensus against him by falsely claiming anybody who disagrees is a sock puppet (even after they have provided contact details to verify their identities!). It's a shame, but there it is (no doubt you'll be accused of beign a sockpuppet if you agree...) - Dave 86.129.146.184 23:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I think your tidying up on the article has been excellent, thanks, it looks much better now. Somebody posted a slanderous comment here about Hari, so I have deleted it to protect wikipedia from potential prosecution. - Dave

I've made a start on reducing the bloat in this article, mainly by removing quotes and leaving links, and occasionally deleting redundant or repetitious lines.Felix-felix 11:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have removed a couple of links, too. That's not so good. Charles Matthews 13:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix was expliclty told by the wiki authorities not to cut big chunks, and he has deliberately defied this. this constitutes vandalism, in my view - I have restored it and will continue to do so every time he vandalises the entry. I appeal to Charles to enforce his advice to Felix: "No, don't go about cutting out well-sourced things for the sake of it. That is not how we operate... Unless you feel certain that something is defamatory, or not actually possible to verify, there isn't the urgency."

It is clearly slanderous to falsely accuse Hari of editing his own wiki entry (and bizarre too, since I imagine he has better thigns to do than post critical things about himself!), so I have deleted that too. Wiki has strict rules about libel. David r from meth productions 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Provocative remarks don't help at all. You were wrong to take it on yourself to cut out the remark, which was useless but not particularly a danger to Wikipedia.
 * As for the Felix-felix edits, I didn't agree with all of them, and I didn't disagree with all of them. Charles Matthews 16:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The restored edit by MorningmusicFelix-felix 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC) I think the article length is justified considering that Johann Hari is the most important person alive. But seriously, he probably wrote most of this puff piece himself. The allegations that he's a leftie are absurd. Anybody who's read anything of him knows he's a reactionary warmonger. Quite far from being a leftie actually. Morningmusic 12:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely the reason why there are so many links to Hari's own website in the article is because the website contains the full text of all of Hari's articles? It can be more difficult to pull up articles from websites such as independent.co.uk, not least because the newspaper could at any moment decide to impose a fee for the viewing of archived articles, rendering such links useless. Also, I don't agree with the idea that historical figures of long established interest should be more widely covered in Wikipedia than contemporary, active writers. There are many, many other sources, encyclopaedic and otherwise, in which one can read about Orwell, but few sources for young, up and coming writers such as Hari. One of the joys of the internet is the immediacy and contemporary social relevance of the medium. Wikipedia surely ought to participate in this joy by providing a forum for describing and discussing the work of today's controversial figures, whether or not they are going to be remembered by posterity. The fact that so many people have posted here about the content and editing of the Hari article amply demonstrates, to my mind, the value of the article. Had the internet and Wikipedia been in existence when Orwell was active as a writer, I would imagine his entry would have been far longer and his discussion page far more heated than Hari's. Thelionforreal 20:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How did I guess that the sockpuppets would return about now? We have real consensus about the length of the article-which is bloated and needs cuttingFelix-felix 12:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is so tedious, Felix. Call Jessica and see who se is. Call me and see who I am. You have the details. You know we are not sock puppets, but you simply cannot accept it when people disagree with you.

Felix, if you don't have the courtesy to call me on the number that I've provided to you, then please stop calling me a sockpuppet. Far from there being any 'real consensus' that the article on Hari is too long, you have been repeatedly directed by the Wikipedia administrators not to make cuts on the criteria of length alone. There appears to be genuine concern on this page - possibly even a 'real consensus' - about your motivations for making this cuts. Even if there were not, Charles has told you not to make them, and that's as close to a consensus as we're likely to get. You may have no respect for me, but please show some for Charles. Thelionforreal 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, after last whole scale revert, I have recleaned bar the sections on the war and Niall Ferguson. I have left in all the links and done it pretty much section by section, so you can see what I've done in each section in the edit history. I have removed all unecessary quotes and wikified quite alot as well as fix quite a few mistakes, not least the Sara/Sarah Payne one.I have also removed the line on the Clive Anderson show.Felix-felix 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is still much work to do hereFelix-felix 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of these trimmings are resonable. Some are not. For example, distilling Hari's views on global warming down to one sentence is silly, whereas trimming the very long section on Niall ferguson seems sensible.

Consequently I have restored some cuts while leaving most others in place, in the interests of compromise. I hope Felix will stop abusing the people who post here (you have been given a way to verify the identity of people here, yet still you make false accusations of sock-puppetry; anyone reading this can see how dishonest that is) and act in line with consensus, discussing future changes here. I could just as easily accuse the person who posted agreeing with you of being a sockpuppet, and he has not offered verifiable contact details, unlike Jessica or myself. But I would not be so rude.

Also, Felix keeps cutting several of Hari's schools - why? - and changing the profession of hari's father. It seems to me you eitehr list all of his schools, or none of them. Hari has written about his father being a bus driver, so I've corrected that.

David r from meth productions 20:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He went to Harrow, the famous public school, which is the only notable one dave. His father was a cook when Hari was growing up, as it states on his website.Felix-felix 21:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? You have just made a basic (and quite funny!) factual error. Follow the link. Harrow School and John Lyon School are totally different places. he certainly didn't go to Harrow School!

81.129.157.147 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly more constructive, dave.

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

I hope we can agree, but if we cannot I suggest Charles adjudicates. I also hope you apologise for your howler about Harrow School (!) and apologise to Jessica for accusing her of being a sock puppetDavid r from meth productions 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix-felix 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that just reverting entire sections was a bit out of order, dave-I have reversed these changes pending discussion.Felix-felix 20:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep asking for proof of Hitchens' influence on Hari's athesim, and I have posted the link repeatedly only for you to delete it. I put a link to an interview in which he is asked, "Which writers were you inspired by?" and he replies, "There were people that made me want to be a journalist; when I was 14 I read Christopher Hitchens’ exposé ‘The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory and In Practise’. It basically showed that far from being this lovely humanitarian figure, she was quite a repellent religious fundamentalist and a terrible hypocrite. She gave people dying in her hospitals in India aspirin because she said suffering was beautiful and that’s why Christ did it on the cross. But when she got ill she went to the most expensive private clinics in the world. She said divorce was evil and terrible and she campaigned in Ireland against allowing divorce to be made legal, but when her rich friends like Princess Diana got divorced, she just said if it wasn’t working then it was fine. She also said things like the biggest threats to world peace were abortion and homosexuality. Christopher’s book was one of those where someone holds up something that everyone takes for granted and shows how completely wrong it is."

Also, you keep deleting the reference to 'the bloodiest areas of Congo'. As I noted above, in an argument you have been unable to rebut, go to the latest Amnesty report on Congo, it only took me a minute of googling to discover they describe the Kivus, which Hari seems to have spent most of his time in, as the most bloody areas, along with a place called Ituri.

It also seems to me bizarre to say it is not evidence that Hitchens influenced Hari's atheism when, in response to the question "Which writers were you inspired by?", he replied, "There were people that made me want to be a journalist; when I was 14 I read Christopher Hitchens’ exposé ‘The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory and In Practise’. It basically showed that far from being this lovely humanitarian figure, she was quite a repellent religious fundamentalist and a terrible hypocrite. She gave people dying in her hospitals in India aspirin because she said suffering was beautiful and that’s why Christ did it on the cross. But when she got ill she went to the most expensive private clinics in the world. She said divorce was evil and terrible and she campaigned in Ireland against allowing divorce to be made legal, but when her rich friends like Princess Diana got divorced, she just said if it wasn’t working then it was fine. She also said things like the biggest threats to world peace were abortion and homosexuality. Christopher’s book was one of those where someone holds up something that everyone takes for granted and shows how completely wrong it is."

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

David r from meth productions 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Felix, you keep trying to put back your howler about Harrow School. Here is the website for the famous Harrow school:

http://www.harrowschool.org.uk/

And here is the entry for the not-famous John Lyon School, a different place: http://www.johnlyon.org/

Charles, I hope if Felix continues inserting a factual error into this entry you will stop him.David r from meth productions 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Hari really didn't attend Harrow. Also it seems the process of 'trimming' is removing much of the soul of this article. It also seems kind of peculiar to criticise an encyclopedia for offering too much information, especially when it's all been nicely broken down into bite-size chunks in the contents. It seems a shame to let all these arguments purge out all the interesting quotes and quirks that give a real sense of who Hari is. Arguments like that over "the bloodiest areas of the Congo" seem remarkably petty - it's hardly like Johann was on a pleasure cruise. Have a conversation on how to make the article more interesting/informative but try not to edit it to death.ThomCostello 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The school: it is unnecessary anyway to attach epithets when we have an article, since the article itself should have all the information. I don't think it was being said that the school was Harrow. The material which was in extended quotes can reasonably be divided three ways (inline weblinks, footnotes, verbatim quotes), as well as paraphrase. We should pick the quotes to give the proper flavour, and to represent any arguments that are not fairly routine. On the whole it is better to highlight the best bits. The article is now mostly in manageable shape. No doubt there will also be additions. Charles Matthews 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those edits Charles, and for making clear to Felix-Felix that the entry is now fine and while it will be added to in time it shouldn't be further cut. I hope we can all leave it now, save for Felix apologising for his insults to people he knows perfectly well are not sock-puppets, and for his howlers about Harrow School (which I think just demonstrate again that he is motivated by aniumus against "tyke" hari and determined to insert fiction into this entry.)

Charles, could you also adjudicate - hopefully as a final call on your time - on whether the Hitchens link in the 'Against religion' section is legitimate? Felix keeps deleting it, I keep putting it back, we're clearly not going to agree. My argument can be seen above; Felix has not offered any argument, he just deletes, but perhpas you can infer some kind of argument from him and arbitrate.David r from meth productions 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking Felix to apologise to me is, while appreciated, probably unrealistic given that he has never responded to, let alone addressed, any of the points that I have raised on this page. I would also urge you, Charles, to keep the 'Against religion' section which I find relevant and interesting, and generally not to allow any further cuts to be made on the grounds of length, and with the potential motivation of disparaging the article's subject. I agree with ThomCostello's comment that the article should not be edited to death. Thelionforreal 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to finally resolve this issue of Hari reporting from the bloodiest parts of the civil war in Congo, which Felix keeps trying to delete.

Here is Hari's reporting from Congo, in which it is clear he spent quite some time in South Kivu:

http://johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=863 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1436229

Here is the International Crisis Group describing South Kivu (along with North Kivu and Ituri) as “the main theatres for direct and proxy confrontation between local, national and regional participants in the Congolese conflict since… 1999”:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1630&l=1

And here are futher reports -

- from Reuters: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=56035&SelectRegion=Great_Lakes&SelectCountry=DRC

- from aid agencies: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/EVIU-6EHG7G?OpenDocument http://www.christianaid.org.uk/video/307drc/southkivu.htm http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/news-congo-kinshasa-170706!OpenDocument

I could give loads more, but I hope this resolves the discussion and stops this vandalism.

David r from meth productions 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you cite them when asked, dave?Felix-felix 15:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I did cite them. I told you to look at the Amnesty report and how to find it, which you refused to do. I don't have an inifinte amount of time to correct your vandalism, Felix. Onl;y after you persisted in refusing to look up the basic facts did I feel the need to put the links here. Do yuo want to apologise for your sockpuppet smears yet? You have the means to verify that what you said was totally untrue, or are you happy to be exposed as a blatant liar?David r from meth productions 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's still not a country!Felix-felix 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the description to 'parts of the world'. No doubt you will start denying that Congo is part of the world in a minute... (Or maybe it is part of Harrow School?) David r from meth productions 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Summing up
The article is now in fair shape. I've supplied another citation about Hitchens. Perhaps the self-definition vis-à-vis Marxism could go back in, but it's not crucial. Call a halt for a while? Charles Matthews 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes please! I have a life...David r from meth productions 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself ... Charles Matthews 13:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. Oh dear god! I just said lol instead of 'how funny'. Okay, I confess, I have no life.David r from meth productions 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Charles, could you check out the entry of John Lyon School? Felix is trying to use his anti-Hari agenda to vandalise that too, I'd be grateful if you could intervene.David r from meth productions 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Charles, sorry about this, but despite you saying the entry is now fine and shouldn't be cut any more, Felix keeps deleting the relevant passages on global warming. He does so in un-wiki language too, saying Hari simply "points out" global warming is a threat to the human species, rather than argues it, since it is clear some people dispute this. I think the quotes are essential to give a full sense of Hari's arguments on this (which take up a large bulk of his writing. A brief googling has discovered he has spoken at several higb profile events for the Campaign Against Climate Change with the most high profile environmentalists in Britain).

He also keeps deleting the first sentence of the section about the Enlightenment, which is essential for understanding why free speech, postmodernism and alternative medicine are bunched together under the same heading.

As so often, Felix does not give an argument, he just deletes. I think the case for now banning him, when he is deliberately ignoring the wiki authorities, is pretty overwhelming, but it's obviously not my decision. It's a shame to have waste so much time correcting this vandalism and I find it pretty tiring, it's a shame some people are determined to abuse wikipedia's openness and the volunteers who take time to administer it. David r from meth productions 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the section on Global warming is too long-Hari is indeed pointing out that it exists and is dangerous, he hasn't advanced any knowledge of the mater, and apart from one blogger, no one is disagreeing with him. A lengthy quote of him saying that global warming is bad (a fact with broad concensus)makes for a slow reading, poor quality article-hence the deletion. Beware personal attacks, dave-hese are good faith edits.Felix-felix 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

At least you've given an argument this time, Felix. I disagree - sadly, although there is a scientific consensus, clearly there isn't a political consensus, and plenty of people dsiagree with Hari's description. Hari does not just "point ou" global warming is happening, as you want to put it. He passionately writes about it as one of his major subjects. The section as you want to put it misleads the reader; the section as I want to put it gives an accurate picture. I've compromised a lot on the otehr edits but I think this one is important David r from meth productions 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


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

Picture
It just occured to me (well, over the weekend..) that the picture here is an Independent byline picture isn't it? (Image:40837437 johann hari indy 203.jpg|thumb|Johann Hari) That would make it a copyvio would it not? I have another couple of public use ones of him, the first of which I'll substitute now, the other I can upload later, if people want. Should I tag this one for deletion?Felix-felix 07:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not an Independent by-line picture. It's a generic publciity shot, used by the BBC, Evening Standard and others - I e-mailed Hari and he says it's his copyright and whoever wants to cqan use it
 * Er, who are you? I'm pretty sure I've seen this used in the independent, and the image name even indicates it's from there. An email from Hari doesn't make it ok, and I think that wikipedia guidelines state that even fair use pictiures (which this probably is not) should be replaced with free use ones (like this one) if possible.So I've replaced it.Felix-felix 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's Dave Felix, this picture hasn't appeared in the Indie to my knowledge, I don't know why its name says that. It's a BBC pic that Hari owns the copyright for. I looked at his byline pic on Monday and it doesn't look anything like it - if it has ever appeared in the Indie it's because Hari gave the copyright. Of course an e-mail from the copyright owner makes its use OK!
 * Dave, you need to sign in. If it's copyright is owned by someone else, then it's NOT OK, take a look at the image use pages. This public domain one is much better for wikipedia-free use trumps fair use which trumps copyright.Hope you're enjoying your trip, is LA nice at the moment?.Felix-felix 09:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

LA is horrible, thanks, I'm here for a funeral.

I've e-mailed Martin Lucas-Smith who owns the copyright for the image you keep posting and he has +not+ placed it in the public domain. (Google his name, you can find him pretty quickly). The image you are posting is copyright to somebody else. If copyright images can't be used, even with permission (as is the case with the image I want to post), we'll have to find a third image other than both the one I keep posting and the one you keep posting. I checked google images and there were no no-cpyright images there. I've e-mailed Hari to see if he has any public domain pictures, but when I last e-mailed he said he was goign to be out of e-mail contact in South America for the next few weeks, so I'm guessing I won't hear back for a little while.

I can't sign in because I always sign in in my office and stupidly I didn't write down the password for this tyrip, I left in a hurry.

Re: the other small edits - there was a clear consensus on this page a week ago that the entry was now fine and shouldn't be cut more. Despite that, you keep trimming at it, removing essential information, without even offering a justification for it. I think that's pretty childish and contrary to wiki rules. Charles, I hope you can intervenme here; I really have better things to do that keep correcting Felix, this has been dragging on for months now.


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

Jessica has provided you with contact details to prove her identity; it is demonstrably false to call her a sock puppet. Everybody can see this, you are making yourself look very foolish indeed. I don't know about the others who have posted but they should provide their contact details too. Charles, I was disiplined (understandably) for making harsh comments; don't you think Felix is totally crossing the line here by disregarding consensus with a slanderous and bogus claim?

The picture you posted of Hari is barely recognisable; you aren't meant to post odd snaps, they should be reasonable quality photographs where you can see what the person looks like.

Here is the e-mail I revieved from hari re: the original picture I posted (with intro and end-bit edited out, they were about other stuff and a mutual friend):

"Yeah, I own the copyright I guess on that picture, my dad took it on a rare day when I didn't look entirely like a Down's Syndrome. I'm very happy to waive all claims to the copyright and to place it in the public domain. When one day a picture is finally taken showing my remarkable similarity to Brad Pitt I'll let you have that too."

I think that shows we can use the original photo in clear line with the wiki rules. Charles, could you confirm this so we can finally move on from this childish tit-for-tat?

Felix, I cannot believe that neither of us has anything better to do with our time that constantly spar over this. I have made minor tweaks to the edits you made; can we just compromise on them, agree on the photo which is now clearly in the public domain (Charles, if you could e-mail Johann at johannhari@yahoo.co.uk he will confirm my message from him is genuine, then the wiki authorities have proof too) and then for goodness sake lets just leave it and get one with life.

I'm back in the office on Tuesday, will be able to sign in then - D


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

Felix, you haven't answered my point that you are meant to put recognizable pictures, not odd holiday snaps. You are clearly trying to find the most odd and unflattering images to post. Let's just compromise on no picture for now until Charles can verify that the recognizable picture, clearly superior in quality to the one you are offering, is in the public domain - fair deal?

Also you keep deleting the compromises I have put in, without argument or reason.

Charles, I really just want to bring this petty squabbling to a halt. Can you just decide which of us is being reasonable here? If you decide Felix's edits are better, I will totally accept that. If you decide mine are better - and back by the real (consensus) here - then I hope he will abide by it, even though he has already deleted the much better global warming section you added, and keeps trying to belittle and undermine the liberal-left positions Hari holds. For example, he keeps adding "like many people" before his quite radical views on total global nuclear disarmament, a view which in fact relatively few people hold in Britain or the US.


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

I'm trying tobe reasonable here. We're obviously not going to agree Felix, so I'll keep reverting and appealing to Charles to decide which is best. I'll abide by his judgement.

A few weeks ago he suggested we all juyst give it a rest because the article was now i reasonable shape. i agreed. You didn't. Why don't we just give it a rest?

Nobody woul;d think the picture you are posting is of publishable quality. It's a weird holiday snap. Find me another wiki entry with such a poor picture of a living person.

I have provided a public domain picture of Hari, you keep deleting it. Pnce a copyright owner places sopmething in the public domain, it becomes public domain. I've suggested we wait until Charles can verify this as a compromise. - D
 * That picture isn't public domain if Hari owns the copyright. Take a look at the guidelines. And plese sign inFelix-felix 09:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't own the copyright, he has waived it. I am prepared to wait until Charles has verified this before putting the picture back, but it is unbelievably childish of you to keep posting the most unflattering and weird possible picture of Hari just because you don't like him.

I repeat: Nobody would think the picture you are posting is of publishable quality. It's a weird holiday snap. Find me another wiki entry with such a poor picture of a living person.

The changes you are making to the text are not reasonable, and until you make a rational case for them that can be answered here, or until Charles adjudicates, I'll just keep reverting.

There was a clear genuine consensus that the article was fine a few weeks ago. Just to restrict it to the people whose identity you can verify and therefore cannot be accused of being sockpuppets, I, Charles and Jessicca all said the article was fine: that's three verifiably real people, versus you. A consensus, even before you include Peter Marshall and Thom Costello, who I'd be very grateful if they could leave their contact details to stop your nonsense about sock-puppetry once and for all.

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

Felix, I work all day in a boring job in front of a computer, so your vandalism will be repeatedly reverted until Charles adjudicates on this matter.

You refuse to answer my point: Nobody would think the picture you are posting is of publishable quality. It's a weird holiday snap. Find me another wiki entry with such a poor picture of a living person.

I am happy to leave it without a picture until Charles adjudicates if the picture I am proposing is legitimate to use. In the meantime, the picture you have offered is simply not of publishable quality.
 * The pictre is absolutely fine, dave. He's recognisable and working in the picture too. More importantly it's public domain. I'm putting it back. You may want to peek at the Three reverts rule whilst you're bored in front of your monitor.Oh, don't forget to sign in. This page is geting very long again, but it would be a pity to start removing your unsigned edits.Felix-felix 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Felix. The picture that he is proposing to use is not recognisable as Hari or of publishable quality. What was wrong with the standard mugshot that used to be on the page? Once again, Felix is clearly using the Wikipedia page as a forum for his personal attacks on Hari - the latest of which, since most of his denigrating edits have now been deleted, is to post an offensively unflattering picture of his subject. When did this become acceptable on Wikipedia? If you do not delete this picture, Dave, I shall.

In relation to the issue of whether Hari's views on nuclear disarmament are those of 'many people' I would think that, whether or not this is the case, the phrase is totally unnecessary and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Would you edit Nelson Mandela's entry to say that 'like many people, Mandela was an opponent of apartheid'? Thelionforreal 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be bound by false consensus, dave.Your deletion of the picture has been reverted by 2 (real) editors now. And are you suggesting that Hari is to nuclear disarmament what Mandela was to the fight against apartheid?Felix-felix 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)